Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill

House of Commons, 12 May 1999.

DEFINITIONS

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Before clause 1 becomes part of the Bill, I wish to refer the Committee to subsection (4), which starts with the words, "Victim of violence", and continues with a definition of that term. It had been my intention to be here on Monday to take part in the Second Reading, but for reasons that I conveyed to Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present. However, I read the Minister's speech carefully and with some interest, and he referred repeatedly to "The Disappeared". It is important, as we pass this nasty little Bill, that at least we are not taken in by our own rhetoric. It was, I believe, Lenin who used to say that the whole point of terrorism was to terrorise people. That was also a favourite phrase of Michael Collins. What we are talking about in the Bill is terrorising people—cold-blooded acts by people who set out to abduct, torture and kill, probably in the most unpleasant ways. They do so not just for the sake of killing, although that was part of the very nature of the IRA, but to terrorise not just families but communities. The Bill will allow some degree of excuse for that terrorism. I understand the background to the Bill, and the Minister will know that when I held the post that he now holds I was the first Minister who started the peace talks that culminated 10 years later in the Good Friday agreement. He also knows that everything that I have said since the agreement has broadly been in support of the Government and what they seek to do, so we do not have to have a debate about whether I am in favour of the Government's objectives. I shall not sit quietly by, however, and allow the Bill to pass without helping people to understand that the Minister was so generous as to be unbelievable when he said on Second Reading that this is a humanitarian Bill. This is not a humanitarian Bill: it is a piece of cynicism, driven by the IRA, derived from a propaganda need to take some of the pressure off it at the time of the Hillsborough talks. The Bill is deplored by some of those at the heart of the benefit that may accrue from its passage. We all know that after up to 30 years there are a number of families in Northern Ireland who still sorrow and grieve, and who have not had the opportunity to give to their loved ones the dignity of a proper, Christian burial. That instinct is very strong among hon. Members of all parties in this House, but the IRA does not begin to understand it. This Bill is a nasty, cynical piece of manipulation which the Governments of Great Britain and of the Irish Republic have felt compelled to introduce to their legislatures for reasons of the greater good. All hon. Members support the families and sympathise with them, but we must proceed honestly and recognise the Bill for what it is. Today, we are recognising the terrorism, awfulness and cynicism of an organisation that still exists to terrorise for its own purposes.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I well understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about his past record and his on-going support as we go down the difficult road towards achieving our ultimate objective of a peaceful Northern Ireland. When he held my office, he had to take part in some difficult decisions. However, he said that this was a nasty little Bill. Does he hold the same opinion of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which he supported? That contained many of the same precepts that appear in this Bill. He said that the Bill is not a humanitarian measure, but how does he address the concerns of the families? In my speech on Second Reading, which the right hon. Gentleman said that he read in detail, I did not talk about terrorism in any sympathetic way. He will know that I condemned unreservedly terrorism and the barbarism associated with the acts leading up to the disappearance of these people. I said that they were probably beaten and tortured, that they had had no right to a proper trial or to an appeal, and that their fundamental human rights had been taken away. I gave not an inch on that. On 29 March, the Provisional IRA announced that it was prepared to provide information about some of the people who had been disappeared. The two Governments therefore had to act, or decide not to act. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that we should not have acted, but instead should have put pressure on the Provisional IRA—in ways that he has not defined—and thereby somehow turn up the information that we are seeking to obtain on behalf of the families. However, the pressure exerted over 30 years did not bring one iota of comfort to some of the families involved.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

No. The difficulty and dilemma with which the Government were faced in dealing with the information from the Provisional IRA lay in how to put it into effect. The Provisional IRA's announcement contained no absolutes or guarantees that the information would be released. On Second Reading, I asked the House a question to which I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) will give consideration. If not through this Bill, by what other means does the right hon. Gentleman expect the information to come from the Provisional IRA? We must think all the time of those families, and the trauma with which they have lived for 30 years. Those who argue against this Bill cast them aside and do them no service at all.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Better than most, I understand the dilemma that the Minister faces. I shall not vote against the clause standing part of the Bill: in these circumstances, as I have already said, the Government have to do what they have to do. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that the Bill is a reflection of the terrorising and cynical manipulation practised by the people with whom we are seeking to do business in a bid to bring peace to the 1.5 million decent, law-abiding people in the Province. I ask that the Minister does not use the sort of language that might be used in other circumstances when there have been unavoidable tragedies. As I said earlier, the hearts of every hon. Member in the Chamber, irrespective of party, go out to the families. I have had to announce enough bloody deaths in Northern Ireland to be sure that no one can accuse me of having no sensitivity for or sympathy with the bereaved. But I do not want the message to go to Northern Ireland that the House used the civilised language employed for normal tragedies to make rosy a determined and deliberate attempt to terrorise by using this sort of mechanism in the knowledge that the Minister's good instincts and those of the rest of the House would respond to it. In Ulster terms, let us call a spade—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was intervening, not making a second speech?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The right hon. Gentleman's intervention was worth while because of its length. He addressed several points that needed to be made, and we shall debate them now and on other parts of the Bill. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not opposing the Bill, merely highlighting its enormity and the difficulties associated with it. To those who do oppose the Bill, however, I have to ask a question: if not this Bill, what? One of the jobs with which I am tasked is that of being the Minister for victims. On coming into Government, I was amazed to find out how blank the sheet was on that subject. That was true not only of the previous Administration, and I do not seek to overstress that point, by and large, of the wider community in Northern Ireland no one had begun to address the complexity, enormity and depth of trauma within that society. Many individuals—including politicians—used victims as political footballs. They were brought out when there was a point to be scored, but no one gave support, encouragement or hope. It was largely left to voluntary organisations to provide that support, although many were supported by public money. No coherent way was developed for dealing with issues connected with victims. We have begun to address the problem, but have begun only to touch on its extent. The more we do, the more we shall expose the deep difficulties in Northern Ireland, and no one—certainly no politician—has all the answers to the problems. My central point is that the Bill begins to address a fundamental problem, but it is not easy to do so. We have made no apology for the actions of terrorists and paramilitaries, and nothing in the language of my Second Reading speech could be deemed to have given any word of comfort to terrorists. No one who spoke in that debate gave a word of comfort to those who carried out the actions addressed by the Bill. I hope that the message of that debate has been absorbed in the wider republican and loyalist communities that support the people of violence. Now is the time to stop and to search for new ways forward. It might benefit the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to read debates on similar legislation in the Dail in which there was strong condemnation of the Provisional IRA and explanation of why the Bill was necessary. Nothing was given away in our debate, a sombre debate that addressed the issue properly. I commend the clause.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that the members of the terrorist IRA had no clear understanding of the grief and legitimate expectations of the families of victims. The brutal fact, as he acknowledged in his later intervention, is that the IRA has made a harsh analysis of the expectations of those who grieve, and it seeks to manipulate the people so tragically involved. That sickens me to the stomach. Hon. Members will concede that I have repeatedly said that these people are engaged not in a military campaign or guerrilla warfare, but in the most brutal form of terrorism in a mature parliamentary democracy. I have some sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman said, but having met some of the families concerned, their interests, concerns and legitimate demands should override all else.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not like being in conflict with the Minister any more than he does, but what he said on Second Reading and reiterated today about no one appearing to care about the victims of violence gives deep offence to ordinary people in Northern Ireland. For 30 years, we have cared for them. They are people among whom we live. They are our friends, people we know. He must recognise that with more than 200 victims of violence in my constituency alone—mostly, but not exclusively, victims of the IRA—there is nothing new in what he says that he wishes to achieve. Rather, what he says that he wishes to achieve is being negated by the way in which he goes about it. It is not a question of 15 or 16 families for whom we feel tremendous sympathy, but of more than 3,000 people who have died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. For the Minister to say that only the voluntary organisations appear to care is not a condemnation of ordinary, elected Members from Northern Ireland—whatever their political aspirations—but a reflection on the Northern Ireland Office. It channelled 250 million ecu—more than £200 million—that came to Northern Ireland as a peace and reconciliation package to some very undeserving causes. The money did not exclusively go to such causes; I admit that a large part was employed usefully, although I am not sure that much was of long-term benefit. There is a rather sick joke in Northern Ireland that people have to have served a term in prison as terrorists to become community workers. That generalisation is perhaps unfortunate, but I am afraid that much of the money for peace and reconciliation was channelled through organisations that had a short-sighted approach to what victims of violence needed. The police and the security forces were excluded from any part of the money, although they were at the coal face.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's belated sensitivity and concern for victims is the result of the outrage expressed by victims' groups about the amount of money given to ex-prisoners, ex-convicts, ex-gangsters, murderers and extortioners to placate their organisations and make them favour the peace process?

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout society in Northern Ireland, horror has been expressed at the way in which money has been expended. I do not doubt that there were good intentions. I do not for one moment suggest that what the Government do is always done for perverse reasons. However, it is wrong for the Minister to point the finger at elected Members from Northern Ireland, who live with the problem, and have lived with the problem every day for 30 years. What concerns me most in all the Minister has said is that he continues to point across the Chamber saying, in effect, "What would you do to recover the bodies of 'The Disappeared'?" The reality is that it is not our responsibility because we have not murdered anyone. We cannot and should not undermine the fundamental law on which our whole society depends in order to make an accommodation for those victims, however deserving they are—and I stress that they are deserving. However, we cannot undermine the fundamentals of the law. I want to put the Minister right on another point. He tried to compare this measure, which undermines the principle of the law, with the legislation on disarmament. The circumstances are entirely different, although some people would agree with him that there is no difference. However, I and many other people do see a difference, in so far as legislation to get rid of the weapons of war—the illegal guns and bombs—is honourable. It holds out hope for the future of the people of Northern Ireland, if the opportunity to disarm is grasped by those to whom it is offered. However, this Bill is different. First and foremost, as the Minister has admitted, it does not guarantee that one body will be delivered up, although I hope that that will happen. More importantly, it does not ensure greater safety for society in Northern Ireland as a whole-as the exclusion of illegal guns and bombs would do. Therein lies the folly of the measure.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Anyone with any faith in law and order must regard this as a squalid little Bill. Although we understand the humanitarian concerns and the concerns of those whose relatives were murdered, the fact is that the Bill puts humanitarian issues before the rule of law. That should not happen in any democracy. Furthermore, we can see from clause 1 that the Government of the Republic of Ireland is regarded as the Government of Ireland. In legislation, the Government of the Republic of Ireland used to be called the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but now, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement and various other agreements, the Government of the Republic of Ireland is designated the Government of Ireland. That is an insult.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As the Government have used that terminology in the measure, are they not endorsing a territorial claim? The Government of the Irish Republic are claiming to be the Government of Ireland; that is a claim to the territory of Northern Ireland. It is bad enough that they should claim that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government should never endorse it?

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I certainly agree. When a previous Bill went through the House, we were told that "the Government of Ireland" was what the Government of the Republic of Ireland wanted to be known as or had designated themselves as. However, the policy of any United Kingdom Government should be not to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as "the Government of Ireland" or to put that phrase in legislation, but to refer to that Government as it stands in relation to the United Kingdom, which is as the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Does not the clause contain a territorial claim in its reference to: Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom"? Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so the problem the hon. Gentleman raises does not exist.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not relevant to my argument. I accept that the United Kingdom, as I understand it, includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland; however, the issue is not the term we use for ourselves, but the term we use for the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about the term "United Kingdom" implying a territorial claim. However, several years ago at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Ottawa, the representative from the Dail Eireann moved that the phrase the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be deleted. Although representatives of this Parliament opposed the motion, it was passed by a weighted majority of the other nations in order to placate the Irish Republic. In other words, we limit the United Kingdom when we use the phrase "the Government of Ireland" to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Ministers hear Unionist objections, but they do not listen to them or care about them; instead, they ignore them. However, if Members of Parliament representing the nationalists were sitting in the Committee today and making objections, Ministers would be doing everything possible to placate and please them. Ministers do not care what Unionists think. This squalid little Bill represents an acknowledgement that those who committed the crimes would never be brought to justice. We have been told many times when depredations have occurred that those who have committed the crimes would be brought to justice, but in many cases they never have been. The Bill represents an acknowledgement that the killers in the cases it covers will never be brought to justice. In fact, because of the Bill, it is likely that fewer efforts will be made to investigate those cases and, as a result, the killers will never be brought to justice.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

When responding to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the Minister remarked that public representatives in Northern Ireland had taken small cognisance of the fate and condition of victims over the years. That remark should be withdrawn, because the truth is that this Government took scarcely any cognisance at all of the condition of victims, especially those in south Armagh, where, in a relatively small community, over a period of years and in circumstances of the utmost barbarity, more than 70 murders took place, of which 58 currently remain unsolved. 4.15 pm Because the victims were murdered one by one and were not part of a single outrage—as had happened in other parts of the Province—they were simply ignored. An organisation was formed only recently in south Armagh to redress the balance. Those victims were ignored because, for many years, it was not fashionable or politically expedient for the Government to acknowledge former reservists, ex-members of the UDR or serving soldiers who had been killed. In pursuit of the peace process and under the terms of the Belfast agreement, however, this Government found themselves committed to spending large amounts of public money on the welfare and rehabilitation of former murderers and criminals. That provoked outrage among victims' families and became a very big issue. It became a moral issue: people contrasted the extraordinarily generous treatment afforded to ex-prisoners, many of whom had committed murders, with the treatment afforded to their victims. The victims, who had suffered for so many years in silence because successive Governments did little for their welfare, were outraged at the insensitivity of this Government. That is what motivates the Government, not any sense of public good. As in so many other matters, the Government have seized upon an overtly and nakedly emotional, even sentimental, issue: the bodies of "The Disappeared" and the natural grief of their families, who want to give their loved ones a Christian burial. In an attempt to raise public indignation about the victims and to redress the balance regarding their treatment of the prisoners, the Government have converted this into a noble issue involving moral rescue work on behalf of the relatives of "The Disappeared". What is the price of that work? It is not very different from the price that was paid for decommissioning—the terrorists price.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I have been generous to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I appreciate that he was not present for Second Reading, but I am beginning to feel that he is making the speech that he might have made on that occasion. I cannot allow that as we are considering whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I accept your remarks, Sir Alan, which are entirely justified. I apologise if I have strained your patience. It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister to make accusations against representatives from Northern Ireland who not only feel for the victims but, out of long experience and as indigenous people of Northern Ireland, have the capacity to share their grief.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

This has been a useful debate. If some of those Members who have spoken today had turned up for Second Reading, we might have extended that debate.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

If the Government had recognised the ability of Northern Ireland Members to travel to Westminster at short notice, the Minister might have been justified in making that remark.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not know whether that is a demand for home rule for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members seem to think that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom. Every other Member of Parliament had the same notice of the debate, and many of them were here to vote. No complication was put in the hon. Gentleman's way. I appreciate that Northern Ireland Members may have had something more important and pressing to do, but that is a matter for them. I shall deal with what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said because he sought to put words into my mouth. I did not say that the people of Northern Ireland do not care; I think they care, but they have been looking for leadership, which they have not had. Only recently have we been able to begin to address some of these issues. I recognise that the Ulster Unionist party made suggestions about how to deal with one aspect of the victims issue. Those suggestions were not comprehensive and did not deal with the whole range of victims, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, but they were none the less helpful. Those suggestions fed into the Good Friday agreement, from which emerged Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review on victims. I say to Members who have spoken in this debate that they all had an opportunity to contribute to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's consultation process, but not one of them did so. No party made its views known to Sir Kenneth. I am not saying that they did not care, but they had an opportunity to try to condition the Government's thinking and they did not avail themselves of it. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone seemed to say, as others do, that this issue is the Government's responsibility and that "The Disappeared" are the responsibility of those who carried out those dreadful murders. The terrorists undoubtedly have a function to perform: they must give information, and we hope that we can bring them to justice. I make no bones about that. The Bill clearly limits our capacity to bring them to justice, but we want to do so, and I am sure that the families of the victims would welcome that, as would society and those involved in the judicial process. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who said that this issue is the Government's responsibility, that all politicians have a responsibility to try to find answers. If the Government are not getting it right, hon. Members should tell us where we are going wrong.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You have never listened, and you are not listening now.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. We do not want sedentary interventions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are dealing with the specific issue of victims, not the panoply of Government policy. Our document was put out for consultation, but there was no response. Well into the implementation of that report, I requested representatives from individual parties to meet me. I did so of my own volition, not because of demands from the parties. It took months to get the parties to provide names of representatives whom they had appointed to talk about the victims issue. I make that point because when the Government are accused of doing nothing, hon. Members should look to themselves and consider what they have been doing over the years. Wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is no solution to the trauma of deeply troubled people. I have to deal with those people. I am not from Northern Ireland, but that does not mean that I do not care or that any of those who deal with the issue do not care if they do not come from Northern Ireland. Having dealt with individual cases, we shall carry the hurt for a long time afterwards. Many of my officials must have counselling because they are dealing with cases to an even greater extent than I am. Hon. Members should not diminish what we seek to achieve in the Bill and make out that only the Government and those who carried out the violent acts have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility, not only on this issue, but on wider issues.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On the issue of making contributions and listening, I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of Families Acting for Innocent Relatives. Four weeks later, at a meeting with the Secretary of State that was organised by FAIR, she still had not read the letter that had been sent to her and her secretary.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not know whether that is a fact.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It is a fact.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. and learned Gentleman may tell me that it is a fact, but it does not relate to the point that I was making about the Bloomfield report. Why did he not respond to that heavyweight document, which endeavoured to deal with a complex issue that has remained forgotten for 30 years? Many people in Northern Ireland fall into the category of victims, and have come forward for help and now work in the various groups, but there are many others—not just those who have seen death in their families, but those who have had to put up with long-term injury in their families—who do not come forward, either as individuals who have suffered or as relatives of those who have been injured. That conveys the enormity of the broader reach of the issue with which we are having to deal. This measure deals with just one small category of people. In the arguments deployed in this debate, I have yet to hear a suggestion as to how we should deal with the issue, other than to blame someone else. That does not provide an answer.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the Committee or be inaccurate. He said that none of us had responded to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. If he consults Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, he will discover that at least one did. I speak for myself in that instance. Were not my hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) appointed to deal with the matter, and did not they seek to do so? I want to put the record straight. Although we recognise the trauma that has affected English and Scots Members and others, some of us have lived and worked with these victims of tenor over the years. As a minister who knew what it was to fight for proper compensation for them, I will not accept the Minister's allegation from the Dispatch Box.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

If the hon. Gentleman made a submission to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, I shall go back and look at it. I apologise if I inadvertently said that he did not, although it is interesting that no one else is standing up to say that they did.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

May I make this point?

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am standing up.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing up, but I am not giving way.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You do not want to hear the truth.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

As I said to the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, bullying and shouting might be his way forward, but it is not the way in which we try to address the issue. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I accept that their party has now put forward a group to deal with the issue, for which I am very grateful. It is important that I have points of contact with political parties. That was not the point that I was making. I did not say that there was not anything now, but that when there was a need for something to exist, it did not. Now we are beginning to address the issue. Northern Ireland Members should not accuse the Government of standing back and doing nothing when we have been trying to initiate movement. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) mentioned his engagement with FAIR. Of course, he is not the only Member who has dealings with that organisation. The Secretary of State has met FAIR twice. I have offered to meet representatives of it since, but they have declined because, as 1 understand it, they are keen to meet the Prime Minister. That is a matter for them. Meetings with representatives of FAIR have not taken place not because the Government have not been prepared to meet them. The Secretary of State has met the organisation twice, and my offer remains open. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) raised the question of references to the Government of Ireland. Of course, this is not the first time that the term "Government of Ireland" has been used in legislation. It was also used in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally opposed to that legislation, but none the less it was passed by this House. It is worthwhile putting on record the fact that the Irish Government now refer to the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in their equivalent legislation. Therefore we are using the terminology that has been agreed between the two sovereign Governments, and which does not conflict with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom while the majority of people wish it to be so. 4.30 pm I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. I did not anticipate such a long debate on clause stand part, but it is good that some hon. Members have now engaged in the process of debate; they may benefit from that engagement during the rest of the Bill's consideration.

THE COMMISSION

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 30, leave out from "effect" to end of line 34 and insert "on 30th September 1999". The amendment deserves a fair amount of consideration in light of what the Under-Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Monday night. It is intended to time-limit the life of the Bill's provisions. He said on Monday night that the Government were not all that anxious to do that, but I believe that a time provision is embodied in the words that the amendment seeks to remove. The full subsection reads: This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland, may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and an order under this subsection may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient. Therefore the Government at least envisage that, at some point in time, they would by order annul the Bill, and it would be swept away. It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, it could endure for years. It could sit on the statute book until people had forgotten its existence. It could be there for 100 years before a Secretary of State decided to sweep it away. I therefore believe that it should be time-limited, to a precise date. On Monday night, the Under-Secretary said: By way of intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone"— my honourable colleague, who has been speaking— asked about time-limiting the Bill. The Government are not keen to close the door to the provision of information about 'The Disappeared' either from the IRA or any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA produced a list of nine names at the end of March. Some people—such as the individual who came to the Palace of Westminster today—have expressed dismay that their relatives' names were not on the list. The families of those who were not on the list hope that, in time, details of the location of their loved ones' remains will be provided. That is why we are not time-limiting the Bill."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.80.] If that is the Government's reason, it is a mighty poor one. I believe that, by leaving the Bill in its present condition, we are leaving the door open to the IRA to twist and turn, and to seek publicity time after time. We are leaving the IRA absolutely free to manipulate—we know how good it is at manipulation—the whole community. We should not give the WA that freedom of action. We need a clear cut-off date to stop its nonsense in its tracks. If members of the IRA really want to help, all the information that they have as to the remains of those nine people, and possibly others, can be provided by the end of September. In my view, I have been more than generous. The Minister knows that I do not like the Bill. I believe that it is an abomination and should never have been produced because it undermines the rule of law. As everyone else in this place should be, I am familiar with the old saying, "Hard cases make bad law"; the Bill is a classic illustration of the truth of that. There are hard cases here. As I said on Monday night, people's emotions and religious practices are involved. In going down that road, we have made a grave error of judgment. If members of the IRA really want to help, they can. We must realise that some of the people who carried out these atrocious crimes are probably dead and buried. They carried their secrets to the grave with them, so there is no chance whatever of recovering the remains of some of the people buried. In other cases, the people who went out and buried the bodies do not know where they are buried. They have forgotten. Many of the bodies were disposed of in the middle of the night. Some, we are told, were destroyed in the most horrific manner. All those rumours circulate in Northern Ireland. It matters not which rumours are true and which are not. We can be certain that some bodies are not retrievable. It is likely that some are under road works or buried in the face of a tip of a road embankment and covered over the next day. No one can be sure where such a body may be; it could be anywhere along half a mile of road. We are not going to dig up a road in order to find it. There could be bodies under major buildings. Some could be under the Waterfront hall, for all we know. There is no way of finding them. They could be under other building sites. They could be buried in open mountain, in bogs or in any one of a thousand places. The folk who put them there cannot recall where they put them in the dark of night and in their excitement and concern to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Someone carrying a mutilated body around the countryside does not want to run into a bunch of soldiers or policemen. The people concerned got rid of the bodies as swiftly as they could. A body may have been buried in the bottom of an open grave in a cemetery somewhere, and a coffin placed on top of it the next day. No one knows where the bodies are, but representatives of the IRA, out of the goodness of their little murderous hearts, have kindly told the Government that they know where nine bodies are. The amendment is intended to ensure that the IRA gives up that information within a short time. It ties the IRA down, which is the one thing that that terrorist organisation does not want. It leaves the IRA no room to come back seeking concessions. If the Bill is left as it is, the IRA will be back for further concessions. Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland knows that those people do not go away. They look for all the room that they can get, and there is far too much room left. Let us pin them into a corner and, if they are genuine, they will come forward with the information. I fear that the IRA has no real intention of giving up the bodies. The whole thing is largely, if not wholly, a cruel deception. If the IRA is indeed involved in a cruel deception, the sooner we expose the nature of the people with whom we are dealing, the better. If all the known bodies can be produced, let us have them within the next few weeks. With regard to those that are irretrievable, as some probably are, we will have to be clear that no progress can be made. At the very best, we shall recover only a small proportion of the bodies of those who were tortured, in some cases to death, by the IRA, brutally murdered and buried secretly. I have scant regard for murderers. I have scant regard for those who carried out those crimes. If we deal with them, we should be sharp and clear as to what we are about and why we are trying to do it. We should time-limit them firmly, and at the end of that time, the Bill should die. The sun should go down on it on 30 September at the latest. If I had my way, I would have made the time scale rather shorter, but, against my better judgment, I wanted to be generous. That is the background to the amendment.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I might have had some sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) if it had read "30 September 2000". This is not a helpful amendment, although I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. These murderous people—these highly skilful negotiators—may deliberately procrastinate and prevaricate in any discussions concerning the location of the remains of those people; nevertheless, I believe that the clause makes much better sense unamended. On the other hand, I have a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about assessing the work of the commission over six months or a year. The hon. Member for East Londonderry is right that such legislation should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. I can assure the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that I expressed some reservations about the Bill on Second Reading, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has come up with a useful suggestion here—an assessment or review should be undertaken and we, as Members of this House, should be allowed to assess the effectiveness of and the progress made by the commissioners in this deeply difficult work. I say that because there have been some allegations that one or more of the bodies may be buried in Scotland. It may take time to carry out effective searches in Scotland if those allegations have any substance, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take on board what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The cement that holds debates in this Chamber together is our acceptance of the good intentions and the good will of other Members, even if we doubt their judgment. We are in grave danger of attributing to the IRA the same sort of generosity of spirit that normally characterises our debates. As the Minister has made clear, the Bill stems from a statement by the IRA that it thinks that it has found nine bodies and it would not mind, under certain circumstances, doing the decent thing. History is replete with examples of people of honesty and integrity being misled by terrorists. That is because those of us who are normal have such difficulty in getting our minds around the idea that there are people out there whose raison d'être is to terrorise. If they are willing to murder and maim and kill, telling the odd lie, even to the Press Association, is not a problem. It is our responsibility to be careful that we do not attribute more strength and importance to the potential lie and to the real lie than it warrants. 4.45 pm Perhaps I may trade on my accent for a moment. What is extremely clear to me from Irish history is the inability of the English to get inside the minds of the Irish. Had they been better able to do so—and vice versa—the history of the past 800 years would be very different, and we probably would not be having this debate. A promise has been made by people whose whole purpose in life was to terrorise the whole of Northern Ireland by whatever despicable means they could lay their hands on. They thought not a jot about killing, barbarism, multiple murder—whatever it was, they turned their hands to it with gusto and without a thought for the victims and the victims' families. Now those people are saying that they might let us have nine bodies back, but they want us to jump through a number of hoops before that can be achieved. Fine. We are critically examining the Bill—the Government have thus far got their Bill without any Division in Committee. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right to say that this open-ended commitment provides multiple opportunities for propaganda over the months and, for all we know, over the years ahead. The instinctive reaction to that comment in the House is, "Don't be silly, Brian, it couldn't be years. That would be too awful for the families of the victims to contemplate." That is our decent way of thinking, but those people are terrorists, and they do not think the way we think. The Bill provides at least the opportunity for more and more propaganda. That is not in the Minister's best interests as he seeks to govern in Northern Ireland.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

If the Bill is to be an opportunity for propaganda by the IRA, it will have to do better than it did when it issued the initial statement to the Press Association, because it was a public relations disaster for the IRA. It referred to nine bodies, rather than the 14 that we think are buried, and it listed what it claimed were the crimes that it believed those people had committed. I am sure that that badly backfired on them in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The IRA does not have public relations experts who are able to make use of this new opportunity.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

One of the nice things about the hon. Gentleman and I is that we go back a long way. When he was in opposition and I was in government we, by and large, saw eye to eye on security matters. I understand his point, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he is thinking about this matter as normal, decent people would. According to the Minister—I believe him, I am not questioning him—the IRA statement produced the Bill, which produced this debate, which will produce a debate in the Dail and which will produce open-ended legislation. That powerful message is ringing out around the world. Although I instinctively buy the hon. Gentleman's decent analysis, these people march to the beat of a different drum, and the House must understand that. I have some sympathy with the amendment of the hon. Member for East Londonderry because I do not trust terrorists not to pocket what decent people offer them and then look for something more. I suspect—although I do not expect them to say so here—that the Government have already decided that the IRA does not like deadlines, because deadlines mean that what the IRA does or does not do can be measured and assessed in the context of a formal framework. As all hon. Members know, we are currently exploring that very issue in relation to the difficulties over decommissioning. It might benefit the Government, acting on behalf of us all, to fix a date. If these people are serious, there is no advantage in stringing out the process. If it were done, 'twere well it were done quickly—and if it is not done quickly, we must ask why not, and what is coming next. A deadline would help to concentrate minds, and would enable the Government to say that they had acted in an humanitarian way on behalf of families, that there was benefit for the IRA, but that there was a line beyond which there was no reasonable excuse for going. The Minister may say that we know of only nine graves, and that we should hold out an opportunity in regard to the other five. I could understand that argument if I were still involved in such issues, and I shall not vote for the amendment; but I shall ask the Minister to consider something else.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be a deadline for a review of the legislation, and an assessment by the House of Commons, or does he think that a deadline such as that suggested by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) should operate?

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I was coming to that. First, I was going to ask the Minister to consider the arguments, and then return to them in another place. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that there should be a review. That is one option; another is for the Minister to set a deadline, and to add a clause allowing the Secretary of State to return to the House at some future date to reactivate the legislation if he or she was satisfied, for perfectly legitimate reasons, that some years later information had come to light that had not come to light now. I am not trying to bind the Minister to a specific date, because there is an element of uncertainty; but he is being too open-ended, thus allowing for the possibility of manipulation. The people with whom he is dealing are not like him, or like me: they are people who have spent their lives terrorising the community. I hope that while—presumably—rejecting the amendment, the Minister will tell us that the Government will at least consider the issues again, with a view to acting when the Bill is in another place.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I support the amendment, and the imposition of a time limit. I understand that the IRA has announced that it has found, or knows the whereabouts of, these bodies, and is not revealing the whereabouts only because it fears that it might be liable to prosecution were it to do so—or that those who carried out the act would be liable to prosecution. The aim of the Bill is to prevent the prosecution of such people, and the prosecution of those who might be prosecuted as a result of evidence obtained from the bodies. It seems to me that, if the people concerned know where the bodies are, once the Bill has been passed there is no reason why they cannot immediately say where the bodies are. Therefore, it will be only a short time before it can be discovered whether the IRA's statement is correct. After the bodies are then exhumed or found, there is no necessity for the Bill to continue. If, at a future date, terrorist organisations indicate that they have discovered other bodies, there will be no reason why the Government cannot bring a fresh Bill to the Commons, to be passed just as quickly as, no doubt, the current one will be. Of course, I do not expect the Government to agree to that because although de jure, Northern Ireland is governed by the United Kingdom, there is joint authority. Almost all the major decisions that are taken in Northern Ireland have to be agreed and supported by the Republic of Ireland. That is confirmed by the agreement that has been reached between the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland. It says: The agreement shall continue in force until terminated by mutual agreement of the two Governments and shall thereafter cease to have effect in so far and to the extent necessary for meeting any liabilities or disposing in an orderly manner of any remaining assets of the commission. The Bill says: This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland may appoint. The agreement means that termination has to be by mutual agreement. A member of a Government of a foreign state—the Republic of Ireland—has a veto over the affairs of this part of the United Kingdom, contrary to what is mentioned in the Bill. The Minister should perhaps address that point when he comes to the Dispatch Box. I certainly support the amendment.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

The debate has been useful. It has teased out some of the issues. The thrust of the debate is that there should be a time limit to concentrate minds. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has said. He mentioned that the clause relates to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as well. That might be one reason why the Minister is not necessarily able today to accede to the request by the Conservative party spokesman. It is joint legislation, possibly because, among other reasons, some of the bodies will be found in the Republic itself. The Minister is aware that I have been concerned about the matter for some time. For far too long, the terrorist has been playing ducks and drakes with us. Is it possible to know how much money has been spent already? After information was given, for example, in west Belfast that bodies were buried in such-and-such a place, for days, there was a search to try to find them and nothing was uncovered. I understand that it has been alleged that there are bodies in Paris. Has that been followed through? It would be much better if the Minister, having listened to the debate, could assure us that the Government will take on board the points that that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has made some accurate observations, just as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has. Together, we might find some way forward that would impose a time limit. That could be done by review after so many months, but it will not be open ended. There is an interesting side effect, in that, if anyone is to be brought to justice when a body is discovered and a murder is confirmed with evidence from another source, the longer the process is spun out, the less time the perpetrators will spend inside because, under an earlier agreement, as I understand it, they will have to be released by June next year.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The debate has centred on the usefulness of the legislation and how we can give it proper effect. Clearly, the Government had to consult the Irish Government on the parallel legislation going through the Dail and to consider the question of time limitation. We are faced with the reality alluded to by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), that only nine of "The Disappeared" have been identified. There are certainly more, and it is interesting to note that two of those listed by the IRA were not on the RUC list. There is always a possibility of more names coming forward, and the legislation encourages people to realise that they can provide information, because it offers some limited protection. That helps the victims' families. The Bill would be better without a defined time scale because people might not feel ready to admit their crimes by 30 September 1999. People take a bit of time to own up to terrible crimes. People may be prepared to say that they committed murder and know where the bodies are, but that may not happen within the suggested time scale. If we can encourage more co-operation, to help us to discover the names and locations of others who have disappeared, that would be helpful. The core of our debate has been about the need to have an element of review in the legislation. It has been argued that, to ensure that it has an effect, the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise it again. In one sense, that is envisaged by the Government in any case, because clause 2(6) says that the two Governments will consider when it is appropriate to terminate the legislation. I refer hon. Members to a document that has not yet been mentioned: the agreement signed on 27 April. It is a document to the treaty between the two Governments that gives effect to the legislation. Article 3, paragraph 2(c), says that the commission will report on its activities to both Governments no later than one year after its establishment, and annually thereafter. We have already taken account of that. Normal practice, given that the commission is to present an annual report to the Government, would be for the Government to communicate that to the House by parliamentary written answer or by some other means. Scrutiny would be allowed in that way.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The Minister and I both know that some reports to Government are more sensitive than others. Officials sometimes say that a report is too sensitive to put in the public domain, so at the very least there would be pressure to produce a safer version. If the Minister is making a commitment to publish the report in full and to make his best endeavours, on behalf of Government, to persuade the Leader of the House to have an annual debate on that report, he has moved some way towards what has been urged on him, and that would be helpful.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not taking criticism of this Government for sanitising reports, although that may have been the practice in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report could include some very sensitive information that it might not be desirable to bring into the public domain in the interests of the victim. We can speculate what that might be, but I would not wish to try to define it because we might enter a debate about whether it would be a real possibility. The agreement is an international treaty and contains a commitment for the commission to report to the Government. That is in the public domain. The Government will also be obliged to review the efficacy of the legislation—has it achieved the desired effect and, if so, should it be removed from the statute book—so it will not be retained indefinitely. The report will be considered by the Government and we will be obliged to report to the House. However, I would not wish to give a commitment to a full debate on the issue, because I cannot tell the business managers what to do. As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) knows, Ministers may want time on the Floor of the House, but it is not always easily obtained if other Departments have pressing demands for legislative time. We are willing to be open about the issue and to try to observe the sensitivities of the victims, which is the overriding concern.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is implicit anyway and would be part of the Government's thought process. We would have to take into account what the legislation had achieved. We hope that it achieves early identification—that is why I used the word "urgency" on Second Reading—of the location of the victims' remains. We hope that others will come forward with information on the same basis at an early stage. I believe that within a year—probably within an even shorter time—we will have a good idea of whether the Bill has achieved those objectives. We might not have to come to the House with an annual report, because we might be able to tell the House earlier that we had achieved our objectives and the legislation was no longer required. I do not know whether the possibilities will turn into probabilities. The Bill is a new approach for the Government, as was highlighted on Second Reading. It is a departure from the normal process, like the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. While the commission—which will be the main channel for any information that people might wish to supply—could be disbanded, the remaining provisions need to stay to keep the protections in place in the criminal justice process. I hope that the provisions that facilitate the supply of information will not be required for very long.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I sympathise with what the Minister said about not always getting enough time on the Floor of the House, but Back Benchers get even less. However, I was concerned when he read out the provision that the agreement would be reviewed in a year's time. We are talking about the bodies of those who disappeared before April 1998. If we are really determined to help the relatives, should not the agreement be reviewed, and a report made to Parliament, every six months? That would keep the pressure on. The Minister's example was of a person suffering from a guilt-stricken conscience who needed to relieve himself of that guilt. However, no legislation is required for that, and such a person would come forward in due course. If we are trying to maintain pressure on behalf of families who want to bury their loved ones decently and lay them to rest, we must keep up the pressure on the terrorists. I hope that the Minister will consider a requirement—even if it is not in the Bill—that the commission report every six months, rather than every year.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Even if I were sympathetic to the proposition, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the agreement is an international treaty, for which the time scale of a year was considered a reasonable period. It was not envisaged that it would necessarily run for that period, but it gave us the opportunity to review it annually. It would be very difficult to change the agreement. However, my approach would be to ensure that the maximum amount of information possible is placed in the public domain. We have to prove the effectiveness of the Bill in helping the victims, and thereby encourage people to come forward with information about other victims who have not been identified. Therefore, I do not want time scales to be stipulated in the way suggested: I do not think that my thought processes and my approach would be changed as a result. In any event, hon. Members have the right to raise questions at any time to determine the Bill's effectiveness. Developments might take place within a week of the Bill being enacted that might invite such questions, and Ministers will be only too ready to respond. We must try to find the best way to communicate the information, rather than impose arbitrary time scales. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, which I hope, given the assurances that I have given, will be withdrawn.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I listened to what the Minister said with some interest. I was also interested in the time limits suggested by the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has expressed his desire for a six-monthly report. I should not be unhappy with any of those proposals. 5.15 pm The Government have made many concessions to the IRA over this matter. They have even allowed the rule of law and evidence to be overthrown—a serious abomination in my view. All the conditions set out by the IRA have been met, and every concession that it has sought has been agreed. What concessions has the IRA made? There has not been a single dotted i or crossed t, merely a few empty words. When we are dealing with such people, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) should be listened to. He is a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, who grew up in Northern Ireland although he has been away from the Province for a long time. He set out the position clearly and adequately: we are dealing with people who do not think as ordinary, law-abiding men and women think. They are prepared to use violence and murder to further their ends, and lies fall lightly from their lips. The Minister said that he believes that he is giving some concessions in an attempt to deal with the matter in a certain way. However, my problem with subsection (6) is that, far from having to be kept alive in a year—or five, 10 or 50 years—the provision has to be killed in that time. If the Government had followed the path set out by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I should have been content and the amendment probably would not have been tabled. If there had been a provision that an order—preferably one that could be prayed against—would be placed before the House so that the matter could be discussed, I should have been content and said that the Government really were prepared to put some further pressure on the IRA. We let the IRA off the hook far too easily every time. The Minister must go further than he has so far. Subsection (6) is not really concerned with the review. It is concerned with keeping the measure alive until an indeterminate date in the future, when it can be killed. I want a provision that the Bill has to be renewed, after discussion in the House. Questions to Ministers very often are met with non-answers. We need to be able to ask the Minister exactly what has happened, to secure facts and figures, and to determine whether the IRA is only playing with us or whether it is prepared to come up with the bones of the unfortunate people whom it murdered. Their bones are probably all that is now left of them. Can the Minister go further than he has so far? Can he meet a point that enjoys cross-party support? It is evident from what has been said that a genuine concern exists that we are handing the matter to the IRA on a plate. The IRA does not have to give anything in return, and we are making it easy for it to play with us and practise what has already been called a cruel deception. We should not do so: we should put pressure on the IRA. Can the Minister go any further?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not think that we are making it easy for the IRA. The hon. Member does not have to take my word for that: he should read the closing Second Reading speeches by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Monday night. They said that there would be no easy publicity for the IRA, which did not win the publicity battle with the announcement that it made, nor with the details announced about the individuals involved. I share the views expressed on Monday night that, once the inquest process has been conducted and the information about how people were murdered and their remains disposed of has emerged, the people responsible are unlikely to achieve a publicity coup. However, my opinion is less important than the impact that the Bill will have on the families. Will the Bill help those families? My answer to that question is yes: the approach has been agreed by the two Governments because of the jurisdiction interest that they share in the matter. It is important to review the process after a reasonable period, but I do not accept the limit suggested for that period. Again, I ask the hon. Member for East Londonderry to withdraw the amendment.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I listened to what the Minister said, but I am rather disappointed, as I believe that a fair point has been made about the review period. However, I shall read with great care what the Minister has said today. We shall not complete proceedings tonight on the Bill, as it must go to the House of Lords before returning to this House. In the light of that, I shall withdraw the amendment, although I hope to return to the matter if the Bill is not amended in accordance with what has been expressed today.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The Bill has been subject to much discussion between the two Governments and within our Government. None of the major decisions was taken arbitrarily or capriciously. There were reasons for each of them in the minds of Ministers and of the officials who advised them. I am happy to accept that without the Minister's having to stress it. I was somewhat surprised, however, by the Minister's response to the short debate that we have just concluded. He was not as convincing as he might have been, given the amount of private discussion that must have taken place before the Bill was produced. We are told that nine bodies have been found and that the remains can be identified. Presumably, when the Bill is enacted, that information will be handed over. The longer that it is delayed, the more suspicious people will become that what 1 said earlier may turn out to be true. The Minister is right to say that there may be some doubt about some bodies that have not been found. What surprised me was his statement that some people may take time to bring themselves to the point of giving information to the commission. They have had 20 or 30 years to bring themselves to that point, and I am not sure of the added value of another three, six or 12 months. The thrust of the Minister's argument was that to give extra time would encourage people. I hope the Committee will forgive me, but my mind went to Treasury matters. I will go home and check this, but my memory suggests that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Inland Revenue, sends me a note about self-assessment on taxation, he does not say, "By the way, Brian, you can have as much time as you like to think about it, because, the longer you have, the more you may be inclined to send me some money." The note in fact names a certain date by which one must pay, and if one does not pay, consequences follow. I was surprised by what the Minister said. Will he reflect further on this matter? I do not make a partisan point, and I have tried to show my understanding of the problems with which the Minister must wrestle. However, there is a mood in the Committee that, whether by review or bi-annual or annual debate, the process should not be open ended in the way that the Bill suggests that it might be. I ask the Minister to reflect the spirit as well as the substance of this debate to the Secretary of State and other members of the Government. If he does, when the Bill arrives at the other place, that issue can be addressed. I have been a Minister and I appreciate that it is difficult spontaneously to reply to serious and on-going points raised in mid-debate. By the time that the Bill reaches the other place, the Government will have had time fully to consider those points, and I hope that we might then hear a slightly more definitive response from them.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Anyone who reads the Bill will note that clause 2 deals with the commission. The commission is created as a body corporate, with all the resulting legal capacities. Clause 2(1)(b) will confer on the Commission, in such cases, to such an extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in … the International Organisations Act 1968". What sort of modifications do the Government intend? What is the extent of the commission's powers? What is meant by paragraph (c), which will confer on members and servants of the Commission and members of their families who form part of their households, in such cases, to such extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in Parts II, III and V of that Schedule"? And what is meant by paragraph (d), which will make provision about the waiver of privileges and immunities"? We seem to be setting up a body with a wide range of privileges, immunities and powers. The Committee needs to be told more than the Bill tells us. The final sentence of subsection (1) tells us that 'servants of the Commission' includes agents of, and persons carrying out work for or giving advice to, the Commission. I can think of circumstances in which that provision would have very wide application. The Government must tell us what sort of agents they are considering. Who are they? How will they be chosen? How will they be remunerated? How will persons who carry out the commission's work be chosen, and how will they be paid? What will their duties be? The Bill contains a hedgehog of problems, and we have not been told all that we need to know. The order referred to in subsection (1) will make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions for different persons. We seem to be moving towards making different provisions for each individual. That is most unusual. The Minister cannot expect simply to get away with doing that. If he cannot answer these points tonight, we shall have to come back to them on Report. We need to know the position. Will the commission be an all-Ireland body? As I recall from the treaty, it could be comprised of as few as two persons, or could seat a good many more. I do not recall whether any upper limit was specified. The Committee would like to know the nature of the commission. Is it a cross-border body or an all-Ireland body? Where will it be based? What sort of people do we seek to serve on it? What premises and equipment are needed? Is it a big operation or a small one? The Secretary of State will make various payments. Will the commission be funded by the United Kingdom Exchequer or by the Northern Ireland Office alone? Will it be jointly funded with the Irish Republic as it sits between the two Governments? Who pays? Those questions require answers. I assume that the Government have in mind a date on which the Bill can come into effect. When is it? Is it the end of May, June, or July? If there is such a rush to enact the Bill, the Government must have made up their mind on that. When will the commissioners be appointed? When will they start work? Where will their offices be? All those details must have been sorted out, so may we have the answers to our questions?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Let me deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on open-endedness. I thought that we had debated that. We have no guarantee that what we would like to happen will happen, but the strong probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to suggest the likely time scale, because that would build up the hopes of the families, which have been built up so many times before and dashed. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about a recent extensive dig in west Belfast. I did not answer his point, but perhaps I should now. I do not have information on the cost, but if remains had been recovered, the cost would have been worth it for that family and for everyone in Northern Ireland because it would have been a release. We do not know whether the process will happen, but the probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to set a time scale that would terminate it when we might be encouraging information to come forward. I also distinguished between the information that we now have to hand—the nine listed by the IRA—and the five to seven more that may fall in the same category but have not yet been owned up to by any group or individual. We hope that, if the first movement happens, it will encourage others to come forward. On what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked, the order-making power is similar to that relating to decommissioning and protects those who carry out the actions on behalf of the two Governments. It can involve small, detailed issues relating to liability to income tax. It can relate to members of those persons' families and give immunities against tort. I could go through the whole of part I of schedule 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. It is possible that not all of that will be required. We do not envisage an international aspect to the commission. It is likely that there will be two commissioners because we have to act quickly. I announced on Monday the name of the commissioner that the British Government will put forward. I understand that the Irish Government are in the process of identifying theirs. The time scale is determined by getting the business through both Houses. On that basis, I cannot say with certainty when it will be activated because the measure has not yet been passed. We have been telling families, and saying publicly, that it will be in a few weeks. As I said on Second Reading, I hope that, once the legislation is on the statute book, both here and in the Republic of Ireland, the information will emerge quickly. We are planning for that eventuality. We have also put in place a detailed approach to handling the matter on an inter-agency basis to bring into play all the Departments that may be involved, together with the RUC and the Churches. We anticipate that the Roman Catholic Church will have the main interest. Our detailed and comprehensive approach will mean that everyone is aware of what they have to do so that we can move immediately the information is given.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has said more than once, both on Second Reading and tonight, that there is no guarantee that information will be forthcoming. Could he share with the Committee any indication that he or other Ministers have had from the IRA that, once the legislation is in place, it will move in a short time scale? He mentioned weeks.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The British Government have had no contact with the IRA on this issue, which has been handled through an intermediary with the Irish Government. I do not want to divulge or discuss what has passed between two sovereign Governments. I have said that we expect this to happen early, but we are not speaking only to those in the Chamber; our words go elsewhere. I do not want to dash the hopes of families. That is why, when I meet them, I will have to say that we cannot control whether the information that they need will emerge. We hope that it will, which is why we have advanced legislation to encourage it. I do not want raise false hopes on their part, but such hopes are more realistic than any for the past 30 years. If the organisation with the information decides not to bring it forward, I know what statements I will make. I am sure that they would be echoed in the Dail and internationally. It is bad enough that the murders were carried out, but to do that to families would be unforgivable. We are not negotiating in the Committee on this. These are sensitive issues. I am encouraged that we have taken the matter down this road. We hope that what we are trying to achieve will be achieved, but, ultimately, it is not in our hands.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I voted against Second Reading, not without some doubt because I recognised that the Bill is designed to address a sensitive and real concern, namely the anxiety of those who have lost friends and relatives to know where the latter have been buried. That is an understandable human emotion, with which I have the utmost sympathy. Clause 3 lies at the heart of the Bill. If it is too wide or wrong, the Bill is wrong. Its effect is plain. It will prevent any evidence, other than evidence for the defence, being used or admitted in criminal proceedings resulting from the discovery of the remains or the disclosure of the information. We are giving an amnesty in respect of those who have committed murder in circumstances that are covered by the Bill. The matter goes perhaps wider than hon. Members fully appreciate. Under clause 3, where a person makes a disclosure that leads to the finding of remains where there is evidence, the evidence, whether from the disclosure or from the remains, is not admissible against the person who made the disclosure. That is clear, but it is also true that the evidence, whether it takes the form of a disclosure or of the remains, is not admissible in other criminal proceedings against third parties who have not themselves been privy to the disclosure. In fact, it goes further than that. The evidence involved in the disclosure or in the remains is not admissible in respect of offences that might be shown not to be related to the discovery of the particular remains. Therefore, if there was evidence arising from the fact of the disclosure or its circumstances, or from the remains, that showed that some third party had committed some other murder—not itself the subject of the disclosure—such evidence would not be admissible either. I am bound to say that I am very uneasy about the principle of this amnesty—that is what it is—and, furthermore, about the scope of what is being proposed. Of course, I understand that, in the context of the agreement in Northern Ireland, it is highly desirable to make progress. I understand, too, the natural anxiety on the part of friends and relatives of those people who were murdered to know where they were buried—I began with that point. At the same time, we are entitled to assert a public interest and I am far from clear that, in principle, such a public interest should be granted by the Committee. The question is not so much whether that is right in principle—we could hold different views as to that—but whether it is right at present. I wonder whether the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, especially the IRA, have done enough to justify the granting of an amnesty of this kind—even assuming that an amnesty should be allowed in principle, if the agreement were making progress. I do not think that that is the case. I am someone who has supported the Northern Ireland agreement; I have defended the release of prisoners—sometimes against the views of members of my Front Bench; I have accepted that decommissioning was not an explicit condition precedent of the agreement and I have defended that position. However, the point has now been reached when the House of Commons must stand back and ask how much further progress it is proper to make without substantial movement by the IRA or associated terrorist organisations. No explosives or weapons have been delivered. More than 50 per cent. of the prisoners have been released, but we have seen nothing more substantial than a partial cessation of violence. The time has come to say, "No more", until many more positive steps are taken by the IRA. Until there is substantial decommissioning and a total cessation of violence in Northern Ireland on the part of the terrorist organisations, especially the IRA, we should not push forward the peace process. In particular, we should not push forward the amnesty contained in the measure before us today.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the clause offers an amnesty to killers. A friend in Northern Ireland suggested to me that that was an unintentional consequence of the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present earlier when I said that our overriding concern must be to meet and honour our obligations to the families of the victims. In my brief intervention in this clause stand part debate, I have one question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Allegations have been made that there may be a body in Scotland. If such a body were uncovered there, would the measure be appropriate in relation to Scots law?

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Before the Minister addresses the points that have been raised during the debate, will he explain in some detail what is meant by subsection (2) of the clause? If I understand the measure correctly, it states that relevant information provided to the Commission cannot be used in evidence against an individual, but that such information can be used in the defence of an individual. I am not at all clear how it is that the defence of an individual comes to know that the commission has relevant information in the first place. Furthermore, I note in subsection (1)(b) that any evidence obtained (directly or indirectly)"— presumably by the person to whom the body or the remains are handed over, as provided for in clause 4—cannot be used against an individual. However, the evidence can be used in defence of an individual. I do not understand how the defence is supposed to know how to obtain that information, or even how it could know what information exists. Clause 4, which we shall debate in due course, is the part of the Bill that tells everyone, in legal language, that the only thing that can be done in carrying out tests on bodies is to identify the body. One can only identify who the person was so that the remains can be linked up with the family. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, why does he think that it is not acceptable for information to be used against someone, but that the playing field is not level because it is acceptable for the information to be used in defence? Secondly, and much more intriguingly, how is the defence supposed to know that such information exists, bearing in mind especially that clause 4 states what the examination of bodies cannot do? What can the defence lay its hands on? For example, is it able to obtain information that may come to light under tests covered by clause 4, even though that information cannot be used more generally?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I invite my right hon. Friend to put a different question to the Minister. What is the position if someone who has previously been convicted of a murder, but asserts that he or she is not guilty of that murder, believes that the forensic evidence on the body might prove his or her innocence? That person is not an accused, because he or she has already been convicted. Can that person use the now-to-be-discovered evidence to prove his or her innocence under a subsequent review or on appeal?

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I could not even put the question as well as my right hon. and learned Friend, much less put it better, so I will allow his question to come, as it were, from my mouth. I have one final question. Given that the tests described in the measure are permitted to be used for the defence of individuals, does that mean that an individual's defence team can require certain tests to be carried out on remains, on the ground that the information obtained might be useful for the defence, even though clause 4 suggests that such tests would be prohibited in the first place because they go beyond the scope of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will able to answer those questions in detail and with clarity.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I shall try as best I can to answer the points that have been made. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will recall that the Conservative Government passed the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. He was a member of that Government and did not vote against the measure. Section 4 of that Act contained an amnesty. The Minister of State at the time, Sir John Wheeler, said that any evidence or information adduced as a result of information given to the commission could not be used in criminal proceedings and that, if there was any information or evidence not gained in that way, that could be used. It is not an easy pill to swallow, but it is for those reasons that we have provided that those who come to the commission with information will not be disadvantaged as a result of coming forward with that information; if we did not, the information would not be forthcoming.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I understand that point, and it is perfectly fair as far as it goes, but I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making a further observation. If real progress were being made within the peace progress, I would understand that we have to swallow pills that are profoundly disagreeable to swallow. However, if the time comes when one party—in this case, the IRA—has not made what Parliament believes is a sufficient contribution to the peace process by decommissioning, why should Parliament agree to swallow the pill?

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

The right hon. Gentleman is also a learned Gentleman and he is cleverly trying to take me away from the issues contained in the clause, but I shall not budge. However, on the matter of the bitter pill, it is the fervent hope of both the Government and Parliament that progress has been made, and we legislate in that fervent hope. As I said on Second Reading, at the end of the day, we are doing this for the sake of the families. The clause relates to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that the provision is included to ensure that information is forthcoming. The information given to the commission and evidence obtained as a result will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. That is central to the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission. However, subsection (2) ensures that information given to the commission can be adduced when it would be of assistance to a defendant in criminal proceedings. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked about that provision, which must be seen in the context of ensuring that no one is disadvantaged. An example might be a case in which an individual has confessed to a crime, but his defence is that he was not in fact responsible for it: he might have confessed to carrying out the killing in a certain way, but the evidence is such that the victim could not have died in that way. It would be wrong to prevent an individual from adducing those facts. The right hon. Gentleman asks how a defence lawyer can know those facts, and that same question crossed my mind when I first read the Bill. The answer is that the commission will receive information and it will then pass that information to the police—the RUC or the Garda. If the police are in possession of information supplied to them by the commission, or of evidence found as a result of a search that would assist the defendant, they are under a duty to make that information or evidence known to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP would inform the defence, who would then be able to request sight of the relevant material.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

May I put the following point, which relates to clauses 3 and 4, to the Minister? He is, in effect, saying that the prosecution authorities might have in their possession information that they are under a duty to disclose to the defence. However, a case might arise in which the defendant believes that forensic examination of, say, a bullet found in the body of the deceased would prove that it could not have been fired from the gun in the possession of the accused. As I read the legislation as it stands, there is no power on the part of the defendant to insist—whether by court order or otherwise—that the bullet be made the subject of forensic examination. Therefore, my question to the Minister is whether we should, either at this juncture or subsequently, amend the Bill so that there is a power to enable the defendant who believes that forensic evidence would be forthcoming from the bullet to apply to the court for the bullet to be tested.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

No one has been charged with or made answerable for the crimes to which the Bill relates. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that these issues cause us to stray into clause 4, which deals with forensic testing, and I shall deal with those matters when we debate clause 4. In brief, the coroner has responsibilities in that respect and evidence that has come to light through forensic testing will not be shared, but will remain the responsibility of the coroner. I shall elaborate on that later.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I tried to table one or two amendments on this part of the Bill, but unfortunately they fell outside the rules. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has made me look again at the clause, and I think that he is perfectly correct when he draws attention to the fact that it goes far wider than a layman like myself would think on reading it. The clause states that certain information and evidence shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings". It would be one thing if that statement continued with the words "related to that death", but it does not and so covers any criminal proceedings whatsoever. The Government must go away, examine that clause extremely carefully and try to narrow it to cover only criminal proceedings relating to the death in question.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision has been trawled over. The same principles were enshrined in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, for the reason that information had to be forthcoming. The belief is sincerely held that, if information is to be forthcoming, we have to formulate the legislation in a certain way, and clause 3 reflects that. The clause is simple: subsection (1)(a) relates to evidence that is provided, subsection (1)(b) to evidence that comes to light and subsection (2) states that that evidence will be inadmissible. It is all based on the principle that information must be forthcoming.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for the start that he has made on answering the questions that I put to him. If I understand him correctly, the answer to my question of how the defence gets to know of the information is that the commission has to tell the police, the police have to tell the DPP and the DPP has to make the information available to the defendant. May I ask the Minister a straightforward, uncomplicated question? Which line or clause in the Bill requires the commission to give information to the police; and is that an unfettered requirement or a fettered one? I do not see such a provision in the Bill, but, if it is absolutely central to the Minister's answer to my question, he is starting to lose me and, I suspect, the rest of the Committee.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

The last thing we want is what should be a serious debate turning into a smart-aleck contest or an academic exercise. Clause 2 relates to the commission and the appointment of commissioners and the explanatory notes refer to provision being made for the commission. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that, if information is provided to the commission, it will be passed on.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The smart-aleck remark was untypically ungracious of the Minister. The Bill sets up a commission—we are agreed on that. The Minister has told me that the commission must give the information to the police. That is how clause 3(2) will work. I am asking a simple question; I am not interested in the explanatory notes because they are not before the Committee. I am not trying to be a smart aleck. We are establishing a commission that must give information to the police if clause 3(2) is to work. I want to know which part of the Bill requires the commission to give that information to the police. That is a perfectly straightforward question, which follows from the Minister's comments. I am not trying to be a smart aleck or to debate the issue; I am simply requesting some information.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that we did not want to stray into smart-aleck comments, but I did not mean to implicate the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 3(1)(a) refers to any relevant information provided to the commission. The explanatory notes point out that the clause contains the first key protection for relevant information provided to the commission. It provides that information shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings and extends the bar on admissibility to evidence that comes to light as a result of that information being provided. The commission receives the information, which it then passes on.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that point. Having followed all the correct procedures, the commission will receive the information—I have no difficulty with that. However, the Committee has been told that, if clause 3(2) is to work and the defence is to be able to use the commission's information, the commission has to give the information to the police, who then have to give it to the DPP, who then has to provide it to the defence. I do not see the "has to" bit in the legislation. I understand that that is the mechanism, but I ask the Minister whether he has legislated to that effect.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I appeal to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) to keep his interventions brief. They are far too long.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

Let us take it to the nth degree. The right hon. Gentleman cannot find the "has to" aspect of the legislation, but I urge him to appreciate the intent of the legislation. We are seeking to establish a commission whose function is to facilitate the location of remains. We have given a commitment that that information will be given to the police, who have a general duty to pass it on if necessary. That is the Bill's intention and the Government have given that commitment at the Dispatch Box. It would be very silly to establish a commission but not require the commissioner to pass on any information when the intention of the Bill is to gather information and locate the bodies.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but he has not yet answered the questions fully. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that. We agree that, as there will be an amnesty, the accused must have access to information that provides a defence. However, there is a problem in relating clause 3(2) to clause 4. The forensic evidence found with the remains might provide a defence, but the accused will not know that unless he can cause what is found to be examined. Clause 4 prohibits that. Therefore, will the Minister contemplate giving the accused the right to apply to the court to disapply the prohibition in clause 4 regarding examination so as to enable the accused to use forensic evidence in his defence as clause 3(2) of the Bill provides?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I do not disagree in any way with your ruling; I simply seek your guidance. Do we have the right to rise again at this stage in the Committee's considerations?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I have forgotten the question. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the passage of information. There is a general duty to pass information about the commission of a crime to the police under the Criminal Law Act 1967, and that duty will also apply to the commissioners. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about clauses 3 and 4. If I do not answer his question fully now, I shall return to it when we consider clause 4. He asked whether the accused may seek forensic testing in his defence. There is no ban on testing during the inquest, which may determine how, when and where a person died. As we said on Second Reading, that process will be on the public record. The coroner will hear evidence in public and the defence will know if relevant information is disclosed at an inquest. The inquest verdict and forensic testing may play an essential role in the process and, like all inquest verdicts, they will be a matter of public record. We made that very clear on Second Reading. The clause has three relatively simple intentions, and I hope that I have answered the questions about it.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sorry to press this point. There is always a risk that one will press a point that is not of real substance, but I believe that this is a substantial issue. In any event, the Minister can seek the views of his advisers. As I have said, I oppose the amnesty. However, we are dealing with the Bill before us, which provides for an amnesty. I am aware that the clause will be passed, so we must try to make it as effective as possible. Let us assume that clause 3(2) will be part of the Bill as enacted. I agree that, if we are to proceed in this way, the accused must be able to use the evidence discovered as a result of disclosure of the remains in order to further his defence. However, that information may include forensic material that is discovered from, within or with the remains—for example, a bullet. We might then be able to identify the gun from which that bullet was fired. The problem is that clause 4, which relates inevitably to clause 3(2), prohibits the examination of the remains. The commission may discover material and inform the prosecution authorities who, in due course, will inform the defence. However, unless some provision enables the defence—or the prosecution, for that matter—to subject the bullet, for example, to forensic examination, no one will know whether it will advance the cause of the defence. I suggest that the accused who wants to use the material in the circumstances postulated by clause 3(2) should have the power to apply to the court for an order allowing the remains or what is found with them to be examined in circumstances otherwise prohibited by clause 4 in order to form a view on whether the material is helpful to the defence and, if so, to use it.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

My distaste for clause 3 is not as great as that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but, as I have already demonstrated, I am not much impressed by the clause. I take his view that, if we are to have this clause, we ought at least to get it right so that it works. The Minister has been advised that there is a general law that covers the commission. I am not entirely clear about the consequences that flow from that. First, that body is, by definition, different from others because it is being set up by statute under an international agreement. It would be helpful if the Minister agreed to place in the Library legal advice that demonstrated that such a body, set up out of an international agreement relating to two jurisdictions, not just that of the United Kingdom, is covered by UK law. The Minister told us that it is covered by UK law, but I am not sure that, prima facie, it necessarily is, so it would be helpful to have access to the legal advice on that. I do not want to take the Minister through all of his earlier reply, but he said that the commission was required to notify the police and then expanded that by saying that the police were to be notified that a crime had been committed. I hope that the commission is required to notify the police of such a crime. Bearing in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said and what I said earlier about clause 4, it is not clear from the Bill what the commission will tell the police about the fact that a crime has been committed. I follow the legal requirement on the police to give that information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then has to pass it on to the defence in the case. That seems to be normal procedure. However, what will the DPP tell the defence? He cannot tell them about any forensic testing, because that is prohibited under clause 4. My right hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the Bill should make it clear that the defence could request, through the court, certain tests to be taken, but if he is right—I think that he is, because he has forgotten more about the law than I have ever known—the Bill's logic contains a lacuna. When the Minister responds to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he explain in more detail what evidence the commission is required to give the police that might be helpful to the defendant? The answer to that question is, to state it in generous terms, simply not clear from the Bill.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I shall try my best to respond to those points. First, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) referred to legal advice; he does not accept at face value what the Bill says about that. I shall do my best to ensure that information is placed in the Library. There was an intensity to the right hon. Gentleman's question about evidence given to the commission. The commission is being established to locate the remains of bodies, and any information given to the commissioners through facilitators will be passed on to the police. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, who has a distinguished public service record, to serve as a commissioner. It is not for me to second-guess every piece of information that he will receive. The right hon. Gentleman should be assured that such an eminent individual will use the sensitive information that he receives in the proper way when passing it on to the Garda and the police. The Bill simply establishes that flow of information.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

On what grounds will the commission supply information to the police? Clause 5 states: No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person". Surely that prevents the commission from giving information to the police. Furthermore, the Minister mentioned the appointment of one commissioner. Will there be only one commissioner, or will another be appointed, from the Republic of Ireland?

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

The hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the proceedings, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned that there would be two commissioners: one, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, will be from Northern Ireland and one, who has still to be announced, will be from the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman asked about the information that the commissioner will have. We are only passing the legislation at the moment, so I cannot give him an insight into that.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I am asking where in the legislation it states that it is incumbent on the commission to supply any information that it has to the police, because clause 5 says: No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person except in special circumstances, but it does not mention the police.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

It is implicit in the Bill that the information provided to the commissioners has been provided to ensure the location of remains. That would be relevant information—we have given a definition of that term—that would be passed on by the commissioners. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give him any insight into the nature of the information. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked whether a bullet could be subject to forensic testing and whether a defendant could request forensic testing as part of his defence. The answer is no. Defendants cannot have their own forensic tests carried out, as clause 4 states. I am aware that I am in danger, Mr. Martin, of jumping to clause 4 or clause 5, and I realise that we are dealing with clause 3, but I have been asked questions about clause 4, so I ask you to bear with me.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me the opportunity to answer his question? Defendants cannot carry out their own forensic tests, but they can use the results of tests conducted for the inquest. That may be helpful to their defence and, under clause 3(2), they can adduce that information.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the Minister not realise that the ability of the accused to use that information under clause 3(2) may be nugatory unless the accused has the right to require testing, because the material that is obtained in the course of the inquest may be wholly different from the evidence that the defence may want to call if it is to benefit from the provision in clause 3(2)? I therefore suggest to the Minister that he reflect on the clause and work out whether, to make clause 3(2) effective, it would be right to enable the accused to apply to the court for an appropriate order allowing that testing.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

Again, we are getting on to clause 4. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads clause 4(1), he will find the six conditions in paragraphs (a) to (f) under which forensic testing is not allowed by anyone except, as subsection (2) states, the coroner. The coroner will make that information public. The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no, because forensic testing on the part of the defendant is ruled out in clause 4(1)(a) to (f).

RESTRICTIONS ON FORENSIC TESTING

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from 'person' to end. On the face of it, the amendment looks very simple, as all amendments do. The Committee can get the flavour of it by looking at subsection (2), which states: Subsection (1) does not prohibit a test or procedure the purpose of which is to discover information in relation to an item where the information is sought for the purpose of establishing, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a deceased person, or how, when and where he died. When I read the clause, I must confess that I thought that it would be a good idea to take all of it out of the Bill. Unfortunately, amendment No. 14 did not find favour. Amendment No. 2—which was selected presumably because it was the only one of my amendments to clause 4 which fell within order—draws attention to the fact that subsection (2) seems to contradict earlier parts of the clause. Subsection (1) says: the Commission shall not carry out, or cause or permit anyone else to carry out, a test or procedure in relation to the item the purpose of which is— (a) to discover information about anything done to any person". Surely, finding out, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a person and how, when and where he died flies straight in the face of such a provision. There seems to be a contradiction, which must be resolved. The clause allows tests and procedures to discover how, when and where a person died. Once one has discovered where the person died, one might have some idea who was responsible for his death or where he had been tortured. If bones were broken or fingers cut off, which is not unlikely, one would certainly have some understanding of the suffering before the murder. Yet we are told that we are not supposed to know such things. How is the contradiction to be resolved? The other interesting matter is that subsection (1) is all about discovering what has happened to the individual: to discover who has been in contact with, or near to, any person or item; to discover where any person or item was at any time (including the conditions under which he or it was kept)", which would include where the deceased was imprisoned, perhaps for some time. The subsection prohibits tests to discover when any person or item was in contract with, or near to, a particular person", which I would have thought would be very useful knowledge if one were to try to prosecute someone for the murder of an important individual. The subsection prohibits tests to discover when he or it was in a particular place or kept under particular conditions"— in other words, what sort of imprisonment the individual suffered. A test or procedure cannot be carried out to discover when or where any item was made". We know that terrorist organisations manufacture certain items for use in their terrorist campaigns, and something like that could be of great use to the prosecution. We are also prohibited from carrying out tests to discover the composition of any item. I have a problem: I want the Government to tell me how they will square knowledge of what is done to a person—the torture or murder—with the scope of subsection ((2). Clearly, the only tests that could be in keeping with subsection (1)(a) are those that will identify the victim. Any other information could be used to prosecute. The Government have clearly decided to avoid that. How on earth are they to resolve that conundrum? It is clear to anyone who reads the Bill that the Government have done some deal with the IRA to avoid its members being brought before courts and charged with torture and murder. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary gives his assent to that remark. The Bill was a consequence of discussions with the IRA, which surfaced fully only on 29 March. In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who asked about the deal with the IRA and the guarantee for bodies, the Under-Secretary said: However, we have the evidence received from the families and others who are willing us to act and the statement made by the IRA on 29 March, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Irish Government have responded. We are legislating on the basis of that information in the sincere hope that the agony of the families will end."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.77.] Clearly, the Government are saying, "Yes, we believe that there is a hard case and therefore we must make the law fit the line," to which, as I have already said, I object. There was a deal, and contact, either directly or at arm's length, was made with the IRA. The IRA gave certain guarantees, which it has not as yet fulfilled—in this or any other piece of legislation that has been drafted to placate it. The Bill flows directly from the commitments given. I am also somewhat intrigued by the fact that there is no clause to limit the Bill's powers.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

If you had just held your hand for a moment, Mr. Martin, you would have realised that I will be staying completely in order. I was simply referring to the absence of a clause that we normally find in Bills that deal with Northern Ireland or a specific region of the United Kingdom. Normally, there is a clause stating that the Bill extends only to Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and Wales. No such clause appears in this Bill and, therefore, this is not a Northern Ireland Bill, but a United Kingdom Bill. Different laws govern inquests throughout the United Kingdom; they are not, as far as I am aware, wholly alike. I therefore wonder how a clause will operate when, for example, a body is found in Scotland. Allegations were made at one stage that bodies may have been buried in France. We know that the IRA was active on the continent. There could be a body buried in Germany. Suppose some poor fellow is buried in Germany or France, will this proposed law apply there? Does it apply throughout the United Kingdom? Are the Home Secretary and the Secretary of state for Scotland aboard? Are the new Scottish and Welsh governing bodies aboard? There is a very serious question to be asked on the Bill's extent. If individuals are found elsewhere, would the authorities that normally investigate a murder—it may have been committed in their territory or a body may have been transported there illegally—such as the police and coroners be free to do so? Such questions must be explored. As the Minister said, the Bill's provisions are implicit. I await answers that defend them.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I do not believe that the amendment is very appropriate. Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I am not a lawyer, Scottish or English, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to confirm that subsection (1) does not in any way restrict the comprehensiveness of a post-mortem or an inquest held in any of our jurisdictions. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is right in one regard. If we are talking about the United Kingdom, we must talk in terms of its different legal systems. Scottish procedures are different from those that pertain in England. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will forgive me, but an allegation was made that a body or a couple of bodies might have been buried outwith Northern Ireland—perhaps in Scotland. I received an assurance from my hon. Friend that every means would be sought to co-operate with the Scottish authorities. I simply ask him to place on the record that no attempt will be made to restrict in any way the holding of an inquest, or an examination carried out by a pathologist. I believe that subsection (1) confirms that that will be the case.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I shall focus on amendment No. 2, and then perhaps any other points can be taken up in the stand part debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the situation in Scotland. That is linked to the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised when he asked what would happen if a body was found in Germany. If a body is found in Scotland or England, clause 4 will apply, but if it is found in Germany, it will not apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde can see that clause 4(1) provides that there would be restrictions on the actions of people other than the coroner at the inquest, but that subsection (2) contains a qualification to or exemption from that restriction at the inquest. I believe that at Second Reading we made things reasonably clear when we said that there would be a full examination as to how, when and where the person died and that it would be a public matter, so there would be no inhibition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will accept that point. The amendment would mean that forensic testing, as part of the inquest process, would have to stop at identifying the person. That is a limitation that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is introducing. In other words, he is negating the effect of subsection (2). As a result, tests to establish how the person died and where that happened would not be possible. I do not consider that that would be in the interests of the families, as a coroner has an important role to play with the families by providing reassurance. I know from meetings and contacts that I have had with several coroners in Northern Ireland that the emphasis is placed on the family concerned. I therefore believe that the amendment would place a limitation on their work, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that. I can assure the hon. Member for East Londonderry that the Bill does nothing to affect a normal inquest process. As I said, that is the aim of subsection (2). If the amendment were made, the circumstances in which a person died would not be discovered by forensic testing, and that would be unacceptable for the families. I assume that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is seeking an assurance from the Government that the Bill does nothing to prevent an inquest from taking its usual course. I can unequivocally provide him with that assurance, if that is what he wants.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

In light of the Minister's assurance, and in the hope that we may return to the subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sorry to return to the matter that I have already ventilated, but the Minister did say that the points that I raised on clause 3 stand part might be discussed properly—and perhaps even more relevantly—on clause 4 stand part, so I will trouble the Committee on the matter. We must return to clause 3. As the Committee knows, I am—broadly speaking—against the amnesty, for that is what the Bill provides. We have already had this exchange, but whether it is an amnesty or not, clause 3(2) provides for a relaxation in its application. I agree with that purpose. It is obviously right that an accused person should be able to use forensic material discovered from the remains, or associated with them, for the purpose of his or her defence. So far, so good. The problem is that there is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from a court an order—

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

indicated assent.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is agreeing with me. There is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from the court an order which enables that accused person to have the relevant material subjected to forensic testing. Indeed, clause 4 prohibits that very act. As a result, an accused person who believes that, within the remains or associated with the remains, there is forensic evidence that will avail the defence, will be unable to subject the relevant material to forensic testing. That being so, the right conferred by clause 3(2) is nugatory. We have given people a right that they cannot enforce. That is dotty. Unless I have misunderstood the position, the proper way to proceed is to enlarge the disapplying provision contained in clause 4(2), because at present the ability to carry out tests is confined to the coroner within the inquest. We could very well enlarge subsection (2) so that a test may be carried out on the authority of a court, making an order on the application of an accused person. I am not asking the Minister to give an undertaking here and now—of course he will not do so—but I am asking him to reflect on my suggestion with a view to tabling amendments in another place if he agrees with me. The matter actually goes a little further than that which I have suggested. I believe that the logic of what I have suggested with regard to an accused person is impeccable, but another situation might arise. A person who is an appellant, or who is seeking a review of a case, may believe that the forensic evidence associated with the remains would enable him or her to get a previous conviction quashed, either by a reference to the Court of Appeal or by some form of review. I should like to think that the Minister would agree to enable an appellant—and therefore, as the case is concluded, probably not an accused person for the purposes of the Bill—to go to a court, probably the Court of Appeal, for an order allowing the forensic material to be the subject of testing. That is my suggestion. I do not expect the Minister to say yea or nay now. That would be an absurd proposition, as the point is complicated. However, I hope and expect that he will reflect on the matter and, if he sees substance in my argument, that he will move an amendment on another occasion and probably in another place.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the opportunity to seek further clarification. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was concerned about protection for the accused. I am looking at the other side of the matter. We have been told that the measure does not provide an amnesty. Can the Minister give us guidance? If the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have information that a certain person may have been involved in the death of a body that has been discovered, and in the course of the inquest evidence is produced that ties the event to a particular time and place, can the prosecution use that evidence, or does the measure make it impossible for information that comes from an inquest, not from forensic testing by a prosecuting authority, to be used in prosecutions?

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

Substantive points have been made in the debate, and I shall try to answer them. I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall try to clarify the Government's intent in the Bill. We are dealing with relevant information provided to a commissioner. The information will be passed to the police or Garda, and an inquest will take place. We have given protection for information that comes forward. Only the coroner will be able to test how, where and when a person died and put that on the public record. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on it, but I see an illogicality in his proposition concerning the Bill's intent. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about information forthcoming. With regard to criminal admissibility, once the information that the coroner has is on the public record as a result of an inquest, it can be used by anyone.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that information. If there was no criminal prosecution by the Crown, would the evidence be available for a civil case?

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

Yes. The information would be a matter of public record. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. There have been some comments on the coroner's role, and it might be helpful if I described it. The coroner has powers derived from the Coroners (Northern Ireland) Act 1959. He has a duty to hold an inquest if a body found in his jurisdiction has died in suspicious circumstances. That information will have been provided by the relevant police authorities, who inform the coroner where the body is. The coroner directs the police to take possession of the body and orders a post-mortem. Paragraphs (a) to (f) in clause 4(1) provide that no one else—for example, a state pathologist—goes into the detail of how, when and where a person died. It is for the coroner to do that. The state pathologist carries out the post-mortem and sends the report to the coroner, who arranges for a hearing. The coroner can summon anyone as a witness, other than a person alleged to have caused a death. The coroner's duty is to make a finding concerning the identity of the body and how, when and where the person died. To that end, he calls the police, the pathologist and family members. The coroner's role vis-a-vis the family is obviously sensitive. Anyone who is likely to be able to give evidence that bears on who the person was and where and when he or she died can be called. The proceedings are entirely a matter for the coroner. He has complete control. His court is a civil court. The ordinary rules of procedure apply regarding evidence given orally or by lay document. The post-mortem report will usually be read out in open court and questions put to the pathologist. After the hearing of all the evidence, the coroner will make a finding as to the identity of the body and when, where and how the person died. That will be made public. The question was asked whether information made public after an inquest could be used in criminal proceedings. That can be done only by the defence, not by the prosecution. Like clause 3, clause 4 is an essential element of the Bill to ensure that information is forthcoming to the commission. The construction of the clause is similar to the equivalent provision in the decommissioning legislation, as I mentioned. Subsection (2) provides that forensic testing for the purpose of the inquest is allowed. The inquest tests may determine the identity of the deceased, and how, when and where he or she died. Subsection (1) provides that testing for other purposes is not allowed. The other purposes are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). Subsection (3) allows an item to be tested to determine whether it can be safely removed.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

This will be my final intervention on the point, as I do not seem to have persuaded the Minister as much as I would like. We must focus a little more closely on what is suggested. Our purpose in the Bill—much as I disagree with most of it—is to enable an accused person to defend himself or herself by relying on the forensic evidence. However, his or her ability to do that may depend on an ability to test the forensic evidence. That ability is restricted by clause 4, subject to the inquest procedure. The inquest procedure is contained in subsection (2). The purpose of an inquest, at least in the present context, is to identify the deceased person and how, when and where he or she died. It is not the purpose of the inquest to identify the killer or to examine the weapon—in this case, the bullet—used. Under the subsection (2) powers, the coroner will not test, for example, the bullet to identify the gun from which it came, but that precise piece of information may be critical to a defendant—an accused—or to an appellant, and it will be denied to him or her because of the provisions of clause 4. I am trying to persuade the Government that if it is right to give an accused person the ability to rely on the forensic material, it must be right to give to the accused person a right to apply to the court to have the material tested; otherwise it is nugatory. I am asking the Minister to understand that and to reflect on it.

John McFall (Labour/Co-operative, Dumbarton)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has made the same point nine or 10 times. It usually takes me two or three times to understand. I have had seven extra opportunities, and I really do understand. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the issue from our point of view. He wants to extend the forensic testing. He wants to make it open season not just for the defence, but for the prosecution. The fact of the matter is as laid down in the Bill—there are defined limits to that information, for very good reasons. I come back to the point that relevant information provided to the commissioner is passed on for the simple purpose of locating a body. I well understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reflect on it, but I think that he understands where I am coming from on that issue.

RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State my view on the relationship of subsection (2) to subsection (1). I am running the risk of sounding heavy handed in respect of the commissioners, but the provision of information to members of a victim's family must be treated with extreme sensitivity. Subsection (2) states: Subsection (1) does not prohibit the disclosure to members of a victim's family of— (a) the fact that relevant information has been provided to the Commission". I have no quarrel with that, but it adds: (b) the place where, according to the information, the victim's remains may be found. A number of Northern Ireland Members have made the point that the IRA is more than capable of supplying disinformation in such matters. The subsection refers to where the victim's remains may be found. It is important that the disclosure of such information is handled with sensitivity so that the hopes of a victim's family are not dashed because the remains of their loved one are not found where the information claimed that they were located. The families have a right to such information—that goes without saying—but this whole question must be handled with extreme sensitivity in case the IRA gets up to its vicious games of disinformation. I make that plea to my right hon. Friend on the issue of the location of victims' remains.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because I raised it earlier. The Minister said that the money will have been well spent if a body is found, but the harsh reality is that money could be wasted. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a relative's expectations that a victim's body has been found may be raised, and such information should not be released until we are sure of a body's location.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My concern, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the interests of the families are not damaged. To my mind, the question of cost—speaking as a Back Bencher, not as a Minister—is inappropriate, if not irrelevant, in such cases. I agree with him that, if the family can be contacted only when the evidence is definitive concerning the location of their loved one—

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he may wish to consider a point arising from that. Clause 5 states: No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person", but we should project that proviso to a situation in which information is provided on which action is taken, only to discover that it is inaccurate. Are we not to be told, as members of the public, that the very families for whom the Bill is designed—so we are told—are being held to ransom by the tendering of false information?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

That is a fair comment. Given the terrible suffering of the families over many years, they may be willing to gamble, but let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. I spoke to a young woman whose father was abducted in Crossmaglen. His car was found south of the border. That young woman told me that neither she nor anyone else in her family has any idea of where her father's body may lie. My suggestion may be entirely inappropriate, but might not it be better to contact the family once the body has been found? That may be difficult—after a few years, the identity of a body may require verification, perhaps through personal possessions such as a wedding ring or a wallet found on it—but, in my view, the family could best be approached when verification was sought through personal possessions found on or near to a body. I know that my right hon. Friend will take my views on board as a genuine attempt to help the families in such circumstances. We must avoid, at all times, the raising of their expectations only for them to be dashed by the authorities themselves.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I should like to explore with the Minister the exact extent of the prohibition on the disclosure of information. I go back to the point on which I have already addressed the Committee—on eight or nine occasions, according to the Under-Secretary. He was exaggerating a trifle, but no matter. If we are to have such a procedure, we must safeguard the right of the accused. In the early part of the debate, the Under-Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the commission would pass information on to the police, or to the prosecution authorities, who would communicate that information to the defence, if they believed that it was of value to the defence. I want to be absolutely certain that nothing in clause 5 prohibits the process of communication between the commission, the prosecution and the police, and subsequently to an accused person or to an accused person's lawyers. I am perfectly well aware that the phrase "relevant information" is narrowly defined in clause 1(3). On one interpretation of clause 5, there is nothing to prevent the commission from communicating information to the prosecution authorities—whether they be the police or the prosecution services—and thereafter to the defence, if that material is helpful to the defence. That is a perfectly proper interpretation of clause 5, but there is another: the commission cannot communicate information to the police or to the prosecution services other than for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains. I suspect that that is the wrong interpretation, but we need the Minister's guidance. We want the commission to be able to give more information than that. 7 pm > If the Under-Secretary's assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is to have any value, the commission must be able to communicate to the prosecution authorities, and then to the defence, material that may be helpful to the defence in asserting the defence. We must be sure that nothing in clause 5 prohibits that. I do not think that there is anything, but we need a specific assurance on that point.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The clause provides quite a lot of protection for the murderers, in that it prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the persons who are providing the information. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is so. It also protects those who may have killed, as evidence that may come forward by association with the informant will also not be available. It does not tell us who is to recover the body. It provides that members of the victim's family can be informed of the approximate site of the buried remains. Will the servants of the commission or the police carry out the recovery? We should be told.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We do not know the extent or the nature of the information that will be given to the commission; that is in the hands of others. We are not in receipt of that information; we have not seen its colour or shape, even at this stage. The commission will take receipt of the information, and its main function will be to facilitate the location of the remains. It does not have the means to recover the remains, so it will pass the information to the appropriate authority, which will be the RUC or the Garda Siochana. The Garda Siochana may not have the necessary expertise. Specialist excavation equipment may be required, or the use of Army personnel or specialist technicians. We can only speculate on that. That is why the Bill refers to agents, and gives everyone protection. The commission will receive information and pass it to the appropriate authority. The RUC or the Garda Siochana will recover the remains if they have the resources. If they have to call in special expertise, they will do so because the objective is to recover the remains. Running parallel with that is the need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, to handle the matter sensitively. We have been closely involved with the families to try to understand what they want, which is early information. It would be wholly wrong if information were leaked and the media were ruthless—although I hesitate to use that word. Their interest is in the dissemination of news, not the sensitivities of the families. If they got hold of the information, they would make it headline news immediately, perhaps before the families received it. The commission must be quick to give the families the information that it has to hand, to tell them what has happened and to keep them up to speed with all the processes. The people who will undertake the excavation will also have a responsibility. I can speak only for the RUC, but I know that the Garda Siochana will also operate sensitively and will be aware of the need to assist the families through the process.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will come to the point that I made shortly, so I shall not trouble him with that, but I want to touch on the point that he is making now. For understandable reasons, there is a prohibition on the giving of information that may distress the families. I do not see in the Bill any method for enforcing that prohibition. Disclosure, which is not authorised, but is indeed prohibited, under clause 5, is not an offence. What would happen if it became apparent that a member of the commission or, more likely, a third party communicated to the press information that should not be communicated by reason of the prohibition? There is no means in the Bill to take action against that person.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That was referred to on Second Reading. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not participate in our examination of that possibility. If it was an agent of the Crown—a police officer or a member of the Ministry of Defence—who revealed the information and we were aware of that, that person would be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen often proudly tell us that they have received leak from Government sources. That is stealing, and if they have received a leak from someone in the Northern Ireland Office or the RUC, that person is in breach of regulations. If the person's identity were made known to the Government, or to the Chief Constable if it was an RUC officer, we would be obliged to act under the disciplinary code. We cannot prevent every eventuality. We hope that those who act in the name of the Governments understand the sensitive nature of the information. The prime purpose of the legislation is to protect the interests of the families, and to give then comfort and uccour. If information given by the IRA is used to exploit the situation and to make the RUC or the Garda Siochana look foolish, that would come to light very quickly. What publicity benefit would the IRA gain from that? We could spend a long time trying to think of various eventualities. I have not done so, because I do not know what information will be provided. We may not be given any more information than that the remains are at site X. The commission then has an obligation to disclose it. The minute the information is passed to the RUC, if it discovers that it is relevant to a case in which there is a defence interest, under existing legislation it is obliged to make it available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to go through the process that we have discussed at length. That is the chain through which the information will be made available.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My intervention is prompted by the thought that, ideally, it would be better for the authorities to tell a family that they had disinterred a body that they believed to be the remains of their son, father or brother and that they required some form of identification, such as dental records. A few years ago, two friends of mine were swept off a trawler in the Arctic and were drowned. Their bodies were eventually dragged up by a Russian trawler. The authorities told my friends' widows, "We believe that we now have the bodies of your husbands, but we require certain identification—for example, dental records." Once that identification was forthcoming, the bodies were returned to the United Kingdom, and the two men were given Christian burials. Surely it would be best for the authorities to approach a family saying, "We have found a body, and we genuinely believe, on the basis of information that we have received, that it is the body of your loved one".

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. None of us have really been through the process. I understand my hon. Friend's analogy, but the way in which he says that this should happen could be seen as prescriptive. The commission has already been given an onerous task, as have those working alongside it to help families. I referred earlier to the need for an inter-agency approach. All the necessary agencies are now in place: whatever information is required—social work support, access to dental records or access to DNA testing—all the Northern Ireland departments are there to provide it, and to deal with any eventuality.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister confirm that the commission can give relatives only two pieces of information? It can say that it has received information, but not what that information is; and it can say where a body is located.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

In one sense, that is strictly true. Restrictions are placed on the commission. We must be careful about discussing such matters on the Floor of the House, because families will obviously want to know the precise position in relation to certain aspects of the Bill. We do not know what questions those families will raise, and we do not know what demands will be placed on the commission, but the clause restricts the commission by preventing it from giving evidence that would work against other clauses in the Bill. That is specific; and then there is all the handling not just of the commission, but of those involved in working on the site and those—representatives of either the Garda Siochana or the RUC—who are keeping the families closely involved in the process.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not think that the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is accurate. The prohibition clause refers to "relevant information", which is defined in clause 1(3) as information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim of violence". That is what is prohibited. I should have thought that it would be open to the commission to give the family of the deceased information about how the deceased died, because that is not "relevant information" as narrowly defined in clause 1(3). It is possible, however, that the phrase "No relevant information", for the purposes of clause 5, has a meaning different from that defined in clause 1(3). My substantive question is this: can the commission give information to the police and the prosecution authorities on, for instance, the manner of death?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not know how the commission would have information about the manner of a person's death unless information of that nature was given to it. It would not establish the criteria. I may have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope he will forgive me if I have—but he referred to the commission in the context of the manner of death, and the where and the when. That information will emerge from the inquest, which is public, and is not the commission's responsibility. It will emerge later, once the remains have been found. It will then become the property of the family of the deceased, and of anyone else who has a similar interest. All that the commission can impart to families is that it has information, and the place where the victim's remains may be found. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde implied, the sensitivity of the matter means that we should not be too prescriptive or explore the situation too deeply. To do so would place a terrible onus on the commission. It would not want to close the door on families, but I do not think that they should be given more information. There are words of comfort that those who are part of the overall operation may think it helpful to offer, but any provision would have to be very narrow and restrictive. I cannot begin to speculate on what such a provision could be. We must be restrictive about the information that the commission can impart so that our provision does not conflict with other elements of the Bill.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

What the Minister has said so far has a good deal of substance, but will he address the point that I put to him earlier? If the commission had information about, for instance, the manner of death which might help the defence, would it have the right to communicate that information to the prosecution authorities and, through those authorities, to the accused and the lawyers of the accused? That is the argument that the Under-Secretary presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The commission is different from the RUC. The RUC would know that a court case was in progress, and that relevant information was involved. That is a duty placed on the RUC in this part of the criminal justice process. The knowledge base, as it were, would not necessarily reside with the commission. There might be awareness, in which case the commission would be covered by other legislation. It would then have to examine what it was entitled to do and what it was restricted in doing, and—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—would have to comply with all the law of the land, not just the legislation with which it was having to deal in that instance. I do not envisage circumstances in which the commission would necessarily know that a court case was in progress in the High Court, and the information would be relevant. The RUC would quickly become aware of the information, because it would be passed to it so that it could take the necessary action to recover the remains. Let us not discuss whether that would happen within minutes, within hours or within days, but it would happen very quickly. As I said earlier, we must bear in mind the possibility of leaks to the media. The commission must get the whole operation under way quickly, and the victims' families must be notified and advised as soon as possible. I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I will read what he said; I do not know whether he said it eight, nine or 10 times, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we would consider it carefully, and that we would return to it if that proved necessary. However, we do not believe that the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman force us to do so.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree that, because of the severe limitations, the families are likely to be very disappointed at how little information they receive? Does that not go completely contrary to the recent Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, where the police were severely criticised because they did not feed as much information as possible to the relatives?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I think that we are chewing over the matter somewhat. The hon. Gentleman is not having to deal with the families—please do not say that the families might be disappointed. They find themselves in traumatic circumstances. Some of them have been subjected to false hopes before. I have tried to explain the sensitive way in which the matter will be handled. I have much confidence in those who are acting in the interests of the Governments in this case to deal with all that. The professionalism of those who have to deal with the matter has stood the test of time and should not be subjected to the implied criticism that the families will be disappointed. I ask the hon. Gentleman please not to discourage the families any more than is necessary.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

It is a matter not of questioning anyone's competence, but of the law and of the legal requirement as to how much information the families can receive. That is the issue, not whether the people involved are professionals.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman has not tried to amend the legislation to increase the amount of information given. Perhaps that is because he accepts the arguments. We now have an argument for argument's sake. The clause specifically deals with the legalities, sensitivities and practicalities of the matter. I have set out how we are handling it, taking an inter-agency approach to try to ensure that we have worked out every possible eventuality, so that, from minute one, we are ready to act to help the families. I have every confidence that that will happen. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

POWERS OF ENTRY

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 43, at end insert— '(4) In this section "premises" includes any place.'. Clause 6 gives powers to resident magistrates and justices of the peace in Great Britain to issue warrants authorising the police to enter and search premises where there is reason to believe that the remains of a victim might be found. However, the Bill does not contain a definition of "premises". There is a risk that, without a definition, "premises" might be interpreted narrowly as covering only buildings and land with buildings of some type on it. It is possible, however, that searches for the remains of victims may have to take place in fields that, while forming part of a farm, are separate from the land on which the farm buildings are situated. Therefore, we want to ensure that the power in clause 6 to grant a warrant in respect of any "premises" is exercisable in respect of land on which there are no structures. The amendment therefore defines "premises" widely, so as to include any place.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Minister just clarify something? He is obviously right to want to enlarge the meaning of "premises". Would the word "place" include, for example, a ship and an agricultural hopper that is used for the storage of grain? Those are not buildings. They are not land. A ship is a structure. A hopper is a structure on land. Is the word "place" apt to include everything?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I am right to introduce the amendment. It is nice to get my score card marked up in that way. My understanding and the advice that I have is that the term—it is a legalistic term—does mean any place; we have broadened the definition to mean any place. Knowing lawyers, they may want to chew over all that further. For the sake of argument, they may try to define that further, but I think that we have covered everything. I hope that it does not become a matter of dispute because the measure is about trying to ensure that no inhibitions are placed on the recovery of the remains, wherever they may be.

FUNERAL EXPENSES

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the conflict with other legislation? Those who have disposed of and murdered these people have often claimed that it was because they had breached terrorist regulations. As I understand it, there is legislation in place that says that no compensation is payable to those who have been party to terrorism. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Is that one reason why he has tabled the new clause?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I support the new clauses in principle. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. Despite what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the alleged terrorist involvement of some of the victims, I would have thought that most of them were entirely innocent. I am thinking about two of the families that I met. I would like confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Minister that some help would be given to families on low incomes. I think that the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services would be amenable to applications for assistance, but would that be confined to those on the state pension or income support? The plea of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) should be given a sympathetic hearing. I think that access to compensation should be as straightforward as possible and there should not be the usual lengthy legal delays.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I do not think that every victim was involved in terrorism, but I am aware that claims have been made by the perpetrators that some of them were. I have been involved over the years in fighting on behalf of victims and I know what the law says and how some people have been victimised again by the law.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on his assiduous campaigning on behalf of the families. The last people whose claims I would believe about some of the victims' involvement in terrorism are members of the IRA. I know that one 20-year-old victim who was alleged to be involved had a mental age of about eight or 10, according to his doctors, so I would treat such claims with scepticism. Compensation should not be delayed and we should certainly consider helping victims' families, and especially those on low incomes, with funeral expenses.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The new clauses are interesting and I hope that the Government will take them on board and try to be helpful. Whether we like it or not, the Compensation Agency is bound by the law and has no discretion whatever. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) drew attention to the existing schemes. I am not sure when the first of the victims disappeared. We have no way of knowing the date of the death caused by the earliest murder—I do not like the term killing, because these were cold-blooded murders, and we should say so bluntly. Ministers will be aware that the compensation legislation was updated and greatly improved in 1978. I remember clearly that the relevant order was one of the few to be withdrawn and rewritten, not least because Mr. Enoch Powell was a prominent member of the party at the time and was deeply involved in the arguments on the subject. A scheme was developed that, despite the demerits that it is said to have, has many merits and has been very useful to many people over the years. My only significant reservation about the compensation scheme is that people get a lump sum. Sometimes it is a large sum that they are unable to handle and they dissipate it and are left with nothing. Members of the armed forces and the police get most of their compensation in the form of a pension scheme, which is index-linked and gives them a continuing income over a long period. That is a much better system and perhaps it should have been considered for others. Perhaps we should consider that principle right across the law on compensation for injuries. I am concerned about the time scale. If the individuals were killed at an early stage, it would be possible to argue that their fate became known only at a late stage, within the time frame that would allow a claim for compensation for murder to be made, but even in those favourable circumstances, that claim might have to be made under the pre-1978 legislation, which was not very good. A long time has elapsed, but some of those individuals might well have been the breadwinners for relatives who are now elderly. There is a real problem. We will still be left with a difficulty in regard to those whose bodies are not recovered. I do not know what on earth the Government can do about it if we start paying compensation in respect of those whose bodies are recovered, but have to refuse it in respect of those whose bodies are not. The remains may be completely irretrievable, as we have discussed. It appears that most—perhaps all—of the folk who were murdered by the IRA did not have any involvement in terrorism, but some of them may have had, and if that emerges, the relatives will be refused compensation. The same would apply if people had been involved in working for the security forces. Will any cognisance be taken of that? The security forces' records should surely contain that information, if nothing else. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has raised an interesting point, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have much sympathy with the idea of helping with funeral costs. Let me explain how we have handled the matter. I explained earlier about the inter-agency approach and the need to consider all the ways in which we can deal with the sensitivities and ensure maximum protection and support for the families. We have been actively considering how to provide support after the bodies are returned to the families for burial. I am in a difficulty, because I have an understanding that the matter will be resolved, but I am not in a position to say exactly how. We may be in a better position to say precisely how the issue has been resolved, to the satisfaction of everyone in the House and of the families, when the Bill is in another place. That deals specifically with the funeral and burial costs, and I am hopeful that the issue will be resolved shortly. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) showed a good knowledge of the compensation system, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They know the complexities of the legislation, although it has been refined and improved over the years, in 1988 and 1991, to give more flexibility to the payment of compensation in lump sums. Because it was likely that hon. Members would raise the issue, I sought authoritative legal advice, which was that the families of persons whose remains were recovered would not fall within the compensation scheme because of the three-year limit. I could go into further detail, but that would be turgid and I ask hon. Members to accept my assurances on the issue. Having said that, the legal advice is just one opinion and others could reach a different conclusion. However, I believe that the advice is robust. We must consider whether to put specific provision for compensation into the Bill, as new clause 2 seeks to do. However, that would affect the underlying principles of the compensation scheme, and we must remember that many people, going back some years, still feel dissatisfied with the compensation that they received. For that reason, we asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to undertake a detailed examination of the compensation scheme and its fitness for its purpose. The review should be ready soon. I had hoped that it would be available even sooner, but Sir Kenneth and those advising him have been given an extension of time because of the complexities of the scheme. However, I do not wish to raise false hopes that the review will produce answers to all the problems with the compensation scheme. At least we have shown a willingness to get to grips with the issue and examine ways to deal with it. I concluded that to introduce a one-off approach in the Bill could pre-empt Sir Kenneth's report and might not be the best way to deal with the issue. It could also be unfair to the large community of victims who already feel aggrieved. We have to be careful with such sensitivities. We are considering the issue of compensation, but new clause 2 would not be helpful. The families of "The Disappeared" victims have experienced unique circumstances, but the prime motive behind the Bill is the recovery of the remains so that the families can give their loved ones proper burials. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw his new clause.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. We have had a detailed examination of the Bill today. Only a few amendments were tabled, but we had a wide-ranging debate from which we have all learned something. We also had a useful debate on Second Reading. The Government's position is clear: we want to end the suffering of the families of "The Disappeared". We fully recognise that some right hon. and hon. Members, who are equally concerned about the families, have worries about the protections in the Bill. Some hon. Members are also concerned about the Bill in case no information comes forward and we are duped by those who have promised to provide information. However, we examined that point in considerable detail and discussed at whose door the blame would lie. Those hon. Members who are critical of the Bill see it as a risk not worth taking. In answering the points raised by the amendments that were tabled, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had to strike a delicate balance in reaching judgments on the totality of the Bill. We have tried to supply the facilities and the mechanisms to ensure that if any information is provided, we can act on it. The issue is complex and sets new precedents. On Second Reading, we accepted that—as with the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—the Bill does not sit comfortably alongside other aspects of the upholding of the normal rule of law. However, the circumstances are unique and we are taking a risk to try to alleviate the suffering of the families that has gone on for far too long. I also want to point out the Bill's limitations. In many ways it is wide ranging, but it has its limiting aspects. It does not provide an amnesty, or immunity from prosecution. Others may use those words, but that is not what the Bill is about. The protections in the Bill are specific and are triggered only when relevant information is given to the commission. The protections do not set a precedent, but the Bill provides the families with perhaps their only chance of burying their loved ones with dignity. The Government believe that the opportunity for the families to enjoy that basic human right is of immeasurable value when compared with accepting the measures set out in the Bill. There is a risk, of course, that those with the information will decide not to come forward. I cannot guarantee that they will come forward, as has been said repeatedly. However, once the mechanism for providing information is in place, the responsibility for choosing to ignore it will be theirs, and theirs alone. That would be a heavy responsibility. If they ignore the mechanism that the Bill puts in place, they will show that they have no humanity and no concern for the families or for the society that they purport to be helping to move to a peaceful environment. By passing the Bill this evening, the House has provided an opportunity to bring this painful episode to a close. I hope that the House of Lords will give it a passage as speedy and sympathetic—and a scrutiny as close—as it received in the Chamber today. That will help people to understand the measure, and its importance.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Conservative Members have never hidden the fact that we find it obnoxious and outrageous that there should ever be a need for a Bill such as this. It is a permanent blot on Irish history that grieving relatives have not been able to bury their dead properly because of the actions of terrorists. The fact that the IRA and other terrorist groups did not have the common humanity to tell the authorities—even anonymously—where the bodies were gives us an insight into their mindset. That information would have put to rest the minds of those grieving relatives. The balance is a difficult one to strike, but I agree with the Minister that the views and sensitivities of the victims' relatives are paramount, and more important than legislation which, in other circumstance, no hon. Member would want to be passed in this House. In addition, I echo and understand what the Minister said about his inability to guarantee that the terrorist organisations that committed these vile murders will come forward with the appropriate information to the commission. I deeply agree with him that they should: it will be yet another disgrace if they do not. I hope, for the sake of the victims' relatives—whose agonies none of us can begin to imagine—that at last their grief can come to an end. In conclusion, I hope that the paramilitaries and their political associates will not use the Bill as a bargaining ploy to be turned to their political advantage in talks, now or in the future. I do not think that the House or the people of Northern Ireland would ever forgive them if they did. I hope that the evidence and information are brought forward in a proper and correct way.

Roger Stott (Labour, Wigan)

First, I apologise to the House for my absence during most of the debate, but my party's Whips saw fit to put me on several Committees considering statutory instruments today, so I have been like a yo-yo, in and out of the Chamber in the fulfilment of my other functions. As the House will know, for a long time I was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. I spent much time there, and still do. While I was the Opposition spokesman on these matters, both terrorist organisations were involved in a full-scale war, with each other and with the people of Northern Ireland. I do not claim any monopoly on feeling deeply about the pain and suffering of families who had lost loved ones. My feelings were shared by many other Labour Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have expressed their genuine and specific points of view and concerns. From time to time, I recall two appalling atrocities in Northern Ireland. The first took place in a fish shop in the Shankill road, and the second at the Rising Sun bar at Graysteel. I visited both scenes—unsung, and without the presence of television cameras—to talk to the victims and their relatives. At Graysteel, my arrival was a moment of special poignancy. It was a cold November day, with the wind blowing over the Foyle. The bar was boarded up, and I wanted to pay my personal respects to the families who had lost loved ones in that appalling Hallowe'en night atrocity. A gentleman came around the corner, and asked if I was all right. When I said that I was fine, and that I had come to pay my respects, he invited me into the bar for a cup of tea. That gentleman owned the bar, and was present when the terrorists came in and shot their victims in cold blood. They murdered that man's 80-year-old father in front of him. There is a finality about the fate of the victims of atrocities such as that, in that their loved ones and families can give them a decent, Christian burial. The families will never forget, and their love for their relatives will continue for their rest of their lives, but there is a finality when burials are done properly. However, the people who are the subject of the Bill do not know where their loved ones lie. They have not known that for perhaps a quarter of a century. If the Bill gives us an opportunity to try to find the remains of people who suffered at the hands of terrorism, and to restore those remains to their families so that they can be given a decent, Christian burial, I have no problems in supporting it tonight.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), as in one sense he looked back to the past, in which he had some involvement. I began by being very conscious of what the inability to bury the dead means to people. I was a young lad during the war and we got word after Calais that that was the last place that my uncle was seen. My aunt, who had five children, lived through the war hoping that he would return, but my uncle's name is on the Dunkirk memorial. So I have no difficulty in understanding the concerns of the bereaved, nor their desire to bury their loved ones. From my experience in Northern Ireland, I also know what it means to bury a lovely young woman, who could be identified only by her wedding ring. She was one of the victims of the atrocity at the Le Mon hotel. I could continue, but tonight we are seeking to achieve something. The Government have been pushed into doing something that the terrorists, if they had been treading the path of peace, would have done long since. We should make it abundantly plain that the culprits at the bar of justice are the perpetrators of crimes. It is time that the whole community put more pressure on them to reveal the places where bodies have been buried. As an Ulster Scot—what our American cousins call Scotch-Irish—I was interested to hear the Minister dismiss the amount of money being spent on vain searches, because I thought that he looked after the bawbees and that the House was responsible for financial expenditure. We have had both terrorist war and economic war, and I am convinced that further attempts will be made to isolate and disturb the economy by giving false information. I hope that I am wrong, but, if false information is given, we must indict those who offer it. I have every sympathy with those who believe that they are entitled to compensation. In my experience, genuine victims—innocent people not involved in any way—have suffered most. I think of a family in my congregation who were put out of their home. The Housing Executive rehoused them, but the compensation that they received for the home that they had owned was just £10. I can think of other cases, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind not only compensation to help to bury people, as requested by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but compensation to people who live in houses that were built over where some bodies lie, if the information that we have received is correct. They should receive compensation for the new houses that they will need. We dare not add to the burdens of people who have genuinely sought to make some sort of life through these tragic years. I feel distaste that the High Court of Parliament has—again—been called on to set aside the normal rules of law and justice to satisfy those who claim that they want justice. That is my difficulty in supporting the Bill. However, because I know that the Whips will see the Bill through, I urge the House to double its efforts to help the victims of atrocities who have continued to grieve for their lost ones. We cannot allow the terrorists and their spokespeople to continue to run rings around us or to play ducks and drakes with us. There will be no understanding and peace if we do not win the battle for the bereaved.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill before the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked of the High Court of Parliament putting aside the rule of law. However, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, our paramount concern is with the families of the victims. The legitimacy of laws passed in this place relies on our having a paramount concern for ordinary individuals over the rules and reservations to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South has referred. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have sincere reservations, but I hope that they do not transform into outright opposition to the Bill's passage.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House throughout the debate and will therefore have heard at least one criticism by a Minister of people who did not vote against the Bill on an earlier occasion. We must be held accountable by the people whom we represent.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I know that the hon. Gentleman's reservations are sincere and profound. However, I hope, equally sincerely, that he and his hon. Friends will not vote against the Bill. I understand his reservations, and I have voiced some of my own. I have indeed been in the Chamber for almost every minute of the Bill's proceedings, but, following my meeting with two families in the House, all my reservations and doubts were dispelled by their pleas and their profound need to put to rest their loved ones with a Christian funeral service and burial. Finding the remains and performing the ritual of burying loved ones will not stop the grieving. Grief continues throughout life, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South and all of us know. However, as I know from the cases of people who have been lost at sea and whose bodies have been recovered months after they were drowned, the return of the loved one's body for Christian burial and internment in sanctified ground brings some peace of mind. The two ladies whom I met made that plea to me and to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who was also at the meeting. In responding positively to that plea, we will bring a touch of comfort and consolation to the families of victims. I have absolutely no trust in the terrorists or their spokespersons. I have always said that it is obscene that they call themselves freedom fighters. There cannot be freedom fighters in the mature parliamentary democracy in which we have the luck to live. I trust them not one iota, but if only two or three families are given the supreme consolation of being able to have a funeral service or requiem mass for their loved ones, the Bill will have achieved all that the Government set out to achieve. That is why I stand four-square with the Ministers on the passing of the Bill and am only too pleased to compliment the ministerial team on bringing forward a Bill that the Opposition have described as obnoxious, obscene, distasteful and disgusting. I do not see it in that way. I have reservations, but the object is to bring peace of mind to a small number of ordinary people. We cannot aim any higher than bringing such peace of mind to the people whom I have met. Again, I hope that the sincerely held reservations of other hon. Members do not transform themselves into opposition to the Bill.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I and my Unionist colleagues will, of course, oppose the Bill. I understand the feelings of those who have lost loved ones and whose relatives were brutally murdered by the IRA and buried in unknown graves. Over the years, there has been pressure on the organisations concerned to say where those people were buried. As a result of that pressure, the IRA claims to have set up an investigation team that has identified the whereabouts of nine bodies. It seems to me that public pressure has forced the IRA to go that far. We must remember that many of the victims belonged to the nationalist community and that the pressure comes from that community. If that pressure continues, the IRA will eventually have to say where the bodies are. This Bill again lets the IRA off the hook. The IRA will not announce where the bodies are because it wants to be told that, if any evidence is got from the bodies, its members will not be charged or have that evidence used against them in a court of law. They should not be allowed to get away with that because it is not right in a democratic country to amend the criminal law to let such people off the hook. The IRA has only to issue a statement giving the location of the bodies. The security forces and other authorities could then deal with the situation as they normally would. There is no necessity for a Bill. The Bill is ill-considered and not fully thought out. The relatives of those who have been murdered will be given less information in the event of the bodies being discovered than they would have got if the normal course of events took place. The Bill is therefore unnecessary. I also oppose the Bill because it sets up another all-Ireland implementation body. One member of the commission will be appointed by the United Kingdom and the second by the Republic of Ireland. Why is that necessary? It seems that there is a possibility that a body will be found in the Republic of Ireland. There is sufficient law in the Republic of Ireland, and sufficient communication between it and the United Kingdom, adequately to deal with that without setting up another cross-border implementation body. For those of us who are Unionists, this is another clear example of how the Government are not committed, as they should be, to the Union. In Northern Ireland, we have de facto joint authority. Almost any decision of importance must be agreed by Dublin, which has to have its nose in almost everything in Northern Ireland. For all those reasons, I believe that the Bill should not pass. My party will oppose Third Reading.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I used clear, sharp language on Monday night when I spoke on this Bill. I have heard nothing from that moment to this to cause me to alter my opinion. We are told about family grief. We have all had that as a result of deaths, some tragic, some natural. Those of us who represent Northern Ireland—none more than the last speaker, who represents the town of Omagh—have seen the consequences of the butchery of bombs, thugs and murderers at close quarters. I will not rehearse the tragedies that I have attended, but there were many. Many good men, decent women and children were killed, and no one ever brought to book for it. Because of the area in which I live and my close relations with the Roman Catholic community, I well understand the importance that they attach to the last rites and the necessity to bury the deceased in sanctified ground. I am also aware that the Bill is a consequence of a deal done with the IRA, which played on the grief of the victims' families. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said earlier that, when members of the IRA behaved in such and such a way, they had no humanity. People could not get inside their minds. However, the truth is that members of terrorist organisations do not exist in the normal democratic world; they exist in a world and in a mental state that they create and that is a consequence of the actions that they undertake. They believe themselves to be a legitimate army and that they are acting for a righteous cause. They believe that the end justifies the means. They do not adhere to those normal thought processes that most people in this House and in this country would apply to political situations. As far as members of those organisations are concerned, the majority has no right to be wrong and has no right to disagree with them. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) takes a keen interest in these matters. He knows Northern Ireland well. I point out to him and to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) that the Bill may be built on good intentions, but we know what they say about the road to hell—it is paved with them. The Bill falls firmly and squarely into that category, because the Government have allowed emotion to overrule logic. Hard cases make bad law, and that is so in this case. We are undermining the rule of law. We are giving in to the demands of murderous thugs who have used the common decency of citizens as a weapon, and who have used the normal democratic procedures of this House as a weapon against the House itself. This type of legislation is abhorrent to me, because we are allowing the IRA to call the tune, so that its members can exact for themselves the maximum benefit from this whole affair. We are allowing the IRA to call the tune with no danger to its members past or present. Avoiding injury or damage to, or capture of, its members is, of course, always the first priority for a terrorist organisation. The measure will also allow members of the IRA to believe that they can use ruthlessness on every occasion to obtain their way. If the IRA really wanted to tell people where those graves were, all that it need do is to go out at night and put a little stake on the graves, if they are in a field. It knows where the graves are. It would be easy to do that if the bodies were recoverable. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention to the fact that bodies could be under a house, or in the foundations of a house. How could one recover a body if that were the case? What would happen if the Government knocked the house down and there was no body? The whole matter is open to endless ramifications and to endless exhibitions of evil. Do not worry—those guys will dream it up and they will use it. If we pass this Bill, we shall do no good to justice. Indeed, we shall do great damage to the whole concept of justice and punishment for evils committed. We shall do no good to the democratic principles that we claim to uphold. Responsibility in this matter rests solely with the terrorist organisations; it rests solely with the IRA—not with us and not with the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, pressure would have worked in this instance. This case is not the same as the weapons issue. The IRA cannot give up its weapons; it is committed to holding them. Without weapons, the IRA is only another political party. Its members have no desire to be members of only another political party; they see themselves as part of something far greater, something that is beyond the concept of a political party. They see themselves as an army, controlling a political front organisation. They are part of a terrorist organisation controlling what is supposed to be a political organisation, but which is, in practice, only an arm of the terrorism that they have carried out and inflicted on us for three decades. To apply the thinking about the IRA giving up its weapons and to say that it will do so on exactly the same footing as the bodies is wrong. Its members cannot give up the weapons because they need them to impose their will; they do not need the bodies. The fact that the bodies are out there and the fact that the IRA is under pressure from its own community is damaging to the IRA. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone lives in an area that is similar to my own in some ways. He is aware that there are many folk around us with that turn of mind. We can speak with greater authority on their thinking processes than most Members of the House. I agree with my hon. Friend that, eventually, pressure from their own community, their own relations, church members and their nationalist political establishment will force members of the IRA to reveal, at some time, where the available bodies are buried. We have not put pressure on them; we have let them off the hook and we shall allow them, through the Bill, to claim that they are reacting to public pressure and that they are acting out of the goodness of their heart. However, they will have forced the British to let them off the hook and they will be believed within their own community. It is for that reason, among the other more gut reactions that I articulated during Second Reading, that I must vote against the Bill.