Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

House of Commons, 23 November 2005.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathies and condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on the sudden and shocking death of his brother, Endel. All our concerns are with him and with the family. I know that it must be a terrible strain for him to be in the Chamber today. It is a mark of the duty that he gives to this House, and always has done, on this important issue that he is here. Will he please accept our sympathies?

Because I realise that this is a controversial Bill, not least among victims in Northern Ireland, I shall be especially generous with interventions, but if the House will allow me I would prefer to resist them until I have had a chance to set the context for six or seven minutes. I shall then be happy to take as many as possible.

Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism have, over the generations, presented unique challenges to this House, to Governments of both parties, to the forces of law and order, and to society, particularly in Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. This House, and successive Governments of both parties, have been faced with difficult—often exceptional—problems to deal with. As a result, Ministers have had to adopt exceptional policies—and, in recent times, abnormal measures—to normalise Northern Ireland, so that today it enjoys more peace, stability and prosperity than ever.

I believe that the proposals in the Bill should be considered in that light. It sets out to deal with one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that the Government have faced in the long and complex process of taking Northern Ireland forward—that is, those terrorist suspects who are "on the run" outside the reach of our police or our courts.

Anyone who is, or has been, involved in trying to make political progress in Northern Ireland will know that having to take difficult decisions is no new experience. The former Prime Minister, John Major, knew that only too well when he took the decision to begin the engagement that would ultimately lead to the Good Friday agreement. That engagement with the IRA at that time was difficult—very difficult. It was unpalatable to many people, not least in this House, but it was right. And because it was right, it had the support of the then Labour Opposition. John Major and his colleagues, Lord Mayhew, Lord Brooke, and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) paved the way for the Good Friday agreement signed under our Government in 1998. Their role was as crucial as it was courageous. It was attacked and criticised just as our Government are today, but it had the support of the then Labour Opposition.

The agreement required all sides to compromise and meant taking immensely difficult decisions, not least that on the early release of prisoners, which was completed in 2000. Victims of the troubles were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers or former terrorists walking free, but it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement. However, it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of that early-release scheme.

It is important that the House recalls that this has not suddenly materialised. I remind the House that it was raised with the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in July 2001, but, rightly, was not dealt with then because not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity. It was raised again in April 2003 in the talks that led to the joint declaration between the British and Irish Governments in May 2003, and a statement for the record was published at that time. It was not dealt with then—again, rightly—because not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity.

It is not disputed that the IRA statement of 28 July, ending its violent campaign was of great, indeed historic, significance. That statement, with the subsequent decommissioning of the totality of its weaponry, verified by General de Chastelain's Decommissioning Commission and the two independent clergymen in September, has fundamentally changed the political landscape. So now is the appropriate time to deal with this difficult issue.

I know that many people will find the Bill very hard to bear. I understand that. If I had not known it before, I was left in no doubt when I attended with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the annual prison officers' memorial service at Millisle on Remembrance day and spoke to widows of prison officers murdered by the IRA.

I also spoke to a man who, as a seven-year-old, had seen his dad gunned down next to him more than 20 years ago. I could still feel the pain and misery of a family torn apart. The decent and dignified people to whom I spoke on Remembrance day, together with the thousands of victims of over three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland and beyond, have suffered grievously. That is why one of Mo Mowlam's first actions in 1997 was to ask Sir Ken Bloomfield to look at practical suggestions about how the Government could best recognise the suffering endured by the victims of violence and their families.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Is not the very least that those bruised and wounded people can expect the appearance in a court in person of the murderous thugs who perpetrated that atrocity?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand the powerful arguments that have been made about the matter. We are trying to strike a difficult balance—[Interruption.] The House will make its own judgment. It is difficult to strike the right balance. In the end, I decided that it was more important to get more people through the process than would otherwise be the case—

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

Why?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My right hon. Friend asks why. The decision was made to get closure not least for the victims—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. We must let the Secretary of State speak.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The point that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly made is the first matter that we should consider. It is probably the most sensitive issue in the Bill—I understand that. There is a question of balance and of whether we can get more people accounted for, brought to justice and convicted, if the evidence justifies that. The victims then have at least the satisfaction that the people who are now on the run outside UK jurisdiction or who might be uncovered by the historic inquiries will be brought to justice.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Secretary of State accept that the figures for deaths and for victims who lived but are scarred physically and mentally do not reflect the total number of deaths resulting from the Sinn Fein-IRA campaign of genocide, especially against the Protestant community? Does he accept that many deaths resulted from fathers and mothers with broken hearts and children who committed suicide because they could not face the reality of how their loved ones met their deaths at the hands of those murderous scum?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Indeed, I do. I fully agree with the hon. Lady. She knows better than me many of the victims and many who felt that life was not worth living after their loved ones were blown up and their lives destroyed. I greatly appreciate that point. As I shall make clear later, the Bill is aimed at bringing closure and an end to the murderous IRA campaign, which the 28 July statement achieved and was confirmed by General de Chastelain's statement on 26 September. The Bill is aimed at ensuring that the armed campaign is over and that there are no future victims of the IRA.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. Does he realise that the Bill will bring not closure but more anger and pain, because those people relied on the Government to allow them to see justice done to those who perpetrated the heinous crimes?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That will happen if people are convicted—[Interruption.] There may not be sufficient evidence to convict them, but if they are convicted, they will have a criminal record and have to give DNA and other intimate samples. There will at least be such accounting and closure for the victims.—[Interruption.] I understand—we are all in the same boat. [Hon. Members: "We are not."] We are—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. We are conducting a debate and the Secretary of State has a right to put the case before the House and to be heard. If there is so much shouting, I shall suspend the sitting. That is the danger—that no one else will get an opportunity to speak.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Although I fully appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, I also recognise the strong feelings—indeed, the anger—that the hon. Lady expresses. She knows from first-hand experience, as do many of her colleagues, the suffering that has gone on. All I would say to her—I stress that I do not make the point adversarially—is that, at the moment, the people whom the Bill covers are on the run, outside UK jurisdiction. There is the prospect—no more but no less—of bringing them into UK jurisdiction and putting them through a process of justice. If the tribunal convicts them, it will mean that they have a criminal record. That should be some comfort to the victims.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Secretary of State talks about bringing closure. Why does he insult the victims? It is bad enough to introduce the offensive and nauseating Bill, but to say that he is doing it for them—how insulting can the Secretary of State be? Has he not heard the victims say that they do not want this obnoxious Bill? If he had any decency, he would withdraw it immediately.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman is right—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw it."] He is right that the Bill is unquestionably hated by victims. I am sure that the RUC widows whom the Prime Minister and I will meet with the hon. Member for North Down this afternoon in Downing street will express the same point of view as the member of the Police Federation.

My point is that the Bill is about the closure of a dark, awful and murderous terrorist campaign by the IRA. That ought to be of benefit to the victims in the sense that, at the moment, nothing is being done about the people whom we are considering. The on-the-runs are beyond UK jurisdiction and that is no consolation to the victims.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The right hon. Gentleman says that he will meet some of the victims from the police this afternoon. I hope that he realises just how deep, dark and terrible the cut to the quick of their souls is. Does he appreciate that the Bill is not closure when 202 police officers were murdered and nothing has been done? They were put into what the Chief Constable described as the cold. They were cold cases. No action has been taken over the deaths of loved ones who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the Army. How does the Secretary of State believe that the Bill, which wipes the stone clear, will ever close what is in the hearts, minds and souls of those people?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Again, the right hon. Gentleman knows more individuals than me who have suffered so grievously. It is not a question of bringing closure to their anguish—that is not possible. I am not presuming to suggest that. I am arguing that this legislation is part of an international agreement with the Irish Republic announced in 2003, and part of a process of bringing to an end this awful murderous activity and terror by the IRA—I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs Robinson), who made clear her views about the IRA.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Before I take more interventions, which I will be happy to do, I want to inform the House that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and I have between us met representatives of the RUC George Cross Foundation, the RUC George Cross Widows Association, the RUC George Cross Parents Association, the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association. I also met many victims at Millisle on Remembrance day, as I explained earlier. I do not deny that the victims are very angry about this legislation, but the Government sometimes have to take a view on difficult decisions in order to make progress. That is what we have done.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

When the Secretary of State says that the Government are seeking closure, does he realise that the House and, probably, many of the victims are actually seeking justice? They are also well aware that the Government are sending out conflicting messages. If someone is a white, murderous Protestant or Catholic terrorist, they might get closure, but we have another message for black Muslim terrorists if they attack us.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I find that suggestion reprehensible. The problem that my right hon. Friend and others are refusing to face up to is that these people are not being brought to justice now—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] In the case of the on-the-runs, they are beyond UK jurisdiction—and have been for decades, in some cases. In the case of the historic inquiries, we are trying to use the new techniques available, including DNA, to track people down. This includes some of the cases involving murdered police officers rightly mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are trying to find out who was responsible for those historic cases, some of which go back almost 40 years, then arrest them and charge them. That will be pursued.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

Does the Secretary of State not recognise why people feel so strongly about this? My predecessor in my constituency bears daily the scars of IRA activity. He and his wife, who sits in a wheelchair, had to swallow very hard—as did I, and many others who had misgivings about the Good Friday agreement—as the Government moved again and again on these issues. But we swallowed. Does he not recognise that the difference now is that he is proposing to give people who ran away from their crime, and who have never been brought to book, the opportunity to avoid that completely? That goes far beyond anything that has happened before. Does he not recognise that people think that this is a grubby and reprehensible move by the Government, and that it is going one step too far?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The right hon. Gentleman made his point very powerfully, and I understand it. I would just make this point in return. He will recall the absolute outcry when the Conservative Government started talking to the IRA. Those early negotiations began a process— which this legislation is concluding—which led to the statement by the IRA on 28 July that no one here ever thought that it would make, namely, that it was giving up its armed, vicious, murderous terrorist campaign. The Bill is part of that process—[Interruption.] Well, it is, because it is part of the process agreed with the Irish Government in 2003—[Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I understand how strongly hon. Members feel about this matter, but the Minister must be allowed to respond to one intervention at a time.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The point is that the Bill is part of the process announced in 2003, and part of the process that has led to the historic experience for the people of Northern Ireland of the IRA ending their terrorist war. There will therefore be no Provisional IRA victims in the future, as there have so grievously been in the past.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that the Government had not moved earlier on this legislation because the IRA had not moved sufficiently on decommissioning. Of course, the Bill will benefit not only the IRA but the loyalist paramilitaries, who have made no moves on decommissioning whatever, so where is the logic there? The Secretary of State also suggests that the Bill somehow flows from the Good Friday agreement. Let me remind him that when the agreement was signed, yes, we sold it and promoted it on the basis that there would be prison releases within two years. We were told at the time that the key date for prison releases was after the date for the completion of decommissioning, but the Government then dropped that. We also assured the victims of crimes that had not been solved that their cases would still be pursued, even if it meant that the perpetrators would serve only two years in jail. That is what the victims were told by Ministers and by the parties, and that is why the victims are being betrayed by the Government today.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about loyalist paramilitaries. Whether they are on the run or uncovered by the historic investigations, they will of course find themselves the target of this legislation.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Has the Secretary of State received any indication from the IRA or its political representatives that they will return to violence if he does not take this further step beyond the agreement?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No. However, rightly or wrongly—the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is wrong, and I respect that; indeed, that view is being expressed very vehemently today, and I understand that—Her Majesty's Government entered into two agreements that have led to this Bill being introduced. The first was an international agreement with the Irish Government, and that cannot be lightly disregarded. Any responsible Government would have felt that that was the right thing to do to get to where we are—and we have got there. Secondly, as part of the negotiations that led to that process and then to the 28 July statement by the IRA, yes, this was one of the factors in those negotiations and an agreement was made there. Yes, this is following the 28 July statement, but it was part of the process that led to this historic change by the IRA, which I know was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Why is the Secretary of State attempting to hang his argument on the fact that the Bill affects on-the-runs? The majority of people who will benefit from it ran from no one. It will affect everyone who committed a terrorist crime before 10 April 1998, not just those who are on the run. Will he please explain why there are to be two different standards: one in Dáil Eireann and one here in Westminster? In Dáil Eireann, the killers of Garda McCabe are not to be brought within the scope of this legislation. Is a garda in the Republic of Ireland more valuable than an RUC man in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, of course not. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Irish Government are responsible for bringing to justice—or not, as the case may be—cases within their own jurisdiction. That case does not fall within UK jurisdiction. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Government have chosen to address this issue by pardoning people. We are not doing that. We are making sure that people are brought to justice. He is right to say that the Bill affects not only those on the run outside UK jurisdiction but, potentially, those who are the subject of the Chief Constable's historic inquiries investigation. That investigation will involve a difficult process, and if it uncovers those who have been responsible for awful atrocities such as that in Enniskillen, for example, they will be arrested, charged and brought to justice. They can choose how to proceed.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

I stood in a mortuary and looked into the face—or part of the face—of a young girl, my cousin aged 21 and engaged to be married that day. I then asked to see my other cousin, her brother, aged 16, blown up by the IRA. He was not on a table. There was not enough to put on a table. His earthly remains were lying on the floor in a sheet. I ask the Secretary of State to tell me this: am I to bury justice to appease the murderers, the IRA?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point very movingly, in a way that only he could, given the experience that he has described. I appreciate the emotion with which he made his point, and it is very compelling. Let me say in all good faith, however—and I accept his right to disagree with me vehemently—that one of the reasons why we were able to achieve an end to the IRA terror campaign and the IRA's statement of 28 July was the agreement that we made with the Irish Government to produce this legislation at the appropriate time.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This morning on Radio 4, the Secretary of State referred to what he described as political prisoners. We take great offence at that description of terrorists. If the term is to be applied to one set of terrorists, why should it not be applied to all of them?

Do not the IRA men who murdered Garda Jerry McCabe fall into that category? Are they different from the murderers of RUC officers in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State spoke of an international agreement that he had reached with the Irish Republic. Why do standards differ in the two jurisdictions?

The Secretary of State said earlier that he had met representatives of the Superintendents Association. Is he aware of the association's view that the Bill is so deeply flawed that it is potentially injurious to the overall administration of the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland and to public confidence therein? If that is the view of police superintendents in Northern Ireland, how can we be expected to support the Bill in the House?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That view was indeed expressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but not, on that occasion, to me.

I was not aware that I had used the term "political prisoners" on the radio. In fact, they are paramilitary prisoners. Let me correct the record for the benefit of the House. As for the way in which the Irish Government choose to treat this matter, we are not in favour of acting in that way in the United Kingdom, within our own jurisdiction. That is why, rather than engaging in a process of pardoning, we are introducing a process whereby although people will not have to serve in prison, if convicted they will be released on licence. If they breach the terms of the licence, they can be rearrested at any time.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the wise words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who has huge experience of these matters, and will he respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention to which he failed to respond earlier? This ill-thought-out and unpleasant legislation does not flow from the Belfast agreement, which many of us supported and for which most people in Northern Ireland voted in a referendum. It flows from deals done at Weston Park in 2001, and there is therefore no reason for it to be supported. It does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland; neither does it have the support of most of those in the House who backed the Belfast agreement.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to the extent that the Bill did not flow from the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement. He said earlier today that it was negotiated well before I started my job. [Interruption.] I am not trying to shift the responsibility; I am merely correcting the record. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the process began at Weston Park in 2001 and was concluded in the joint declaration by the two Governments in 2003.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Secretary of State spoke of people being released on licence. That will give little comfort to the people of Northern Ireland, who are aware of the despicable way in which he behaved over the imprisonment of one Sean Kelly for breaching his licence conditions. Sean Kelly was released within weeks because the IRA had demanded his release as part of the price for its statement. The licensing provisions therefore do not give the people of Northern Ireland any reassurance. Does the Secretary of State accept that his attempts to defend this obnoxious legislation do not inspire confidence in Members of Parliament or in people outside this place?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sean Kelly. That was a unique situation.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The next one will be as well.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That case was unique in that about six weeks after I had had Sean Kelly arrested—I was widely attacked for doing that, but it was the right thing to do—it was clear that the IRA had given up its terrorist campaign, as it was due to announce the next day, and that he had signed up to that. The situation was entirely different. I had Sean Kelly arrested because I was told by the Chief Constable that he was engaging in activity that constituted a breach of his licence.

The point I am making is that, under the Bill, anyone with a conviction who is released on licence and who breaches the terms of that licence can be hauled back. That cannot happen at present because such people are outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Secretary of State has referred seven times to two agreements—an agreement between the Irish and British Governments and an agreement between the British Government and Sinn Fein. Was it agreed with Sinn Fein that these criminals—these murderers—would never stand in a court of law? Was it agreed that they would never have to appear before any tribunal? Was that agreed by our Prime Minister?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

A whole process of negotiation led to this position, but the hon. Lady is right to say that the Bill originated in the negotiations of 2001 and 2003.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

As the Secretary of State has neither logic nor justice on his side, and as he is clearly deeply uncomfortable with the case that he is having to put to the House, why can he not accept the offer made to him on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which suggested that the Bill be referred for pre-legislative scrutiny? It cannot by any stretch of anyone's imagination be described as emergency legislation. Why can we not have time to take evidence and decide on the best way to deal with a problem that we acknowledge exists? Why does the Secretary of State persist with this tawdry measure, which is not worthy of him?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman did make that point to me when I gave evidence to his Committee a few weeks ago. Let me repeat what I said then. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an admirable process, initiated by this Government and by me and supported by me, but it cannot be applied to every Bill. This Bill is being introduced at this time as part of a sequence of events negotiated by both Governments some years ago. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, as do many others, but we are fulfilling—I am fulfilling—an agreement made with the Irish Government and others.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My right hon. Friend has already described the Bill as unpalatable, which I think is parliamentary language meaning that it is abhorrent to many people because of the repercussions for victims. Some Labour Members may not be in a position to understand that, but we entirely understand where the Opposition are coming from.

Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the balance to be achieved, the Bill may be unavoidable. However, to reassure people that there is at least some justice in it, will he keep an open mind on the issue of appearance in court, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? He may agree with me that people would have a greater sense of justice if they saw the individuals involved standing in the courts.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was also expressed powerfully by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. The Bill has a long way to go in order to complete its passage and we shall listen carefully to the arguments, but for reasons that I have explained the Bill provides that people will not have to appear in court. It was a difficult balance to strike, but it is the balance that we struck.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Secretary of State sprinkled the term "justice" throughout his speech. He is not prepared to make certain people accede to a request to appear before a court—I ignore all the other measures in the Bill that do not require the perpetrator of a crime to appear or co-operate in any way—yet he is prepared to give them a licence, which, as we have heard, he can throw out against police advice at some later date. Will he explain how that can be viewed as "justice", and, if it is justice, what comfort is there in it? The victim does not see the perpetrator and the perpetrators do not have to appear, so where is the comfort for the victim?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

If individuals who appear before the special court are convicted—the hon. Gentleman will understand that that will depend on the evidence—they will have a criminal record. [Interruption.] That is the point that I am making about a system of justice.

Let me also deal with the point about comfort. As I have said, I understand the anger of victims, but there is no comfort for them at all under present circumstances in which many of the people likely to come through the process are outside UK jurisdiction and evading justice. They will continue to evade justice, as far as anyone can see, for ever. Compared with that position—[Interruption.] They are evading justice, so the Bill represents an improvement, in my view, because those involved are brought through a proper process.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

Was the commitment for defendants not to have to appear in court given in writing to the IRA? If victims can be subpoenaed to appear in court, while the perpetrator can be sitting in a pub down the road waiting for the result, how can the court achieve a fair and just result? If the perpetrator cannot even be questioned, how can the court get to the bottom of the matter and achieve a result that is fair and just? Will the Secretary of State explain that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Some in absentia trials do occur, but I recognise the hon. Lady's point. Defendants might well choose to appear before the special court because they do not want the sentence that would result from the conviction. I repeat the point that I made and reconfirm that no assurance was given in writing to the IRA about this specific matter—[Interruption.] Of course no such written assurance was given.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I face an abundance of hon. Members wanting to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

A number of British soldiers have faced difficulties in regard to acts that they may have committed as a matter of duty under military law. Are some of those soldiers who have been convicted to be given pardons? It is outrageous that terrorists should get away with it, while soldiers who performed their duties under military law should be treated in that way.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me earlier. In framing the final details of the Bill, I faced a choice. The original draft did not apply to members of the security forces at all. I took the view that, leaving aside the question of whether the Bill is right or wrong in principle—clearly, the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues oppose it—if we were to proceed with legislation that we believed to be essential, it would be entirely wrong for members of the security forces in the course of their duty to find themselves—[Interruption.]

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

rose—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I would like to finish the point and give the hon. Member for Stone the courtesy of replying to his question.

Members of the security forces may have committed a criminal offence in the course of their duty: it has happened in a handful of cases and who knows what might be uncovered in the future? For them to find themselves serving a prison sentence when members of the IRA and loyalist terrorists could be walking free would, I thought, be entirely wrong. That is why I gave members of the security forces—including, in principle, serving soldiers now—the choice of availing themselves of the special procedure. If they found themselves charged—and only if they found themselves charged—with a crime uncovered as a result of historic inquiries, I felt that it would discriminate against them in comparison with the IRA or loyalist terrorists to deny them the opportunity of taking advantage of the provisions.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Secretary of State repeatedly used the word "closure", and subsequently made it clear that it has nothing to do with the victims, but apparently with violence. Will he explain how allowing those who are genuinely on the run abroad to come back to the UK to send a text message to the Secretary of State's wretched commissioner—that is virtually all that they have to do—will somehow make it safer for people who live perhaps in the very street to which those people return to live?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

If they come back, they will initially apply to the commissioner. If they return to Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK after the commissioner has issued a certificate—the contents of the certificate are determined not by the on-the-run suspect, but by the Police Service of Northern Ireland—they will be arrested. It is a matter for the police—it is not a question of simply texting something and appearing the next day in the Falls road—and there is a proper judicial process to go through.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

May I offer my personal condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), with whom I was at university for three years?

The Secretary of State is well aware of the scepticism among some elements of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland about the detailed implementation of aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Everyone knows that. However, the Bill goes beyond that agreement. How will confidence be improved among the Protestant community, most of whom will see this grubby little Bill for exactly what it is—a capitulation to Adams and McGuinness?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The Good Friday agreement—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), for whom I have a great deal of admiration, should realise that it is not a question of not caring. I really do not accept that. It is a matter of the Government taking responsibility to bring closure not to the victims' anguish—that can never be done—but to the IRA terrorist campaign, which we have now succeeded in doing under the 28 July agreement. The Good Friday agreement started that process, but it did not conclude it. One of the reasons for introducing the Bill is as part of an agreement that did conclude that process.

Let me say, in all fairness, to right hon. and hon. Members that this legislation is—as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, reminded me—extremely difficult. I understand that and I appreciate the strong feelings involved, the anguish of the victims and the anger felt among elected Members of Parliament of all parties in Northern Ireland. I appreciate all that, but to reach a position in which the IRA has ended its vicious war and terrorist campaign required us to introduce, among other things, the Bill before us. That is the reason for introducing the Bill—[Interruption.] I would also suggest, however much it might be denied, that any responsible Government—including a Conservative Government—who had reached the point of persuading, forcing and cajoling the IRA to give up its terrorist campaign would have faced exactly the same circumstances that I now face.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to get off with the pretence that Weston Park somehow concluded the business of the Good Friday agreement. The distinction is that the Good Friday agreement involved the agreement of all parties, whereas Weston Park involved that of only two. If the Government have made certain undertakings that are not in their power to deliver, they cannot now seek to get our imprimatur for those agreements.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

For the historical record, the hon. Gentleman must know that one of the reasons the Democratic Unionist party opposed the Good Friday agreement was that it did not bring closure to the IRA's terrorist campaign. We have now done that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can go back to the history and form their own judgments, but the agreement did not achieve that closure. The Bill is part of a commitment to make sure that we have delivered an end to that murderous and terrible campaign.

I have been taking interventions for quite a long time now. I need to make some progress, but first I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

The Secretary of State continues to say that the Bill is about the IRA, not the victims. Supposedly, the IRA has said that the war is over, so why are we introducing this Bill? Is my right hon. Friend saying that if Parliament turns down the shoddy little agreement that the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA have signed up to, the IRA will say that the war is on again?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I am not saying that. In fact, I expressly did not do so.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Why introduce the Bill then?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Why? It is because we made an agreement to do so. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Indeed, and the agreement was with the Irish Government.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, not for the moment, as I am trying to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. She and other hon. Members may say that we should not have made that agreement, but without it there would have been no guarantee of an historic end to the IRA's campaign. That is the point.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Blackmail!

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

It is not blackmail. To get to the end of a conflict as ancient and bitter as the one in Northern Ireland, which has caused—

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before and will do so again, but I think that I have the right at least to make my case in answer to the question.

If it had not been ended, that historic and murderous terrorist campaign would have created even more victims in the future. That is the point, and the Government have taken a tough and difficult decision.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Shameful!

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I started taking interventions some half an hour or more ago, at which time I was explaining that Mo Mowlam started the process by acknowledging that victims had suffered grievously during the Northern Ireland conflict. We all know that, in many respects, their cases had been appallingly neglected for decades, by all Governments. That is why she brought victims' issues to the heart of Government with the creation of the world's first Minister for victims. That is why the memorial fund was set up, and why we have recently provided it with a further £1.5 million. It is also why Her Majesty the Queen recognised the valour and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the George Cross, and today marks the fifth anniversary of that award. Without those officers' sacrifice, the dramatic improvements in the security situation evident today could not have come about.

It is also why I have appointed Northern Ireland's first victims' commissioner, Mrs. Bertha McDougall. She is the widow of an RUC officer who, in addition to other tasks, will prepare the ground for a victims and survivors forum.

I have met many victims of the troubles since taking up this job, some with most horrific stories of loss, pain and continued suffering. Quite properly, those stories have been brought to Members' attention by members of the Democratic Unionist party in particular. I would not presume for one second to tell any victim that they must draw a line under the past. I cannot, and would not, tell anyone who has suffered such a unique and personal loss that they must close a door on their pain and move on.

There are times, however, when a Government must take a view on the best way for society as a whole to move on, so as to get closure on the past, difficult as that may be. This is one such time.

The Government are trying, in all good faith, to bring about what the agreement itself described as the

"true memorial to the victims of violence"—

that is, a peaceful and just society in Northern Ireland in the future.

I recognise entirely the difficulty of this step. If I had not done so already, that difficulty has been made very clear in the debate. However, I believe that it is necessary, as do others who have been involved in the Northern Ireland peace process.

For example, I met the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, in Washington last week. He is well known to many hon. Members, and much respected for his unswerving stand against terrorism in Ireland. He has given me permission to inform the House of what he told me. He said that he regards this Bill as a painful but necessary step towards completing the translation from the years of pain and conflict. I agree exactly with those sentiments.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I need to make some progress, and then will give way again.

The Government believe that, if Northern Ireland is finally to move out of the conflict that has scarred the past four decades, we have to deal with this outstanding issue left unresolved by the 1998 agreement. That is what the Bill does.

Even before this Bill was introduced, there was much talk of "amnesty". This is no such thing. Under this Bill, individuals could be tried, sentenced and subject to recall to prison for their crimes if they broke the conditions imposed on them. That is not an amnesty.

The House should be under no illusion. The choice is stark: either many of these people continue to run free, never having to account for their crimes, or we put them through these special procedures to face the possibility of conviction.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will, in time.

The choice in many cases is between failing to bring the people involved to justice at all—effectively doing nothing about them—and these special procedures. That is the choice, and the Bill makes it clear that what is proposed is not an amnesty.

The Bill sets out a two-stage process. The first stage is an eligibility process, and the second a judicial process. Clause 1 sets out the offences to which the legislation will apply. They are offences committed before the Belfast agreement in connection with Northern Ireland, including offences committed in any part of the UK, escapes and offences committed by members of the security forces.

The Government were mindful—

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall finish this point, and then take an intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast, North. The Government were mindful of the need to ensure that members of the security forces and the police who may have committed acts of unlawful violence before the Good Friday agreement are not disadvantaged. It is not a question of treating them as equivalent to terrorists, but of making sure that they suffer no discrimination. It would be totally unjust and offensive if they were to face imprisonment while former terrorists did not.

Provided that they meet the criteria set out in the Bill, members and former members of the security forces and the police will be covered by this legislation. I do not expect more than a handful, if that, of such people to be affected, and remind the House that only a handful have been affected by prosecutions in the past.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Secretary of State will have noted the deep anger caused by putting members of the security forces and the police on an equivalent basis with terrorists. That is absolutely outrageous. On a number of occasions, he has said that the choice is between allowing people to go free and putting them through the process that he has outlined. However, is not the reality that there is no question of putting them through any process? The matter is entirely voluntary. If people are approached by the police with evidence, they are not required to confess their crime, or to do so within any particular time limit. The provision amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card that they can keep in their back pockets until such time as the police come looking for them. No choice is involved at all. Will the Secretary of State deal with that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

It is a matter of choice, and we can explore the question of time limits in greater detail as the Bill progresses through the House.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, as I am answering the hon. Member for Belfast, North.

The problem of time limits was considered when we drafted the Bill. The practical difficulty is determining how long such a limit should be. What is the sensible period? We want the process to be carried forward, but at the same time we must make sure that it does not go on for ever. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North knows, the Bill gives me powers to end the process at any time.

I want to make one other point in response to the hon. Gentleman. It is a stark choice in the sense that at present the people on the run, outside UK jurisdiction, have no incentive to come back and face justice, and get a criminal record, which many of them would do.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way to me a third time. Does he understand that the people of Northern Ireland cannot trust the word of this Government? Our Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland in 1998 and promised that there would be no terrorists in government and no prisoners released unless and until decommissioning was resolved. In the last election, the Democratic Unionist party received more than 231,000 votes, which indicates that the Protestant community in Northern Ireland oppose the Belfast agreement. It is about time that the Government realised that they do not have the Belfast agreement to follow.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I acknowledged that the hon. Lady's party, for reasons stated at the time and repeated since, opposed the Good Friday agreement.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Secretary of State referred to the ongoing historic inquiries, and I presume that he includes the Saville inquiry. He will recall that the greatest loss of life suffered in Northern Ireland was experienced by the Parachute Regiment at Narrowater Castle, near Warrenpoint. No one has ever been brought to justice for the murders of those soldiers. Indeed, the perpetrators of that atrocity can avail themselves of the facility that the Secretary of State proposes. However, the absurd position is that if members of the Parachute Regiment are charged as a result of the Saville inquiry, they can clear their names only by going through the full judicial process, because one has to plead guilty to benefit from this system. They will face the full rigour of the law if they want to clear their names, but those who murdered the paratroopers at Narrowater will walk away scot-free.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry, but that is factually incorrect. First, if the individuals responsible for Warrenpoint are identified, arrested and prosecuted as a result of the Chief Constable's historic inquiries investigation, it is only the first stage. They cannot opt to enter this process until they have been arrested and charged and, in that sense, brought to justice—[Interruption.] I have dealt with that point. It is true that they can then elect to go through this special procedure, following which they may be convicted and get a criminal record. That is one set of circumstances.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has sought clarification because he is not correct about the possible position for former paratroopers. I do not know whether any will be affected by the Bill. At the moment, before the Bill is enacted, if an individual were identified by the Saville inquiry, he would face a normal criminal trial, if the police arrested and prosecuted him, and a sentence would follow conviction. When the Bill is in place, the person could choose—the Government would not force him and, indeed, the Bill will not force anyone to do anything—to go through the special court process and could end up, yes, with a conviction, but able to take advantage of the licence system and walk away. In that sense, the person would be advantaged by the legislation or, at least, not disadvantaged compared with former terrorists.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the tribunal system would give the former members of the Parachute Regiment who may face charges under the Saville inquiry the opportunity to clear their names? Will they receive proper justice under this system?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Indeed it will. They could plead not guilty. As a result of the Saville inquiry, if any soldiers are charged with a serious offence—even murder—they could plead not guilty and choose to go through the special process—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has raised an important point and I am glad that he seeks clarification of it from me. The soldiers could choose to take advantage of what for them could be a beneficial process—[Interruption.] It could be beneficial for them, because otherwise they would go through the normal court process and possibly be convicted and serve a sentence. It would be a beneficial process. They could still plead not guilty and the evidence would have to stack up before they could be convicted. It is the same Crown court-type procedure in the special courts as the alternative route.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, because the specific example of Bloody Sunday that he is using occurred in my constituency. Obviously, much of the Saville inquiry also took place in Derry. Will he further confirm that if paratroopers who might face charges as a result of the Saville inquiry elect to use this process, they would not have to appear in court at any stage? On the basis of the controls and limits that the Secretary of State will have power to put on the information disclosed, their names might never have to be heard by anyone and other pieces of information about their case could be suppressed. Will the Secretary of State clarify that provision?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I know the sensitivity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the city of Derry about this matter—[Hon. Members: "Londonderry."] Well, it depends on which side of the community one sits. I call it both in order to take matters forward—[Interruption.] To clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I say to him that he is right. The paratroopers who faced that situation, if any, would be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else going through the special tribunal court process.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

As I understand it, the Secretary of State is saying that if a former serving soldier were charged and chose to try and resist acknowledging guilt, and opted to go through the whole judicial process, he might clear his name, but he could be found guilty. If he were found guilty, could he then use the new procedure to walk free? If he could not, he would in a sense have been blackmailed to accept a false rap and plead guilty in advance so that he could use the new procedure.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I thought that I had explained the position very clearly, but I am happy to clarify it again for the hon. Gentleman, because it is an important matter for him and, I suspect, for the whole House. It is certainly very important to me. The paratrooper, or any other member of the armed forces, would face a choice. He could plead not guilty or guilty to the charge. Let us say that the Saville inquiry identifies an individual, who is then the subject of investigation by the police, arrested, charged and faces prosecution. He can then choose. Normally, he would go through the existing criminal justice system—the normal Crown court route. He could plead his innocence throughout, but if convicted he could, in principle, serve a very long prison sentence. I took a deliberate decision—I need not have done so—to avail a soldier in that position of the option of the special process, which could leave him with a conviction, but still pleading his innocence, and with release on licence, so that he did not have to serve the sentence.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

I congratulate the Secretary of State on giving way so much. I know that the whole House appreciates it. In answer to his most recent example, the big difference, which he does not seem to have spotted, is that no soldiers asked to go to Northern Ireland. They went because their Government sent them to hold the peace. Therefore, it is reprehensible to treat them on the same basis as terrorists who ran from their crimes.

The Secretary of State touched on an important issue. After all the interventions he has taken, he seems to have slid into a position where it is almost clear that he is saying that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and never was officially. However, is it now not clear that at the time of the Good Friday agreement and afterwards, through third parties—possibly the Irish Government—the Government gave a nod and a wink to Sinn Fein-IRA that when the end point of the agreement process was reached, they would get this new system if they kept their noses clean? The Government never said that at the time of the Good Friday agreement because they knew that it would never have been accepted in Northern Ireland or backed by all parties.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

It is not a question of evading issues at the time of the Good Friday agreement. This is an unresolved issue, which the right hon. Gentleman, too, would face if he were serving as a member of a Conservative Cabinet at this time, and it will always remain an unresolved issue. He is absolutely right: it was not resolved under the Good Friday agreement. I said that freely earlier on. Where the right hon. Gentleman is not right, however, is that it was not smuggled in at the last minute. It was a matter of public knowledge, published in May 2003; the House was informed about it and all the detail was there.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I want to respond to the first point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the legislation, but is he advocating that it would be right for a member of the security forces perhaps to serve a long prison sentence while a former terrorist walked free? Is he saying that that is what should happen?

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

What I am saying to the Secretary of State is clear: the legislation is wrong for everybody. He should have looked back at what the Saville inquiry is doing and recognised that it is attacking the very people who went to Northern Ireland at the behest of the Government but are now being treated as criminals. That, as well as the legislation, is wrong.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand and respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the legislation and that he will vote against it. Of course he will. But I find it absolutely extraordinary, particularly as he is a former Defence spokesman for the Conservative party, that he could put members of our armed forces—perhaps serving members—in a position where they were discriminated against compared with former terrorists—[Interruption.]

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I have been on my feet for an hour and 10 minutes—[Hon. Members: "Give way."] I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

The Secretary of State has accused me of something that is reprehensible. As someone who actually served in Northern Ireland and is proud to have done so, I take no lessons from him and nor does my party. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed process and I do not think it right for the Secretary of State to use British soldiers as a shield in defence of what is wrong. That is what is wrong with the legislation.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I acknowledge the role that the right hon. Gentleman played and the House will of course want to pay tribute to that. I am not using the measure as a shield for anything. If the legislation is passed by Parliament, as I hope it will be, and as the Government believe, as part of their commitments it should be, and notwithstanding the fact that a large number of Members will vote against it, I think it would be wrong for members of the security forces, many of whom, like the right hon. Gentleman, served with great valour in the most horrific circumstances in Northern Ireland, who were ever faced with a situation in which they were a bad apple—and it has never been suggested that more than a handful might be—to have to serve a full prison sentence while former terrorists walked free.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I need to make some more progress. There are strong feelings about the Bill and I have been happy to take interventions, but I need to set out the case for the measure.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I am sorry.

Clauses 2 to 6 provide for an eligibility process, conducted by a certification commissioner. Provisions governing the commissioner are set out in schedule 1. The eligibility procedure will ensure that access to the scheme will be restricted to specific categories of suspect. They include those colloquially known as on-the-runs—OTRs. It also includes people charged with relevant offences during the lifetime of the scheme; for instance, people whose crimes are uncovered as a result of the police historic inquiries work.

The Bill sets out criteria which must be met, and must continue to be met, for the person to hold a certificate. The criteria refer to the person's connection to terrorism and criminality. The certificate will apply only to offences connected to the person by the police and the offences will be listed on the certificate. Certificates can be cancelled if their terms are broken. The certification commissioner will also have a duty to keep victims informed—this is important—as far as possible with the progress of cases. We believe that it is crucial to ensure that the needs of victims are not neglected in the scheme.

Clauses 7 to 11 set out the effects of the certificate. The certificate will grant the person exemptions from certain powers, including arrest, detention, questioning and remand. The exemptions apply only to the offences listed on the certificate, as determined by the police.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way, but he has heard the unanimity of view on both sides of the House, so will he give an undertaking to accept an amendment, which I will table, so that people appear in open court before a judge—not a retired one—to answer for their crimes? Will he accept such an amendment?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the House. That is why I have accepted interventions. I cannot anticipate what amendments will be tabled. We shall have to see them, and they will be debated in the normal way.

Any prosecution for a certified offence will take place in a special tribunal set up under the legislation. Detailed provisions are set out in schedule 2. The special tribunal will have all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction of the Crown court sitting without a jury. The defendant will not have to attend the trial, but otherwise the trial will follow traditional procedures.

In the event of a conviction, the person will receive a licence, subject to certain conditions.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I need to make progress.

A person given a life sentence will not be granted a licence if he is deemed to be a danger to the public. No licence can be granted until the person has provided the necessary fingerprints and non-intimate samples. If licence conditions are broken, the licence can be suspended. The person must then begin to serve their sentence in prison. The case is then passed to the appeals commissioners, who will take the decision to confirm or revoke the licence. If the licence is revoked, the person will remain in prison to serve his or her sentence.

Clauses 12 to 17 set out the routes of appeal for decisions made in the scheme. Challenges at the certification stage will go to specially appointed appeals commissioners. The terms of those commissioners and the procedure they will follow are set out in schedules 3 and 4.

Conviction and sentence before the special tribunal may be appealed before a special appeals tribunal, also established by the legislation. The special appeals tribunal will attract to itself all the powers of the Court of Appeal, and detailed provision is set out in schedule 5.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The United Kingdom has obligations under several human rights conventions. Under the United Nations convention against torture, the Government have a responsibility to prosecute those responsible for torture. Will the Secretary of State have the Bill amended to ensure that that obligation is in it?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The issue has been raised with us and we are looking into it, but as I said, the Bill is in full compliance with human rights legislation.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I assume that the Secretary of State occasionally speaks and listens to the Home Secretary—at least I hope he does. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor invariably tell the House and another place that we must make every effort to instil public confidence in the criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how the dreadful procedure set out in the Bill can in any way enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The name of the Home Secretary appears on the Bill as one of its sponsors, along with my name.

Clause 18 establishes the special prosecutor, who will bring prosecutions in the special tribunal. The special prosecutor will also have responsibility for liaising with victims to ensure that they are properly informed of the progress of cases that reach that stage. Further details are in schedule 6.

Clauses 19 to 27 contain ancillary provisions, which include protections for information provided to the certification commissioner and the power to suspend and repeal provisions of the scheme. Of course, I would prefer it if the normal processes of the criminal law could be applied in all those cases, but those who are outside Northern Ireland will not return on that basis.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Secretary of State will appreciate that he is proposing a new but parallel system, which he may describe as justice, for the people who apply for those certificates. I do not understand why, if the system is as good, they will not be taken before the normal courts, allowed to appeal to the normal Court of Appeal and prosecuted by the normal prosecutors. Why is that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I can explain very simply why. I do not want this process to jam up the existing courts. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that it would be right—and I do not think that the citizens of Northern Ireland think that it would be right—to obstruct the timing and momentum of the normal criminal proceedings that are going through our Crown courts, possibly including cases following the Good Friday agreement. That is why we set up the parallel procedure.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

rose—

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

rose—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry; I need to make some progress.

Those who may be suspected in the future may well abscond if criminal proceedings were initiated against them, leaving both groups beyond the reach of the criminal process altogether and victims haunted by the fact that they will never be confronted by the justice process for their crimes. In this context, the work of the historical inquiries team—the cold case review—is important. There will be those who say that they will be denied justice if someone charged and convicted does not serve a prison sentence—I understand that—but I hope that the House takes note of the fact that there will be others who will want to find out as much as possible about what happened to their loved ones, and if the review of cases helps to bring them nearer to closure, it is worth doing.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the special procedure, the defendant does not have to turn up, that it may well be that their details will not be made known to anyone—the anonymity provisions can apply—and that they will be able to get to legal aid as well? So the defendant will not have to turn up and will be anonymous, but can he confirm whether they can get legal aid to fight those cases?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

If people are eligible for legal aid, of course, they will get legal aid, but they must be eligible for it. I have already explained the processes involved in the procedure—[Interruption.] I repeat that there is no prospect at all of bringing on-the-runs to justice if we do not proceed with the process.

In an intervention in the recent debate on the renewal of aspects of the prevention of terrorism legislation, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said:

"Either things are not good in Northern Ireland or else things are good in Northern Ireland"—[Official Report, 31 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 630.]

He suggests that it is a case of paradise or perdition. I do not agree with that stark either/or analysis. Things are immensely better in Northern Ireland than they were—nobody contests that—but, of course, that is not good enough.

The reality is that we are coming to the end of a long period of transition in Northern Ireland that began with the ceasefires of the early 1990s and the negotiations conducted, including with the IRA, by the then Conservative Government. However, we will only get to that end once all the outstanding issues are resolved: the issue that we are discussing today; Sinn Fein's unequivocal endorsement and support for policing arrangements; an end to all paramilitary activity and criminality, by all paramilitary groups—the UDA, UVF, LVF and the dissident republicans included. Then stable and inclusive institutions can be restored and the promise of the agreement can be realised.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Secretary of State has today placed in the Library a written statement confirming that he has changed the nature of the inquiry into the murder of Billy Wright in the Maze prison. Can he give an absolute assurance to the House that, as a result of the change in the nature of that inquiry, no information will be withheld from the inquiry by his office and that those involved will not seek to shelter behind the provision of the new legislation to prevent information and evidence from being provided to the inquiry to enable it to reach a conclusion?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and seeking clarification. He brought Billy Wright's father, David Wright, with him to see me, and I was able to hear Mr. Wright's views that he did not want the inquiry converted as Lord MacLean, the presiding judge, has requested of me. I looked into this in great detail and sought to take careful account of all the relevant factors and to arrive at a reasoned decision. David Wright has suffered grievously—he is another victim—and I was very impressed with the strength of his conviction and his demeanour at that meeting.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Wright will be reassured by the fact that Lord MacLean and I strongly share their wish that the full facts in relation to the murder of Billy Wright should be established. It is Lord MacLean's belief that the conversion is necessary for the inquiry to be as thorough and effective as possible. He will do all that he can to ensure that the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. David Wright and the family about the conduct of the inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 are addressed.

I, too, am only interested in finding out the truth about what happened. I can promise the hon. Gentleman and, through him, David Wright that the Government will fully co-operate with the inquiry. We will not seek to limit its scope or to withhold material from it. I can also assure him that I have no present intention to issue a restriction notice with regard to the Billy Wright inquiry.

The decision to propose the Bill was not taken lightly. I therefore commend it to the House not with a spring in my step, but because I firmly believe that it is an absolutely essential part of the process of Northern Ireland not being trapped in a past of horror and violence, but looking to a future where there are no victims any more, where every child has the best start and every citizen can walk out from under the shadow of fear, intimidation and brutality.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill because it creates an amnesty for terrorist fugitives from justice; because it allows such fugitives to return to Northern Ireland without ever being arrested or questioned by the police about their alleged offences; because it proposes a quasi-judicial process in which those accused of perpetrating terrorist offences will never have to appear before a court or spend any time in custody; because it allows an indefinite period of time for terrorists to take advantage of this procedure; because it treats members of the Armed Forces and the police on a par with terrorists; because it fails to contain an obligation on terrorist organisations to allow the safe return to Northern Ireland of those they have exiled; and because it places the rights of those suspected of serious offences before those of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom."

I join the Secretary of State in offering heartfelt condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). I am sure he will know that he has many friends. He is held in great affection on both sides of the House, and the thoughts and prayers of all hon. Members will be with him today.

The Secretary of State presented his case in a measured fashion. It seems to me that his case rests on two propositions. First, we have a choice between, as he put it, allowing criminals to run free, or putting them through the special procedures created by the Bill. One has only to ponder briefly and imagine any Minister of any Government of any possible political persuasion applying that argument to any other category of criminal to see just how flimsy that ground is. The second argument that the Secretary of State put forward is that the measure, however unpalatable, is needed for Northern Ireland to achieve closure and to put a dark and violent past behind it.

I am happy to pay tribute to the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessors in office and the Prime Minister have made over the years to bring peace and normality to the suffering people of Northern Ireland, but I have to say that I do not believe that the Bill will attain the objective that he wants. The Bill is wrong. It is unjust, it undermines the rule of law and it betrays utterly the interests of the victims of terrorism. The House is being invited to offer—however much we dress it up—what amounts to an amnesty or a pardon to men and women who include those responsible for some of the worst atrocities of a 30-year campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and beyond.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

May I take the hon. Gentleman up on that point? I welcome the basis on which he is making his speech, except for that point. A pardon or an amnesty would mean that people would just be given a bit of paper and would never have to account for their crimes or terrorist atrocities. These people could face conviction and have a criminal record, and could be hauled in if they misbehaved in the future. That cannot, by any definition, be a pardon or an amnesty.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

As I hope to explain later in my speech, one of the problems that I have with the Bill is the fact that it sets aside due process and the normal rule of law. It shuts out the courts from consideration of these cases. It will certainly make it much more difficult than it should be to hold these criminals to account in public for what they have done.

The Bill offers that amnesty to people who have never owned up for what they did, who have never had to stand in court to hear evidence against them and who, in most cases, have never served one day in prison for their crimes. It is important for every Member of the House—irrespective of how we intend to vote tonight—to reflect carefully on, and have in their minds, the sort of crimes about which we are talking. It is sometimes too easy for those of us who represent constituencies in Great Britain to think that the experience of people in Northern Ireland is different because it is no longer in the headlines and is thus in the past and forgotten. Let me give just three examples of cases, the perpetrators of which might stand to benefit from the scheme embodied in the Bill.

In 1976, in Kingsmill, County Armagh, a minibus carrying 10 textile workers home from their local factory was stopped at gunpoint. The men were ordered out and they were shot down in the road with at least four different automatic weapons.

In 1987, in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, a bomb exploded on Remembrance Sunday. It was timed for just before 11 am. Eleven people died and 63 were injured. No warning whatever was given.

In 1992, in Teebane, County Tyrone, an IRA land mine killed eight building workers who were travelling in a minibus on their way home. It maimed six others. Just seconds before the explosion, a bus filled with schoolgirls had passed over the same spot.

The House needs to understand that the sense of horror felt in Northern Ireland was just as deep after those outrages, and the grief of widows and children was just as heartfelt, as anything that we experienced here in London in July, or that we saw, tragically, in Bradford last weekend. The Bill is not a mere tidying-up exercise, or a minor piece of unfinished business. As hon. Members' interventions have already demonstrated and as, to be fair, the Secretary of State has publicly acknowledged, it gives rise to real passion, anger and heartache.

I want to address the various arguments that have been used to justify the Bill, but first let me make it clear that I draw no comfort from the Government's assurance that the Bill could apply to soldiers and police officers as much as to terrorists. It is a form of logic that amounts to casuistry to defend a measure that has been contrived to deliver a deal between the Government and IRA-Sinn Fein on the grounds that the special arrangements will also be opened up to soldiers and police officers. Like my hon. Friends—I feel somewhat humble speaking in the presence of those who have served in the armed forces on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland to defend them against terrorism—I find it morally repugnant that we are being asked to approve a Bill that treats agents of the Crown on a par with brutal and ruthless terrorists.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and sympathise with it in many respects. However, will he table an amendment to the Bill to remove—[Interruption.] No, I want the hon. Gentleman to answer this specific question: will he try to ensure that if members of the security forces are charged—and only if they are charged—they will not be able to avail themselves of the special court procedure? Is that his party's policy?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I put to the Secretary of State what members of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland said to me when I met them last week; I am sure that they have said the same thing to him. They said that they believed that the Bill was unjustified in principle, and that if there were compelling evidence against an individual police officer—whether that derived from the Stevens inquiry or another source—that police officer should expect to face charges and appear in open court like anyone else. I and my predecessors with my responsibilities have argued consistently for that throughout all the debates about collusion and related inquiries.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand both that point and the hon. Gentleman's point of principle in objecting to the Bill. He will vote against the Bill. However, is he saying that if Parliament passes the Bill—I respect the fact that it will be vigorously opposed at every stage, including by him—he will have wanted his party to have moved an amendment to remove the option for members of the security forces to go through the procedure?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

As the Secretary of State said himself, we will deal with amendments in Committee and on Report. I agree with the view expressed to me forcefully by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

As this shameful Bill is a concession to the IRA, as the Saville inquiry has been a concession to the IRA and as the start-up of investigations into past cases involving soldiers will be a concession to the IRA, does my hon. Friend think it is likely that the operations in Gibraltar and Loughgall, for example, will be investigated with the backing of the Government? That might lead to charges against, and perhaps the conviction of, serving officers, some of whom will be senior officers, as a concession to the IRA. If those people received criminal convictions, they would have to give up their jobs.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend speaks with his experience of service in the Army. It is obviously for the Government—whether in the person of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Defence—to explain what they plan to do about investigations into allegations against members or former members of the armed forces. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the worry expressed in July in the House of Lords by the most recently serving Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce. He described the armed forces as "under legal siege", and said that the legal challenges and investigations already under way were

"generating real risk-averseness, clouding good military judgment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Is not the answer to the logical knots in which the Secretary of State ties himself that, instead of putting soldiers into the special tribunal, we put terrorists into the courts? If there is to be a process involving guilty or not guilty pleas, evidence being heard and thereafter a conviction to be reached, that should be done in a court.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I agree completely.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

May I compliment my hon. Friend on making a cogent argument? I put it to him, and through him to the Secretary of State, that seeing how reprehensible the Bill is, the Secretary of State has sought to suck the British forces into it as a shield against criticism. On the question of an amendment, the best amendment of all is to strike the legislation down.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

That is what I hope Parliament will do.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

How much has the inquiry into Bloody Sunday cost? What will be the consequences to that inquiry if the Bill makes it into law?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The trouble with estimating the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry is that the figure goes up with each written answer, one of which was received by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell).

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It is £200 million.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I think that that is the most recent figure. We have to ask serious questions about the value of the exercise.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Let us return to the options facing a soldier who took part in an operation such as Loughall, which, I believe, had ministerial prior approval, and who finds himself accused. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said, he has the option of, in a sense, accepting his guilt, even if he thinks he is innocent, and going through the special procedure, or fighting the case through the courts, where he may be found guilty. Let us suppose that he thinks he is innocent, but does not want to take the risk of being found guilty and serving a sentence. The temptation for him to take the new procedure and accept a guilt that he does not feel will be overwhelming. The historical record will be distorted, because he will have pleaded guilty to something for which no guilty plea was required.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) explained, the problem is that we have a piece of legislation that has been drafted for one purpose, but to which has been added the possible cases of servicemen and police officers. That is the wrong way to proceed.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to turn to—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As the issue has been raised, let me again say that a serving or retired soldier—whatever member of the security forces he may be—is not forced to plead guilty at all. He can plead his innocence all the way through the process, through the special court or through the normal court procedure—he can choose either. The advantage of him choosing the special court procedure is that he can take advantage of not having to serve a prison sentence if he is found guilty. He may be acquitted, in which case there would be no stain on his character, just as there would not be following such a case in a normal Crown court.

For the record, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is one of those who criticises this very provision. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) might want to ask himself why that is.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The House will have heard the Secretary of State's comments.

One argument that the Government have adduced in support of the Bill is that the provisions are part of, or a natural development from, the process, central to which has been the 1998 Belfast agreement. Indeed, in a number of interviews the Secretary of State explicitly linked the Bill to the precedent of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to justify the measure. However, as other hon. Members said, the measure appears nowhere in the 1998 agreement. It is a product of a bilateral side deal between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA in 2001. That distinction is important because when it came to the legislation on early release, the Government relied heavily on what was said in the agreement and on the public endorsement of the agreement in the subsequent referendum.

On Second Reading of the 1998 Act, Mo Mowlam said:

"All we are doing is implementing the agreement, which gained the support of 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland in the vote."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1086.]

Ironically, in view of the Secretary of State's argument about unresolved matters and additional things that needed to be done after the 1998 agreement, the Government rejected amendments to the 1998 Act which, in their opinion, were not consistent with the agreement that they had negotiated. Dr. Mowlam also said:

"If we cherry-picked and wrote extra provisions into the Bill that were not in the agreement, we would be departing from that agreement and would lose all moral authority to hold others fully to the commitments that they have made."—[Official Report, 18 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 561.]

That is exactly what the Government are trying to do in this Bill.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

My hon. Friend is making great progress, but will he take up this one point with the Secretary of State? The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase that these were "unresolved issues." If they were not included in the Good Friday agreement as signed, agreed and voted for, they were resolved not to be on the table and were therefore settled. Is not that the point? They were settled issues, not unresolved issues.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My right hon. Friend is correct. When the Secretary of State says that without the deal at Weston Park, we could not have seen an end to the IRA campaign of terror, the House has to ask how that squares when set against the undertaking by Sinn Fein in the 1998 agreement that henceforward it would rely exclusively on democratic and peaceful means to attain its objectives. The logic of the Secretary of State's argument is that we have to do this because we could not trust Sinn Fein to stick to the word solemnly given in the 1998 agreement, now bound into an international treaty.

The proposals have never been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. They are opposed not just by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, but by the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. Only two parties support the Bill: Labour and Sinn Fein. I would have thought that that fact alone might have caused Ministers to pause before pursuing the route that they appear to have chosen.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Was the hon. Gentleman struck, as I was, by the fact that during the entire length of the Secretary of State's opening remarks, there was not a single intervention from a Labour Member in support of the position adopted by the Government? Does not that tell us something?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman is broadly right, although the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a heroic, if somewhat cautious, effort to come to the Secretary of State's aid.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman knows that many hon. Members have made passionate and heartfelt appeals, especially in terms of the victims, and that is right. Whatever Northern Ireland legislation is considered, the victims should be at the forefront because we have a duty to them. However, does he accept that there is also a duty to the wider community within Northern Ireland and to those people in England whose friends and families have suffered because of the bombings? That is what the Government are taking into account.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I am afraid that the truth is that a deal was made—I suspect between the Prime Minister and the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein—and successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have been lumbered with a poisonous inheritance, with the parcel unfortunately landing in the lap of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

It has been argued that the legislation is inextricably linked to getting the IRA to end its terrorist war and to enabling Northern Ireland to return to what the rest of us in Great Britain would regard as normality. The Secretary of State referred to the significance of the IRA's statement in July and its decommissioning announcement in September. His article in The Times yesterday contained a similar reference. I agree that both initiatives were important and welcome. My party and I want the republican movement to complete—at last, belatedly—the much-promised transition from terrorism to democratic and peaceful politics, but I also want to be confident that that process is permanent and irreversible. I think that after three decades of killing and bombing, we are entitled to test the IRA's good intentions over a period of time before accepting that they can be trusted.

Only 12 months ago Sinn Fein-IRA were talking to the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about a new agreement on power sharing, while at the same time, we now know, they were plotting the raid on the Northern bank. Progress has been made—I go along with the Secretary of State that far—but the trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers entertain none of the reservations on which other observers insist. Let us look at what has been said by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which is charged by Parliament and the Government with examining how the paramilitary groups are complying with their undertakings. The most recent IMC report, published in October this year, states that

"it is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour"

on the part of IRA-Sinn Fein. It also remarks that

"the leadership of the republican movement has shown a capacity in the past to turn on and off the tap of violence."

The language employed by the IMC echoes accurately remarks made earlier this year in the Dail by the Taoiseach.

We still have no commitment by Sinn Fein to support the police, nor any recognition of the legitimacy of the courts. The murderers of Robert McCartney have not been turned in; instead, his sisters have been driven from their homes by intimidation. Others exiled from Northern Ireland over the years by paramilitary threats are still unable to return home.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Is it not also true that there has been no expression of contrition or remorse at any stage?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is right. I believe that if there is to be reconciliation and closure, we should expect that of people who were once active in terrorist groups.

In the face of all that, I have to ask the Government why there is a need for such haste. What is it that Ministers fear will happen if they do not get the Bill through rapidly and in the form in which it has been presented to Parliament? The truth is that we cannot yet be certain that republicans have made a permanent and irreversible move away from violence—but even if we had that certainty, that confidence, I would still have grave concerns about the substance of the Bill.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly described the procedures embodied in the Bill as a judicial process, but it is a process from which the courts are at all stages deliberately excluded.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of finding out what happened and making sure that people have some sort of closure, but clause 7, headed "Exemption from arrest etc", makes it clear that if someone has been granted a certificate of eligibility, no power to obtain information about anything that that person has done in connection with the certified offences may be exercised. We will therefore be unable to find out anything about the offences alleged to have been committed by a person who holds a certificate, so the chances of convicting that person and then letting him out on licence, by which the Secretary of State sets great store, are extremely slim.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. The process in the Bill is not one known to any court in the United Kingdom. Once a certificate has been granted, the defendant is immune from arrest or detention and the tribunal will have no power to set bail or to impose bail conditions. A terrorist could therefore return to live in the next street or next door to the victim whom he has wronged. The police will have no power to enter premises or to search either people or property and they will have no power to take fingerprints or samples. Even evidence that the perpetrator gives about himself in order to obtain a certificate is, in the Bill, explicitly made inadmissible in any proceedings before the tribunal. In practice, once someone has a certificate, no effective further investigation can take place. As my hon. Friend points out, the rules seem to have been drafted to provide the smallest possible chance that any case before the tribunal will end in a verdict of guilty. That is a travesty of both judicial process and the rule of law.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend will remember that when the Secretary of State was challenged on that matter by our hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the only reason why he was not putting such cases through the courts was that he feared they would jam the courts. He used a logistical argument to justify the difference. Does not that nonsense betray the fact that he has no faith in the courts to deal with the matter because he knows that they would exercise proper and rigorous scrutiny, which he does not want?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I thought that that particular argument advanced by the Secretary of State was astonishingly weak—it suggests to me the extent to which the Government are flailing around in their attempts to justify a measure that, in their hearts, they know is unacceptable.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of what I said. The procedures of the special tribunal will mirror those of the Crown court, except in respect of the defendant not having to appear. That is the only exception. The same rules of evidence and the same process in other respects of proper Crown court procedure will apply.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I have to tell the Secretary of State that that is not my reading of the Bill, nor that of senior lawyers with whom I have discussed its contents.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

If what the Secretary of State says is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, why does he not simply allow the courts to operate in the absence of the accused?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I can only speculate. Given that I do not believe that the logistical argument about court business has any weight, I conclude that the reason is to do with pandering to the reluctance of Sinn Fein-IRA to recognise the courts—to recognise British justice and the legitimacy of the courts of the United Kingdom operating in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that someone who is convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment under the special measures would be released only on licence. There is a crucial difference, however, between that provision and the 1998 legislation. In 1998, to be eligible for early release someone had to serve a minimum term. A fixed-term prisoner had to serve at least a third of his sentence before qualifying, and a lifer two-thirds of his expected term. Under the Bill, even if someone commits a serious crime that is unconnected with terrorism—to pluck an example at random, let us take someone who is convicted of a bank robbery—he will not forfeit his licence or have it revoked unless he receives a prison sentence of five years or more. That is a serious gap in the licensing arrangements.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Even if the Bill completed its passage through the House and another place, is it not the case that it would not succeed if challenged on the ground that it was not compatible with the European convention on human rights? Its time scale is discriminatory and it does not guarantee an adequate remedy for breaches of the convention.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

It is highly likely that if the Bill is enacted—I hope that it will not be—there will be challenges in our own courts, and possibly at Strasbourg, on the ground set out by the hon. Lady.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I pursue that point and ask my hon. Friend to address the grave matter raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is from the Secretary of State's own ranks and pointed out that the measure will discriminate between terrorist murderers in Northern Ireland and terrorist murderers in the 7/7 bombing?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The Government's arguments on counter-terrorist policy appear less persuasive when they are seen to apply different standards in that fashion.

The other key argument on which the Government have relied is that the Bill will produce closure and provide the equivalent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I fear that the contrary is the case—if anything, the Bill risks making things worse, and I shall explain why. It does not include a deadline by which a perpetrator must admit what he did to acquire a certificate. It provides no penalty whatever for refusing to tell the whole truth. My understanding of the South African experience is that someone's failure to divulge everything that they had done wrong was in itself an imprisonable offence if other misdeeds subsequently came to light.

Clause 5 explicitly envisages second or subsequent applications for certificates from the same individual. That is grotesque. It means that the terrorist can sit back, waiting to see how much of a case the police have, and can keep the victims dangling in suspense, confident that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card to play whenever the need arises. Nor is there any obligation for the defendant to appear before the tribunal. All he need do is send a letter to the certification commissioner. As was pointed out, he will then be entitled to full legal aid. He never has to turn up in person, and his lawyers can subpoena witnesses, perhaps including victims, and cross-examine them. The defence can seek discovery of sensitive material, and try to embark on fishing expeditions. Not once, however, will the defendant be required to appear.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Is not the situation even blacker than the hon. Gentleman paints it? If, having undergone that process, the defendant is convicted, for want of a better term, he would probably have cast-iron grounds for appeal, as he was not present to instruct his defence during the trial.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced lawyer, makes a good point, which we look forward to pursuing on Report and in Committee.

The lack of any obligation on the defendant to appear in person is of more than just procedural importance. The Government have consistently said that they have tried to put the interests of victims at the heart of the Bill, but the Bill denies those victims even the symbolic justice of seeing the terrorist who has perpetrated wrongs against them appear in court in person, either to own up publicly to what he has done or to have responsibility imposed on him by the judgment and subsequent sentence of the court. The House should insist that to bring about peace with justice in Northern Ireland, terrorists and paramilitary organisations should bring themselves within the rule of law. The Bill, however, sets aside the rule of law and proper process to implement a back-stairs political deal. Far from bringing about truth and reconciliation, I fear that it will conceal the truth and prolong the bitterness and grief of families who have already endured years of suffering. It is counter-productive and plain wrong.

I hope that the Secretary of State, having listened to what has been said by Members from all parts of the House, may yet pause. I hope that the House will tell him tonight that it wants him to take the Bill back and think again.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

May I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.

Only two Members in the Chamber were present for most of the negotiations that led to the signing of the Good Friday agreement. At the time, however, many hon. Members, in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, were aware of all the implications of the agreement. The Democratic Unionist party did not agree with the Belfast agreement, and it still does not. Its view was genuine and sincere, but I disagreed with it, because the Good Friday agreement was the only way we could make progress in Northern Ireland. When we examine, as we must, the nature of the release of paramilitary prisoners under that agreement, its implications for our debate will become clear.

The people of Northern Ireland in the referendum, and the people of Ireland generally, voted in support of the Good Friday agreement. In doing so, they voted to support the release of paramilitary prisoners, but in a context that included many other things. It was a difficult pill for everyone to swallow and, although I will support the Bill this evening, it still is.

I want to deal with one or two issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) with which I agreed and which the Government could perhaps take on board in Committee and in the other place.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I have great respect for him. Was he ever asked to introduce a Bill such as this while he was Secretary of State?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Yes, I was. I was coming to that in a moment. Part of the difference between what happened in 1998, when the people of Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement, including the release of paramilitary prisoners, and the situation later was, as I said, that the context was very different. However, there is no doubt that the issue was discussed at Weston Park in 2001. I was not part of that at the time, but two years later, in 2003, when the joint declaration was published after a long period of negotiations and discussions at Hillsborough castle, it appeared in the public domain. It did not form part of the main joint declaration because there was no agreement on it, but it was out there in public. So it is no real surprise to us all, although perhaps some of the details might be different, that the principle of the Bill was out there in the open.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

One of the points that have been made is that that deal was done exclusively with Sinn Fein-IRA, both at Weston Park and at Hillsborough. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was so, or whether any of the other parties were involved in discussions on the Bill?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The other parties did not agree with the Bill.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

What was discussed?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I cannot recall every detail of the discussions, other than that when the final joint declaration emerged, this part of the discussions, which were mainly with Sinn Fein and the British and Irish Governments, had to be published separately because people did not agree with it.

There are two issues that the Government ought to consider with a view to the Bill being accepted by people in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom generally. First, the Government should consider seriously some of the amendments that are likely to be proposed. A number have been mentioned this afternoon, including the hugely important one about the victims appearing in court at a time when the person concerned may not have appeared. I hope the Government will listen to the amendments proposed. The difference between now and 1998 is that there has not been a referendum and the context is clearly very different.

Secondly, it is extremely important to accompany the measure with other measures.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Can I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he would support an amendment to ensure that the people in question had to appear in person in court to answer for their crimes?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I would have a great deal of sympathy with such an amendment, but I would take the same view as the hon. Member for Aylesbury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we will examine the details of the amendments when they are tabled. What I am saying is that the amendments are worth considering seriously, and I hope the Government will be in a position to answer some of these points in Committee and in the other place.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether the Government gave an undertaking to Sinn Fein that republicans would not appear in court? Was that a categorical assurance? May we have an amendment to make sure that they do appear in court?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

If my memory serves me right, the publication in 2003 would have included that provision.

The point that I am trying to develop is that time goes on, and the word "progress" rather than "closure" is sometimes important in this context. We made progress in Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement, including having to take some very unpalatable and difficult decisions. If the Bill is to have the same effect, it must be accompanied by other measures, so that the whole community in Northern Ireland feels comfortable with the progress that we are making.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury made an important point in this regard. Although I welcome the statements made by the IRA in July and the decommissioning in September—everybody welcomes that—we must recognise that the Independent Monitoring Commission has a job of work to do, and that we cannot allow continuing criminal activity among the IRA or loyalist organisations to be in any way tolerated. The policing arrangements have now to be accepted by the republican movement in Northern Ireland, just as everybody else accepts what is, after all, part of the Good Friday agreement.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did in getting us to the point where the IRA gave up its terrorist campaign on 28 July. For the record, I confirm that his memory is correct. The proposals published in 2003 after Hillsborough, where he was present, as he said, stated—this was published and the House was aware of it—that the applicant would not be required to be present at the trial.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I am also grateful for not being in his position today. That is another matter, but he did valiantly.

The other issues that need to be addressed include the question of victims. That is paramount. The appointment of a victims commissioner is a huge step forward, and I know that hon. Members are grateful for that. A victims forum is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has been pushing for that for some time. There should be some provision in the legislation that would prevent victims from having to go through a traumatic court appearance.

There are further issues that we should consider. Of the political parties in Northern Ireland, clearly it is only republicans who want the Bill to go through. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle will make his own speech, if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye this afternoon. The Unionist parties have made their position clear, as has the Alliance party. It is imperative, therefore, that measures are taken to give some sort of reassurance right across the community in Northern Ireland about other issues that people need to consider. My hon. Friend will raise some of those later.

There is also the matter of the Royal Irish Regiments and the home battalions. I refer not to the decision to run those battalions down, but to what happens in the future. That, after all, is a major redundancy issue affecting whole communities in Northern Ireland. Not only people in the Royal Irish Regiments, but people who work in ancillary services will lose their jobs. In order for the legislation to be accepted, it is vital that it is accompanied by other measures to provide reassurance across the board.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the other group whose interests must not be forgotten and should be proceeded with in tandem are those who have been exiled as a result of paramilitary activities in the Province?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

That will be a matter for considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Alliance party in particular has taken up the matter over the years, but other parties are very much in favour of trying to tackle it.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he accept that the reason we are in a more peaceful situation has very much to do with the work of the soldiers and the security forces who were in the front line throughout the years of the troubles? Will he, therefore, from his experience throw light on the circumstances under which it was decided that there would be a historic review of any and every operation in which they were previously involved, which will far from reassure them that their work is appreciated or that their future is secured?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I can certainly say that so far as the so-called cold cases were concerned, with the police, for example, I thought it very important that closure was brought to the cases of hundreds of police officers who had lost their lives when there had been no conclusion in terms of getting to the bottom of those cases. That was important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on that, too. That is a question of closure.

Ultimately, if we are to achieve peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland, this measure has to be part of it, but it has to be part of many other measures too.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

If this agreement was reached between the United Kingdom Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and IRA-Sinn Fein, why is there a difference in the treatment of the murderers of Garda McCabe and the murderers of Reserve Constable Finlay, or any other of the police officers in Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

It is not for me to speak on behalf of the Irish Government. It is for them to tell the Government and for the Government to tell the House, but I can understand the comparisons that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I have some sympathy with them.

If we are to get all the institutions of government in Northern Ireland up and running—the Assembly, the Executive and everything else—we must make progress on a number of issues, some of which are rather unpalatable, such as this one.

When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I was always conscious of the fact that not one single person in Northern Ireland had voted for my party and that I held no mandate in Northern Ireland in terms of its governance, although, of course, one must govern wisely, as best one can. The sooner that direct rule finishes and people in Northern Ireland can govern themselves, the better. Ultimately, the stability of Northern Ireland will be proved by the fact that the people there can work together to govern themselves. Therefore, for his measure to obtain any sort of acceptance—

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The right hon. Gentleman talks about long-term prosperity. Is he not concerned about one of the remarks that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made to the Secretary of State, when it was implied that this measure is a condition of disarmament, and that unless it goes through, the peace process could be ruined?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

To be honest, I do not think that that was said. I do not think for one second that we will return to what we saw in the past, and I sincerely hope not. I am concerned—I touched on this in the course of my remarks—that we ensure that we tackle the continued criminality of paramilitary organisations. Unless it can be shown, through the Independent Monitoring Commission, that that has ended, this legislation will be as nought, because ultimately we will have an unwholesome society in Northern Ireland that we will not be able to cope with.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

This point is not at the core of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the disbandment of the units of the Royal Irish Regiment. He will know from experience that the Territorial Army has been in a different category in Northern Ireland for many years. Given that the TA is so under strength, especially the infantry, would there not be some practical utility in trying to convert some of those RIR units to TA infantry battalions to serve the country as a whole?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

There may well be, but it is not for me to answer that question.

I hope that the Government will consider seriously sensible amendments that are proposed to the Bill, and always, and most importantly, ensure that it is accompanied by measures that give confidence and some assurance to people in Northern Ireland who are not from republican backgrounds.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I thought long and hard about whether I should contribute today, but on the balance of considerations I thought that it was appropriate for me to do so, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear with me.

On the evening of Monday 21 November 2005, without warning and with a suddenness that one could never prepare for, my brother, Endel Öpik, died. He was born in Belfast, an Inst. boy through and through, although not a very good one, and he was 37 years old. We do not yet know the cause. We hope that tomorrow's post mortem will tell us.

More even than the death of my father in May this year, I have found his death devastating and difficult to deal with. However, I am making a contribution after much consideration because I feel that this will help me, my family and my friends to put his death into some sort of context, if a death so sudden can ever be regarded as having some message, lesson or meaning. I make it because Endel was greatly interested in parliamentary matters, and I am sure that he would want me to be here today, not least because to be mentioned in the Commons by name would appeal to his vanity.

I thank colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, for their comments. I am lucky to work with so many people who care for others in times of tragedy. All the same, such shocking personal news makes one think about all the things that one does—it alters one's sense of priorities. I am passionate about what we do here, and no one takes the business of the House and this legislation more seriously than me, which is why I have sought to fulfil my duties today. The passing away of that wonderful gentle giant from my life perhaps causes me to connect more closely with what I learned last week, when I met victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The connection is unexpected, and it is one that I would not have wished for, but it is important all the same.

When I met relatives of victims last week, I marvelled at their dignity and their words of sorrow, not of anger. I imagine that when they were first informed of the news, they felt that a mistake had been made. They may have felt that they would turn up at the hospital and see their loved one safe and well, or at least recovering. They will have felt angry and bewildered, because those victims of unexpected death were not done with their lives. They will have wished that there was a way to bring back their relatives. When I met them, I did not understand how they could be so circumspect, because their losses were so sudden and unexpected.

I hope that I find some peace from the verdict on what killed my brother, when we finally get it from the doctors, but ultimately I already know that fate took him. By contrast, the people who took the victims of terror are in part still at large. The relatives of victims have not had an opportunity to face the killer of their friend, their relative or their lover, which is what makes their loss so hard for them to bear. It is that, and my own loss, which causes me to come here not to confront the Government, but to seek to find a way to make the legislation right.

The Secretary of State has said that the Bill is about closure, and I used to use that phrase, too. I now realise that it is not really about closure, because it is hard to get closure about the sudden death of someone one loves, but it is about coming to terms with that loss. The Bill is about giving the relatives of the victims some control back, after an event in their lives that was totally out of their control. As the Bill stands, it does not provide a reasonable and balanced process to achieve that outcome. Let us examine the problems with the Bill and what we might do collectively to improve it.

At the outset, I note that the Government take wildly different approaches to terrorism and terrorists, depending on whether the terrorists come from Northern Ireland or elsewhere. On 9 November, the Prime Minister fought hard for the legislative power to detain terrorist suspects without charge for up to 90 days, but on that same day his Government introduced legislation to give Northern Ireland terrorist suspects on the run from the authorities the right to return home free from any danger of arrest or incarceration after a limited quasi-judicial hearing. In my view, that is a contradiction. Why do Ministers think it consistent to seek to allow those suspected of terrorism in Northern Ireland to return without sentence while detaining for 90 days those who have not even been charged with anything?

In general, I favour the approach adopted by the Government in Northern Ireland. I support their serious efforts to address the motivations behind terrorists, even if that directly contradicts their so-called war against international terrorism. I even agreed, as the Liberal Democrats collectively did, with the early release of politically motivated prisoners, which was one of the most difficult aspects of the Good Friday agreement. It was a bitter pill for many law-abiding people to swallow, not least the victims and the relatives of those victims. However, it was accepted, because it was part of the wider package agreed by the participants at the talks process in Northern Ireland.

The Bill has sparked an even greater storm, because across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland it was not recognised as part of the Good Friday agreement, and it was not part of a cross-party agreement.

Let us remember who the on-the-runs are. They are people suspected of terrorist acts who have never faced the courts, or they have escaped from prison. They include those suspected of involvement in all kinds of atrocities; the hon. Member for Aylesbury apprised us of a number of those. It is obvious that this should be addressed in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland, not only the on-the-runs, nor the organisations from which they derive.

Unfortunately, however, that was not the case. The first proposals for dealing with the on-the-runs came from the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in July 2001. It was not part of a package that all the participants had negotiated and agreed to. We heard confirmation of that from the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). It was asked for by Sinn Fein and, as far as I can tell, agreed to by the British Government. It was bipartisanship but of an unusual sort, because the two parties were Sinn Fein and the Government. Those original proposals amounted to an amnesty. At the time, Liberal Democrat Members stated very clearly that we would not accept such an amnesty.

Matters developed until the joint declaration in April 2003. The Secretary of State said that there was no written agreement with regard to the content of the Bill. In a sense, he is right, but then there is the dubious status of the attachment to the joint declaration. As he noted, it says:

"The applicant would not be required to be present at the trial."

I fully understand why a member of Sinn Fein or the IRA would interpret that as some kind of commitment, because it was proposed by the Government. However, very importantly, the Secretary of State confirmed today that no written agreement was made with Sinn Fein. That is important because, unless he is implying that a verbal agreement was made with Sinn Fein, it means that the Government have the latitude to improve the legislation here and in Committee without compromising any secret deal with Sinn Fein or the IRA. I do not need to speculate about whether there was a secret deal. If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand by that statement that there is no secret deal, the Government are not constrained to reject proposals of the sort that are being made by us.

I recognise that the Government have to some extent moved on the issue since the original statements at Weston Park. The Bill proposes that an offender who wishes to return to Northern Ireland will have to apply to a certification commissioner. The case is then heard by a special tribunal presided over by a retired judge. There will be a special prosecutor to put the case for the state. There are various complicated appeals processes. As it stands, however, it is so far outside the normal judicial process that one has to ask why the Government do not simply use the procedures that are already there. If the crucial element in all this is licensing, I do not see why we are not discussing a simpler Bill which, although unpalatable to many, would unquestionably have much more support than the Bill that we are considering.

Let me look at the specifics. Qualifying offenders will not have to appear before the special tribunal in order to avail themselves of the scheme; instead, they will be able to be represented by proxies. As the special tribunal will have all the powers of the Crown court, the Bill creates a very distressing situation whereby victims and witnesses of the offences could be subpoenaed to appear in court to give evidence against an accused person who is not even there. How can anyone regard that as full judicial process? How can anyone regard it even as a process that can work?

Various explanations have been given for this but I find none of them plausible. First, it is simply not victim-focused. That is completely wrong. An appearance in court would give a limited sense of relief to some victims and relatives—small consolation, but it would be a start. It would clearly show that what the offender did was criminal and continues to be wrong, even if they were released on licence.

The second, related point is about the status of the court. We believe that the qualifying offender should be tried before the Crown court since one of the justifications for the Bill is that it generates full judicial process. If the Government want full judicial process, they should use it rather than creating a parallel quasi-judicial system.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I, too, wish to express my condolences to my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to the courage he has shown by being here and leading our Northern Ireland team in the debate. That sends a clear message to everybody about the importance of the issue to him and to us.

I do not believe that the question that I want to ask has been addressed so far. If the people called to the cases that we are considering cannot be arrested or detained, I presume that they cannot be questioned. If that is the case, it is impossible to have any process that could be called justice; it makes a farce of the proposals.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister in his summation will explain in what exactly the defendants can expect to participate if they are not involved in the most important element in the eyes of the victims—a personal appearance in court.

In addition, and connected to my hon. Friend's comments, if justice is not seen to be done, the Government send hopelessly mixed messages to terrorists of the past and vigilantes of the present and future. Again, the Government provide an extraordinary defence of the non-use of courts. The Secretary of State—I appreciate that he needed to leave to meet some relatives of victims—said that he did not want the process to jam up existing courts. However, did not the same Government repeatedly tell us that the number of on-the-runs was relatively small? In that case, why would the process jam up the courts?

If the Government regard the courts as jammed up by the process, what exactly is the legal system in Northern Ireland for? There is no more important subject to the relatives of the victims or to those who cherish the rule of law than the trial of people who escaped justice for some of the most atrocious terrorist offences. If the best that the Government can do is tell us that they are worried that the courts will be jammed, I challenge the Minister to state the more important cases to which we must give way.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

Water charges.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

What is so important? Is it the water charges or some minor felony? To justify the creation of a parallel system by citing the fear of overstretching the existing one is not joined-up government and is disrespectful to the considerable needs and psychological requirements of the relatives and victims.

The Government could expand the legal system. That would be perfectly logical and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would understand if there needed to be greater appropriation to fund the expansion of the existing legal service in Northern Ireland. Again, we find a contradiction—the contradiction of cost. Not so long ago, in a Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) proposed the increase in size of Diplock courts from one judge to three. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) opposed that suggestion. He said:

"One issue as well as fairness that it is appropriate to consider in any judicial system is cost to the taxpayer."

He went on to say:

"Those judges would have to be recruited and trained, and accommodation would have to be provided for them. If necessary—of course we would do this if we were to move to that system . . . That would have significant financial implications."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 25–26.]

So one of the key reasons the Minister cited for opposing the expansion of the number of judges on the Diplock courts from one to three was cost. But think of the cost of creating this new, parallel system to try what we are told is a relatively small number of on-the-runs. It is utterly inconsistent to oppose the relatively modest cost of expanding the size of a Diplock court while completely ignoring the financial implications of these proposals. I believe that all hon. Members would accept that, for the sake of justice, costs should be borne. The Government cannot justify what they said on the matter of the three judges, but this simply highlights the tactical and non-strategic way in which they have introduced this legislation.

Thirdly, the Government still resist an explicit linkage between the return of the on-the-runs and the return of those exiled by paramilitary organisations. Thousands were driven from their homes by loyalist and republican paramilitaries, even after the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The latest Independent Monitoring Commission report backs this up. It covers the period from March to August 2005, and states that

"we believe there have been a number of instances during the period covered by this report where people have been forced from their homes by paramilitary groups or by their members—PIRA, RIRA, the UVF and the UDA . . . We have yet to find evidence that any paramilitary group is generally allowing the return of those it has exiled, or is considering doing so. The PIRA statement of 28 July makes no specific reference to this issue."

We accept that, while some exiles might be petty criminals, others simply fell out with the local paramilitary godfathers. This is a forgotten aspect of the peace process. In 2000, the Northern Ireland Select Committee noted the difficulties in quantifying the scale of the problem, as victims naturally feared reporting the intimidation that they were experiencing. It is obvious that they would. It is perverse to allow some paramilitaries to return in safety while those exiled by the paramilitaries are kept away. We feel that certification should be linked to a positive report on this matter by the IMC.

Fourthly, the grounds for revoking a licence were set very narrowly in 1998. All paramilitary activity constitutes a threat to democracy and the rule of law. During the loyalist violence this summer, however, Ministers treated as different the actions directed by paramilitaries against those "from their own community". A commitment to end all violence was supposedly at the heart of the recent IRA statement. It makes sense, therefore, to link the licence terms of the on-the-runs to the condition that there will be no engagement in any criminal activity, either by the individual or by the organisation with which they associate. This really must include exiles.

Our fifth core concern is the lack of a sunset clause in the Bill. Already, the hon. Member for Aylesbury has rightly pointed out the danger of creating a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be manipulated by the on-the-run in question, rather than achieving a settlement for the victims. Victims need a time frame for those accused of a particular offence to come forward. The uncertainty would otherwise present yet another trauma. Have they not suffered enough, without this extra open-ended wait?

In recent months, there has been little sense of an inclusive process that takes into account the whole community. We have seen a series of trade-offs between the Government and the republicans, and a parallel process of minor concessions to the DUP, presumably to balance out the concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein. If the Government are exclusive, they will not create the consensus on which we absolutely depend for the restoration of devolution. Imposing unjust measures over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland will destabilise the process rather than consolidating it.

In its present form, the Bill looks like yet another concession. If it applied, in some high-profile form, to the legal system throughout the United Kingdom, I would question whether the Government would carry the vote. The reason they could well do so in this instance is that, being Northern Ireland legislation, the Bill is not as provocative as some of the other highly criticised legislation that we have debated recently. Being able to get the Bill through, however, is not a good enough reason to force it through.

Very little of what we say in the House directly affects the lives of the public, but our decisions do make a difference. There is no risk that the Government will lose face by doing the right thing. Indeed, their acceptance that the Bill should be changed will register only fleetingly in the public perception, but the changes will make all the difference to victims and their families. I would not regard movement by the Government as a sign of weakness. I would regard it as a sign of strength, and, crucially, a sign of compassion. By the same token, changes in the Bill do not constitute a defeat for Sinn Fein or the IRA. If promises made in the past by the Prime Minister or anyone else were unreasonable, it is obvious that those unreasonable promises should be seen for what they are, and that the case for a more reasonable settlement should be accepted today.

I ask the Government to show that they are serious enough about doing the right thing to change the Bill to meet the psychological needs of the victims, without dragging us through the normal process of brinkmanship and rejection between the two Houses between now and December. If the former perpetrators of terror are really serious about the peace, they will understand the reasons for the changes. Like other hon. Members, I know from meetings I have attended that former terrorists do understand the consequences of what they did. I appeal to them directly: surely, in their hearts, they recognise the needs of victims too.

To those who have threatened us with the collapse of the peace process, I say this. Do the Government really believe that the peace is so fragile and flimsy that it will be brought down by a number of important but ultimately minor modifications to the entire body of law in Northern Ireland? I believe that it is more robust than that, because I have faith in what has been said. I urge the Government to believe their own words about that peace, and act with the courage of their convictions.

No one can pretend that the Bill is about victory for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party or any other party. No one can pretend that this is a direct tussle between the Government and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which also has major problems with the Bill. It is not about us. It is about the relatives—relatives who, bewildered, came to see their dearest lying injured or silent and lifeless in a hospital; relatives who stood there unprepared and uncomprehending that this could have happened to them.

I would like to find a way of supporting legislation to bring all this to a close, but as things stand, I cannot. That is why, along with the Conservatives, we tabled the amendment, and we shall vote accordingly later. There is too much emphasis on protecting the accused, and too little emphasis on supporting the bereaved. I understand that for those on the run it will be hard, but it will be easier than the sudden loss of someone, without warning, on a day that began as normal and ended in bereavement. I know that facing a court, and facing relatives in court, is hard for a defendant; but it is not as hard as waking every morning knowing that, for the rest of your life, someone whom you loved will never walk into your house again, and missing that person more than words can say.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.