Crispin Blunt

Conservative Party | Reigate

Castlereagh police station

Today Northern Ireland Questions were followed by a Private Notice Questionon the "Break In" at Castlereagh Police Station. A PNQ is a method ofobtaining a Ministerial reply on a subject. The Opposition team tabled thePNQ, it is at the discretion of Mr Speaker to decide if it is heard.

Northern Ireland Questions

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): If he will make a statement on his policy towards terrorists who have (a) escaped and (b) not been apprehended. [42005]

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): What plans has he to introduce legislation regarding suspected terrorists who are on the run. [42006]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): We recognised at Weston Park that the issue of those on the run needed to be dealt with. We will deal with it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, how we deal with it is open to discussion.

Mr. Turner: That was a very equivocal response to a very important question. At a time when the Government are spending £100 million on the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, will not the relatives of the 11 innocent victims of that other bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, remembrance day 1987, be appalled to hear that the Government are even contemplating an amnesty for terrorists such as Charlie Caufield? Cannot the Government get their act together and send a straight message to the terrorists that there will be no amnesty for those on the run or those who have escaped?

Dr. Reid: Of course, the thoughts of all hon. Members are with the victims of all the troubles. We have made more progress in the past four years resolving the difficulties than we ever did in the previous 40 years. That is partly because we have recognised the amount of pain and the fact that pain is indivisible. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of those on the run. It is a difficult question, and for many a distasteful one. I have no illusions about that.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): It is not difficult.

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not, but I understand just how difficult it is. I also understand that it is distasteful for many people. Many of the things that we have had to countenance in the peace process, such as the release of prisoners, have been both difficult and distasteful. I would not want in any way to diminish that consideration. However, we have managed to achieve such success in the peace process because we have been courageous enough to face up to issues that are difficult and distasteful. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight(Mr. Turner) to look at the wider context and consider the benefits that the peace process has brought, and to look elsewhere, not least the middle east, to see what happens when political processes fall.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One may have sympathy with the Secretary of State's position, but will he acknowledge that last year some 700 people in Northern Ireland did not enjoy their human rights, as they were expelled from their homes, and 39 of them were expelled from Northern Ireland as well? While the political spokesmen keep talking about community justice, is it not near time we said clearly that there will be no further advance until we see advances in realism from those who are leaders of terror?

Dr. Reid: It is not often that I can say that I unambiguously and unequivocally agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I can on this occasion. There is absolutely no justification for kangaroo courts, punishment beatings, exiles and people taking the law into their own hands, particularly when there is now a police service in Northern Ireland that I think is due the support and participation of all members in all communities. I say, again without equivocation, that it is time for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is time for people to put a bitter, bitter past behind them, and resolving the issue of exiles is another important part of that process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will keep up pressure on those responsible to end the despicable expulsion of people in Northern Ireland from their homes and their homeland.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is more concern in Protestant and Catholic working-class communities about the possibility of on-the-runs being given an amnesty than on any other issue in Northern Ireland politics, including decommissioning? How would he answer those who say that it is one thing to bring about the early release of prisoners but quite another to excuse people, so that there is no black mark against them and no action is taken. That is what bothers many working-class people in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Reid: Yes, I recognise fully the deep concerns that are felt on both sides of the community. I read with interest the recent report from BASE 2 on those who have been exiled. It does not afflict only one community. I think that about 60 per cent. of the huge number who were threatened or had to move from their homes last year were from the loyalist community and about 40 per cent. were from the republican community. There is no justification for that. I say this to those who want to see progress in Northern Ireland: we have been told for decades by people in Northern Ireland and the spokesmen of the various communities that they wish to get away from what they were accused of having—arbitrary justice, kangaroo courts, punishment meted out without due justification. All those issues are exemplified in the case of the exiles. We will do everything possible to make sure that those expulsions cease and that we find a way of reconciliation so that those who are expelled from their homes can return to them.

Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that any resolution of the on-the-run issue must include some process of detainment and release under licence to ensure parity with the early release scheme?

Dr. Reid: As I have told the House previously, we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved. Recent discussions have included issues raised by my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House regarding the security forces, exiles, matters of truth and victims. Those factors bear heavily upon us in our consideration of this matter, and that is how it should be. However, I repeat that there have been numerous occasions during this process when we have had to confront the most difficult and sometimes distasteful issues that we would prefer never to have to address. We recognise, however, that those issues are part of the bigger picture of achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland and a future for the generations of Northern Ireland that is better than—and more advanced than—anything that previous generations have managed to live under, and we will confront them.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry): The Secretary of State has said that to some degree he accepts the resentment and anger in Northern Ireland about the action that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating. Can he outline to the House what pressure Sinn Fein-IRA brought to bear on the Government to make them contemplate on-the-run terrorists being given an amnesty in the face of such opposition, not only in this House, but right across the communities in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Reid: The issue has been raised, not as a result of any particular pressure, but following on from and flowing from the logic of the Belfast agreement. It was an anomaly that we accepted had to be addressed; we are in the process of addressing it. I have told the hon. Gentleman that how we will do so has not been decided. I can say that with complete honesty and sincerity and I hope that he accepts that. The fact that we are spending so much time considering the issue is a sign of its importance and of our understanding of the concerns about it on both sides of the House. When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): First, why was there no cross-party negotiation in Northern Ireland before that initiative was announced? Secondly, while we generally support the Government's Northern Ireland policy, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he tries to force the policy through without due consideration for the feelings of victims, friends and families and the application of justice, as they see it, the Liberal Democrats, and I am sure other parties too—perhaps even members of the Labour party—will oppose it in this Chamber and the other?

Dr. Reid: I should explain that this question arose out of discussions that took place at the inception of the Belfast agreement. It is an anomaly that has to be addressed as a logical outflow of some of the agreements reached then, including the difficult and for many people painful agreement on the release of paramilitary prisoners. I am the first to accept the depth of feeling on the issue. I hope that the fact that we have allowed people to know that it is under consideration has been useful. It certainly has been useful from the point of view that people have been less than reticent about making their views known on the subject. Obviously, that cannot but affect how we consider these matters.

I repeat that problems that have gone on for decades—indeed, in some cases centuries—on the island of Ireland cannot be resolved without dealing with some very difficult issues. I urge the hon. Gentleman and everyone else in the House, when they weigh in the balance the question of on-the-runs, to remember the context, which is a far better Northern Ireland as a result of such painful decisions than we have ever had in the history of that Province.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): In solving the difficulty that the Secretary of State and the Government have created for themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee—with a yes or a no—that he will not use the royal prerogative to bypass Parliament?

Dr. Reid: I have told the hon. Gentleman that all these matters are under discussion—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] If the tragic and painful history of Northern Ireland could be summed up in yes and no answers, we would have solved it decades ago. It cannot be; nor can we reconcile the parties to a conflict that has lasted decades without being prepared to consider issues that are difficult and cause a great deal of pain. I have no problem listening to hon. Gentlemen and Ladies explain to us the difficulties, distaste and pain with which the issue of on-the-runs is addressed within the community in Northern Ireland, but I would tell them this, particularly in regard to the manner in which the issue is often raised by those on the Opposition Front Benches: we have made more progress in four years in Northern Ireland than we ever did in the many decades before that. We have done so because we have had the courage to confront issues that are controversial and painful. We are doing this in a solemn and detailed fashion on the question of on-the-runs—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to call Question 5.

To view the rest of this debate, please click here.

Castereagh Police Station - Private Notice Question

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the break-in at Castlereagh police station.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): On Sunday evening, several people broke into a special branch office at Castlereagh in Northern Ireland, assaulted the duty officer and stole several documents.

There has inevitably been much public speculation about who was responsible for the incident and the exact nature of the documents that were taken. The House will understand that, in the context of a live criminal investigation, it is not helpful to put into the public domain information that would otherwise be known only by the perpetrators or the investigators. Suffice it to say that all lines of inquiry remain open. As to the nature of the documentation, the Chief Constable has established a high-level team to assess any impact that its theft could cause.

At this sensitive moment when the damage is still being assessed and a variety of remedial measures are being taken, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot be more forthcoming. However, I can reassure the House that the Government, like the Chief Constable, are absolutely committed to taking all necessary steps to mitigate any damage from this serious incident.

The Chief Constable has appointed Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Wright to take charge of the criminal investigation. He has also referred the matter to the ombudsman. In addition, I have established a review to proceed in parallel with the criminal investigation that will report to me. It will be conducted by Sir John Chilcot, a former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who has extensive experience of policing and security issues. He will be assisted by Mr. Colin Smith, a former inspector of constabulary and chief constable of Thames Valley, who will act as an assessor.

I am placing Sir John's terms of reference in the Library of the House for the information of Members. The purpose of the review is to establish how the incident could have happened, to assess the extent of any damage caused to national security, to audit the measures taken in response to the incident and to identify any wider lessons on national security.

Any breach of national security is a matter of grave concern. The work undertaken by the special branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland bears directly on the safety of lives both in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom more generally. I am determined therefore that we will establish the facts surrounding this serious incident as quickly as possible, and ensure that all necessary remedial action is being taken.

Mr. Davies: The House will be grateful for that statement. No one will be in any doubt as to the seriousness of the incident for the morale and credibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and particularly for the viability of special branch operations. Police agents will obviously be very reluctant to maintain contact with their handlers while they fear that they might have been compromised. New sources are likely to be fearful of coming forward, and agents who think that they may have been exposed will face the agonising dilemma of whether to flee the Province, thereby perhaps increasing suspicion about them, or stay there, risking their lives.

It is always possible, by mismanaging a crisis of this kind, to make it even worse. Does the Secretary of State agree that such an incident needs to be managed in a decisive but controlled and co-ordinated way? Otherwise, uncertainty, demoralisation and public disquiet will all be aggravated. Is it not the case that in this instance the Government's handling has not been controlled or coherent?

The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be three inquiries. Of course the police must conduct a normal criminal investigation, but it is far from clear why it is necessary to have two further inquiries, one conducted by the police ombudsman and another under the direction of Sir John Chilcot. Is it not the case that the police ombudsman has the powers to conduct inquiries only where police officers are concerned, so if her inquiry runs up against individuals who are not police officers, she will be outside her remit? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly undesirable in such a case that there should be two separate inquiries? Clearly, we want one inquiry with a single responsibility to get to all the facts, and in which no one can say that certain matters are the responsibility of someone else. This action is not co-ordinated or controlled, and it needs a good deal more justification than the Secretary of State gave it.

There has been a spate of rumours and speculation, as the Secretary of State says. Can he give the House an unqualified assurance that those rumours do not derive from press briefings given by himself, the Chief Constable or anyone responsible to him? Can he also give the House an assurance that if there have been leaks, he will undertake to investigate them?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in retrospect it is unfortunate that he did not take the initiative and come to the House himself immediately after the incident, as he could have done on Monday, or ask one of his deputies to do so in his place? That would have enabled him to pre-empt the rumour mill and give an authoritative account of the position. Instead, he preferred to brief the press yesterday and had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box today by the official Opposition. Is not that an unfortunate way to treat the House? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Chilcot review, which we shall certainly support in any way we can, reports, he will take the initiative and come to the House to make a statement on that?

Dr. Reid: First, I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not regard this issue as serious. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to say that I regard any breach of national security as serious in its immediate and wider implications, and I would not want to diminish in any way the seriousness with which I regard this incident.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, any breach of national security immediately raises problems of operational effectiveness and the prospect of putting anyone who is involved in danger. That is why we are assessing what may have been taken and why I want Sir John Chilcot to have regard, among other matters, to damage assessment of specific and more general operational capability and of the threat posed to individuals.

The hon. Gentleman demanded, as a general proposition, that I act in a decisive and controlled way before attacking everything that I have done as decisive and controlled. I did act decisively yesterday, and there are various reasons why I thought it absolutely necessary to do what I did. Had the situation been such that the only or best option was to come to the House first, then I would have done so, but under the circumstances I was wise to discuss the matter with not only my security Minister but the Chief Constable and others in Northern Ireland before acting as quickly and decisively as possible.

In fairness, the hon. Gentleman might have informed the House that my security Minister and I had a conversation with him, as well as others. That is not to say that it is not preferable to come to the House. As a general proposition, I agree with that and will try to do it whenever it is in my power to do so. I hope that he understands, however, that with fast-moving events, when decisiveness and control are so important, it is necessary to take decisive and controlled action, as he said.

The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be three inquiries. I do not know what he bases that on. He agrees that there should be a police inquiry, which is absolutely necessary. I take it that he agrees that I should have taken decisive action to initiate a wider review. It is not yet apparent that there will definitely be a third inquiry by the ombudsman, but the Chief Constable acted correctly and appropriately by referring the matter to him when he decided that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers of inquiry had been met. To put it succinctly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers to inquire are met when there may have been, or has been, a disciplinary or criminal offence by a member of the police. That threshold was met and the Chief Constable acted properly. It is now up to the ombudsman to consider the matter.

On the hon. Gentleman's other points, no one to my knowledge with my authority or in my organisation has given details to the press of the incident as far as I am aware. Indeed, I will be amazed if that is the case because so much of what has appeared in the press has been inaccurate either in the detail or on the process. Although I should like nothing better than to rebut some of the inaccuracies, he will understand that on something as important and sensitive as this incident, that would put me down an avenue in which it would be difficult not to discuss the matter in detail. I hope that he and the House will be tolerant if I cannot give as much detail as I might like.

To view the rest of this debate, please click here.