Murder of PC Ronan Kerr

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

On police numbers, we have contributed major extra funds this year, as requested by the Chief Constable. I repeat what he said today:

“We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”

How he divides up the funds that have been provided to him and the Justice Minister is a matter for him. Those are operational matters and not for me to answer from here.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement that he has unfortunately had to make today. Our thoughts are with the Kerr family, the policing family and all those for whom the awful events of the weekend have been a dreadful reminder of their own trauma. The Secretary of State rightly commended the strength of political unity. Does he agree that it is hugely important, in the context of the election campaign, that all parties make it clear that there is no political difficulty or difference that these terrorists can exploit for their warped agenda? Does he agree that Constable Kerr was a patriot and that those who killed him were not? He was a patriot who was honouring his country in the service of all in his community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We remain committed to bringing national politics to Northern Ireland. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question is within the scope of the subject of registration of political donations, but I can assure him that many people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom wish to support a Conservative party, which is why we are in government and he is not.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the aggregates levy credit scheme in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I have spoken with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on this matter. The Government remain fully committed to reinstating the aggregates levy credit scheme in Northern Ireland. The Treasury is in regular contact with the devolved Administration to co-ordinate the provision of evidence to the European Commission to support a new scheme.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the withdrawal of the scheme is having a severe impact on a hard-pressed sector in Northern Ireland. It is also having an impact on the public purse in its effect on capital expenditure. As well as talking to the Treasury, will the Minister consider together with the European Commission whether a recasting of the overall agricultural levy scheme could help to get Europe round its undue hang-ups?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman signed the early-day motion on this matter tabled by the leader of his party, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is in her place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has twice met Gordon Best, the director of the Quarry Products Association, and we are seized of the importance of this industry to Northern Ireland and of the unfairness with the Republic. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Treasury is continuing its negotiations with the Commission and that the proper place for suggesting ideas is through the Treasury to the Commission. The Government remain committed to addressing this very serious—

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make those and other points in the debate on the Loans to Ireland Bill—no doubt he will wish to take part in that. I think he should be proud of what we are doing, however. We are now part of the solution rather than the problem, and we believe it is right that we, as a country that has so much trade with the Republic of Ireland, should come to its support at this time, with no conditions.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has indicated that the Northern Ireland Office is not in a position to make an assessment. Does he believe that the Treasury is in a position to make an assessment, and has it done so?

[Mr Swire]

That is a good question. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that discussions continue with the Government in Dublin about NAMA and the way forward, so they are clearly in regular discussions. Again, no doubt my hon. Friend will inform the House about that in the debate this afternoon, and discuss it with those who wish to take part in that debate.

Civilian Deaths (Ballymurphy)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a privilege to open this Adjournment debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

On Monday 9 August 1971, the then Northern Ireland Government introduced internment without trial. That policy was dramatically and drastically imposed by the British Army. It could only have been implemented with the sanction and counsel of the British Government and their agents. It was a misguided and counter-productive response to the security and political concerns of Government at the time. However, in today’s short debate, we need to consider first not the longer-term fallout from the disaster of internment, but an immediate fatal atrocity that was perpetrated with its imposition. On 9, 10 and 11 August 1971, 11 innocent civilians were killed in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast by the Parachute Regiment, the same regiment that was specially deployed to Derry months later on 30 January 1972—Bloody Sunday.

The fact that 11 innocent victims of Ballymurphy were killed over three days at a time of wider, serious conflagration, repression, violence and many other deaths meant that Ballymurphy was not really landmarked as an atrocity in its own right, either at the time or for some time after. That is why the victims’ families and the people of Ballymurphy have challenged us all to acknowledge that theirs has been the forgotten atrocity. They have resolved that it will be forgotten or passed over no more. They need to set their truth free, to have the innocence of their loved ones fully vindicated, to have the enormity of what was perpetrated and then papered over fully understood, and to have responsibility taken for those awful events by the forces and power of the state.

I salute the dignity and determination of the families who have come together in such a purposeful and powerful way, and who have lobbied all the parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and the British Government. In recent times, they have been briefing Members of this Parliament about those dark events that have been frustratingly and disturbingly overshadowed for too long.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I was lobbied by the sons of one of the people murdered, and I was taken aback by the ferocity of the force used on that day. A mother had half her face blown away. People lying wounded on the ground were shot at point-blank range. Wounded people were taken to the barracks and killed there. Atrocities were committed, and I fully support my hon. Friend in his fight for justice.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He rightly brings us to the details of what happened during those three days in Ballymurphy. I acknowledge that these were not the only deaths that occurred during that period; in fact, there were 28 deaths in total. The wider scale of the deaths should not be used by anyone to diminish the seriousness of the questions that must be asked about Ballymurphy, nor should those questions diminish the seriousness of the grief felt by the families of other victims killed then and since. It is important, if that atrocity is not to be forgotten, that the victims should not be forgotten. Particularly in a debate such as this, their names and what happened to them should be remembered.

The first victim, on 9 August, was Father Hugh Mullan, who was shot as he carried a white cloth while going to the aid of someone else who had been shot and wounded. In a debate in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) spoke poignantly about his regard for the iconic image of Father Daly in Derry on Bloody Sunday. In Ballymurphy, another priest with a white cloth went to the aid of a victim, and that priest was shot. When Frank Quinn, seeing him lying wounded, went to his aid, he too was shot. Both of them were then shot further as they lay on the ground. A priest who went to the aid of an injured parishioner was killed, and someone else who came from his place of safety into Army gunfire was killed as well.

The third victim was 200 yards away. At exactly the time when Father Mullan and Frank Quinn were being shot, the Army was firing near the Taggart barracks at the top of Ballymurphy. Paratroopers were firing indiscriminately. Noel Phillips, a young man of 19, was shot and wounded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, a woman, Joan Connolly, came to his aid, calling to Noel Phillips that it was all right; she was coming to him. She was then shot in the face. Joan Connolly was a mother of eight.

The fifth victim was Daniel Teggart, a father of 13. He was initially shot while running for cover, but was then repeatedly shot—up to 14 times—while he lay defenceless on the ground. Also on 9 August, Joseph Murphy, a father of 12, was shot in the leg. He received no medical attention; neither did some of the other victims, including Noel Phillips.

On 10 August, the seventh victim, Eddie Doherty, was killed as he made his way home along Whiterock road. A digger and a Saracen moved in to dismantle a barricade blocking the road. From the cab of the mechanical digger, a member of the Parachute Regiment shot Eddie Doherty in the back.

Early in the morning of 11 August, John Laverty, age 20, was shot dead by soldiers. Joseph Corr, a father of seven, was also shot and died of his injuries on 27 August. The Parachute Regiment alleged that both men were firing at the Army. Neither men were armed, and all ballistic and forensic evidence disproved that testimony.

The 10th victim was Paddy McCarthy, a community worker, who was wounded in the hand while attempting to leave the local community centre to distribute bread and milk. Hon. Members must understand that after the introduction of internment, no normal commercial or other services were running, so people engaged in that sort of operation at the community level. After Paddy McCarthy decided to continue with his deliveries hours later, he was stopped by soldiers and beaten. He suffered a massive heart attack and died as a result of that ordeal.

The 11th victim, John McKerr, was taking a break from his work at Corpus Christi church in Ballymurphy and had walked 50 yards from the chapel gates when a British sniper shot him. Local residents went to his aid and remained at his side until an ambulance arrived, but he died of his wounds on 20 August.

I read out those details because when we talk about events such as Ballymurphy, all of us can speak in shorthand using particular names and locations, but it is important to remember specific events. This is the first debate on this subject, although I believe that there will be others, so it is important that the background facts are spelled out.

One problem at the time was that the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not investigate the deaths, because that was not the done thing in those days. The arrangement was that killings and other actions by the Army were investigated by the Royal Military Police. As we know from the findings of the Historical Enquiries Team, those interviews seem to have been conducted on a tea-and-sympathy basis. Officers’ versions of the circumstances and their actions would become the RMP’s accepted version, which would then become the received version accepted by both the Northern Ireland Government and the British Government of the time. The RUC was basically left to accept those conclusions as a matter of fact. For those reasons, the killings were not properly investigated at the time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) first.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I, too, have met the Ballymurphy families in Westminster, at Stormont and in Ballymurphy. I am struck not only by their innocence but by their sheer humility and need to find justice and truth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of the Parachute Regiment must be examined in connection with their use and deployment at the time in Belfast, Derry and throughout Northern Ireland?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Wider questions must be asked of the powers that be, in both military command and political oversight, about how the Parachute Regiment was deployed in Northern Ireland in those days. Clearly, the Parachute Regiment’s behaviour in Ballymurphy should have been factored into the thinking about its future deployment. People should have had that in mind when it was decided to send the Parachute Regiment, specifically, to Derry for Bloody Sunday. Of course, the Parachute Regiment must account not just for the deaths in Derry and Ballymurphy, but for the killing of two innocent Protestants, Mr Johnston and Mr McKinnie, in September 1972 on the Shankill.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s words hang heavy in the air, and it will take more than the wind of history to blow them away. In a speech last month, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the stigma still attached to the families. Does he believe that an inquiry could finally establish the innocence of the victims, bearing in mind the statements that were released at the time, which appeared to give a contrary impression but were never substantiated?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I believe that it could. The state adopted the view at the time that what the Royal Military Police established in its inquiries with the soldiers who carried out the actions would be the official, received version of events. So long as the state does not specifically repudiate that version of events, it will be left hanging there. That is one of the reasons why the families want to see that version properly probed and resolved, not just for themselves, but because there are surely wider questions for us all about how the state could conduct itself in that way and ignore the serious questions that arose as a result.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing up the matter in a debate in Westminster. As Lord Mayor of Belfast, I had the opportunity last year, and even before that, to meet the families of the victims. Does he agree with me that in both Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday—the two incidents have to be looked at as related—the pain of loss was compounded by the fact that those who were victims of a crime were effectively treated as though they were in some way guilty?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady has put her finger on an important point. I do not talk about the victims of Ballymurphy or Bloody Sunday as if they were the only people who suffered grievously and need truth and justice, because there are many other victims of other forces or self-styled forces who are also due that. However, one thing that sets the victims of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday apart is that they were denied the promises, albeit hollow promises, made by the state at the time that no stone would be left unturned in the pursuit of justice. The state and its political establishment denied them the sense of solidarity that other victims were given. They were accorded no sympathy or recognition of their innocence. Their innocence was impugned, because the suggestion was that they had somehow conspired to bring death on themselves or others.

That is one of the reasons why the other victims who not only received mortal injuries but found themselves in the twilight zone of state condemnation are due vindication and proper affirmation of their innocence through independent international assessment, and that is also why someone must be held responsible and why responsibility must be taken. That is important, not least in the light of the important and positive statements that the Prime Minister made when the Saville report was published, and in the light of those important findings themselves. The Prime Minister said several times on that day, and it was repeated on the day of the Saville statement and when the report was debated last month, that the Government take responsibility. It is important that the families of the victims of Ballymurphy hear someone take responsibility for those events.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion, as have his colleagues, of those families for many years, and I am sure that he will ensure that they are never forgotten. Does he agree with me that, although the role of the Parachute Regiment, who were quite clearly murderers in this case, should not be overlooked, the state itself had a failing, and is there not arguably a direct link between its inaction over Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday? Does he agree that, had the state done the right thing in Ballymurphy, we might have avoided what happened on Bloody Sunday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

That is a very pertinent point. The Parachute Regiment committed those killings in one area in a concentrated operation, and just because they did not take place in one day, it does not mean that it was not a concentrated operation. Those deaths were not properly investigated alongside other Army killings.

We now know, because of investigations by the Historical Enquiries Team and work done by the Pat Finucane Centre, that in the autumn of 1971 there were liaison meetings between a representative of the military and the then Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, Basil Kelly, to look at the possible risk of prosecution of soldiers for some of their conduct. The Attorney-General seems to have suggested that prosecutions might have to take place on some matters, such as traffic offences, but he was seized of the need to try to avoid prosecutions for more serious or controversial offences. In December 1971 he decided, on the basis of the shooting of Billy McGreanery that September, that no soldier should be prosecuted for anything they did in the line of duty. As I say, that decision was made in December 1971, and it is hard for those of us who know about that not to believe that in the minds of the Army, that became the going rate, as regards what the yellow card did or did not mean. It meant that they could behave with impunity. It is hard to believe that the Army, and certainly the Parachute Regiment, were unaware of the Attorney-General’s decision.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

I am listening with great interest. Some deeply pejorative statements have been made about an organisation that is being referred to as the Parachute Regiment. The Parachute Regiment is an enormous organisation consisting of three battalions. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say during the debate on the Saville report, what we are talking about seems to relate to one battallion, and indeed to one specific company within it. The Parachute Regiment has given invaluable service to this country. It might have had some difficulties and problems and done some wrong things, but I beg that we be more specific about an organisation that is very gallant, and whose services have been well recognised.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. By referring to the Parachute Regiment in broad terms, I was certainly not trying to impugn anyone or extend my remarks to anyone who feels that they are in a position to disown and disclaim what happened that day. I am aware that today we heard condolences expressed in the House regarding a member of 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who lost his life tragically in Afghanistan. I am sensitive to those considerations and take the hon. Gentleman’s sensitive admonition in the spirit in which it was intended and in which it was conveyed.

When the Attorney-General made his judgment following the killing of Billy McGreanery, the RUC commander in Derry at the time, having read what the military police had said in relation to the shooting and the statement of the soldier concerned, recommended that that soldier be prosecuted for murder. That recommendation was endorsed at RUC headquarters, and it was the Attorney-General who subsequently created the new rule about prosecutions. That is why I think that all those events raise wider issues that need to be pursued. None of that information was available to the Saville inquiry, because it had not yet been discovered by the Historical Enquiries Team and the Pat Finucane Centre.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that has to be described as an atrocity? Eleven people died, and yet 39 years on we still have no resolution, no apology has been offered to the families and there has been no independent inquiry. What do the Ballymurphy families need in order to be able to move on with their lives and draw a line under this?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a 30-minute debate, so if he expects a comprehensive response from the Minister, he will need to give him some time.

[Mark Durkan]

I was about to thank my hon. Friend for his question and say that I look forward to it perhaps being answered by the Minister. I spoke with the Minister earlier, and he told me how much time he would need and expressed a wish to see interventions taken so that we could have a free-flowing debate.

I hope that the Minister has heard all the points that other Members and I have made, but, most importantly, I hope that he is in a position, working with the Secretary of State, who has already met the families, to address some of the questions that he knows the families have. This debate is to let them and the Minister know that the questions do not come only from the families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

The Prime Minister made regular visits to Northern Ireland when he was Leader of the Opposition. He met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister then, to discuss a broad range of issues. He intends to go back to Northern Ireland, and at that time he will have the opportunity to discuss matters with them. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to the budget settlement, it is appropriate that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister first discuss that with me, having done their utmost to come to an agreement and consensus in the Executive on a budget for the substantial funds that have been allocated to them in this spending round.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

6. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the implications for Northern Ireland of the provisions of part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and with elected representatives in Northern Ireland on the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and will continue to do so as the Bill continues its progress through both Houses.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister recognise that as it stands, part 2 of the Bill has serious implications for the Northern Ireland Assembly, whose constituencies are meant to be coterminous with parliamentary constituencies? Reviews every five years that could put those constituencies out of cycle, or change the total number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, will be hugely unsettling. Will he take steps to ensure that full consideration is undertaken with the authorities in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as with his ministerial colleagues?

Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but his predecessor in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), who worked tirelessly to try to resolve the issues there. I want to contribute to the debate not because I was an adult or serving in the armed forces at the time of Bloody Sunday; I was not even one-year old at the time. In a sense, it is just a memory. However, I confronted its legacy on the streets of Northern Ireland as a platoon commander and as an intelligence officer in the 1990s. I witnessed the pressures as a platoon commander on the streets of west Belfast, and I also witnessed the embryonic stages of the peace process in 1994, under the Conservative Government of the time. That does not seem to be mentioned much these days, but it was an important turning point for Northern Ireland, because of the steps taken not only by the Government but by the Provisional IRA, which did not come easy to that organisation at the time.

I want to put the Bloody Sunday inquiry into context, because it is important to remember that there were deaths before Bloody Sunday. The troubles in Northern Ireland did not begin and end on 30 January 1972. There were 215 deaths during the troubles leading up to Bloody Sunday, and we cannot forget that there were violent deaths in the Irish civil war and the border campaigns of the 1950s. Violent deaths were characteristic of Ireland, not just in the north, for perhaps hundreds of years. We should not forget that they did not start and stop with Bloody Sunday.

I also want to remember the victims of Northern Ireland. There were 1,855 civilian deaths and 1,123 security forces deaths, of which 2,057 were caused by republican paramilitary groups, and 363 by British security forces, as well as 1,000 by loyalist terror groups. All had a part to play in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and all had a part to play in the tragedies that have been left behind after those events.

I listened to the shadow Secretary of State’s call for perhaps never-ending inquiries. We should not forget that the death of each of those victims is as important to their family members as those of the Bloody Sunday victims. Their loss and suffering count as much to them as Bloody Sunday counts to the media and to the wider strategic goals of the political parties in Northern Ireland. Many of those people might want an inquiry, although perhaps not a sophisticated, expensive one. They might not yet have all the answers. They might not know why their loved one was singled out to be murdered. They want to know why their innocent brother or sister went out shopping one day and did not come back. They want to know who perpetrated those atrocities, and why they have never been held to account.

There are plenty of famous atrocities—dare I link the two words?—in Northern Ireland that probably mean nothing to most people. Bloody Sunday is one of the most memorable ones to people outside the Northern Irish and Irish struggle bubble, but there was also Claudy, Bloody Friday and Warrenpoint. They are famous incidents that all Northern Ireland Members will never forget. It is a characteristic of the Irish troubles that we have these great tragic events throughout history, and it has gone on for many years.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to many of the landmark atrocities in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that four of them have a particular link: Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Springhill and Shankill? The link is that they were all perpetrated by the Parachute Regiment. Should not somebody be looking at that?

[Mr Wallace]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points. Regiments are always living things: they come and go; different leaders take over and different soldiers join. The Scots Guards, of which I was a member, is a very different regiment from the Scots Guards when it was founded in 1642—ironically, to go to Northern Ireland. Regiments come and go, and it is too easy to put a beret on the problem and say that it is all due to the Parachute Regiment. I know my own prejudices, but they are not factual prejudices. It is too easy to link the problem to one regiment or another. I say that it was mainly a problem of ethos—ethos in our politicians, who sometimes sent the wrong messages; ethos in paramilitary units, or even in political parties that often chose to manipulate the people they were supposed to represent.

As I said earlier, I was not serving in the armed forces on Bloody Sunday, as I was just one-year old, but I have met people on the streets of Northern Ireland who were inspired by it—inspired to defend their communities, inspired to take up arms or, indeed, inspired to enter into terrorist organisations. I have met people who were manipulated by what happened and manipulated by some political parties that used every atrocity to feed another atrocity. Murder begets murder; injustice begets injustice.

This inquiry is about one atrocity, but if it is about drawing a line in the sand, it is about saying that an injustice took place. People in the armed forces, particularly its members on that day, are sorry for what they did. We as a Government are sorry about how we dealt with the troubles in the past. However, we must also remember that there were attacks after attacks after attacks. That is why we should put Bloody Sunday in context. The report says that paramilitary activities were taking place on that day. The official IRA fired the second shot and the Provisional IRA was active with weapons in the city on that day. That does not excuse at all or in any way the behaviour of the soldiers on that day, but we should not forget that, in the end, this was an environment into which many people came untrained, ill aware of what they were being asked to do and perhaps led by the wrong leaders. That might be a criticism that we can strongly lay at the door of the Parachute Regiment on that day.

It is not for me, nearly 40 years later, to judge individual soldiers. What we should not forget—this is why the activity of paramilitaries on that day does not detract from what is right or wrong—is that every soldier is responsible for what he or she does down the end of a barrel of a gun. It is their responsibility—the individual’s responsibility and that of the junior ranks of local leaders—to realise that, in the end, their actions have consequences.

Having been a platoon commander in Iraq, I have been frightened. I know what it is like to sit behind barbed wire and concrete bunkers. It very quickly becomes “them and us”. It is easy to dehumanise the community outside the front gate. It is very easy if you are spat at, shouted at and abused, to go back with your men, your soldiers and your team and describe the situation as them and us. That is not an excuse for a platoon commander, a company commander or a commanding officer to say, “All bets are off; all rules can be ignored”. That is simply not right. We are there as officers and leaders of men to protect the weak, to uphold discipline and ensure decency on the street—irrespective of whether the communities are Catholic or Protestant. That is our job.

I could not go to Northern Ireland and undo history. That was not my job at 20 years of age. I was not going to allow myself to be blamed for history—something about which we need to be careful when it comes to the Saville inquiry. We cannot blame other generations and undo it as if it were an easy thing to do on “The X Factor”, for example. I knew, however, that if I stood by decency on the streets and did what was right by the people I was there to protect, we would go some way to ensuring peace.

What is very important from my point of view is that we carried the yellow card, which set out the rules of engagement on the streets of Northern Ireland. It is a good document; it has been finessed over the years, but remains a good document. It is interesting that the Saville report clearly says that no soldier involved in the shootings on that day would have had the authority to open fire if they had followed the yellow card issued to them for dealing with the troubles even at that time. These are good rules of engagement: they are clear and fair and require every soldier to take aimed shots. We should not ignore or excuse the facts by claiming that the environment or the context detracts from the responsibility of our soldiers. It is also the case that the same does not detract from the responsibility of paramilitaries. Every terrorist in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for what they did with a bomb, what they did with a rifle and what they did when they intimidated their communities.

I would like to pay tribute to the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland, which throughout the troubles recognised the consequence of violence. Throughout it all, its members spoke up in communities where they themselves were intimidated by other republican parties that felt that they could use peace on the one hand, but could use violence on the other. We should not neglect to pay tribute to the parties that pursued peace on both sides throughout the peace agreement.

The real issue is the future. The former Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box today to speak about the past. That is interesting, as when he was Secretary of State he rarely mentioned the Finucane or other inquiries and rarely raised issues about the past, which now seems to have come to the forefront. The real challenge is for the future and it revolves around whether we are going to move forward and accept devolution. Will Northern Ireland one day be prepared for a Sinn Fein First Minister? Other real questions are how to deal with dissidents and when we will say goodbye to the past.

We can argue about whether we should have one more inquiry, or two more, or four more, or five more or 10 more, but at the end of the day it will come down to three or four main points: paramilitaries killed innocent people; soldiers sometimes got involved in unlawful killings; and the innocent people of Northern Ireland suffered. How many more inquiries are just going to repeat the same points? The future is what counts—and that means peace, which is the only thing that will wash away the blood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the MP for Foyle, for the city of Derry, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate on the Saville report, as was promised. I appreciate the many contributions that we have heard. I do not agree with some of what has been said, but it is important that this House, having established the inquiry, should take the proper time to debate and reflect on the report.

It is important, even on this day, to remember that we are talking about an event that took the lives of 13 people on the day and one more later. We should remember them by name: Gerald Donaghey, 17; John Young, 17; Michael Kelly, 17; Kevin McElhinney, 17; Jack Duddy, 17; Hugh Gilmour, 17; William Nash, 19; Michael McDaid, 20; James Wray, 22; William McKinney, 26; Gerard McKinney, 35; Patrick Doherty, 32; Bernard McGuigan, 41; and John Johnston, 55, who died later.

We should also remember that people were injured that day—again, innocent people. They were Damien Donaghey, Michael Bridge, Alana Burke, Michael Quinn, Patrick O’Donnell, Patrick McDaid, Alexander Nash, Margaret Deery, Michael Bradley, Patrick Campbell, Joseph Mahon, Joseph Friel, Daniel Gillespie and Daniel McGowan.

When we talk about these events, it is important that we do not talk just about an inquiry and a process of reports. It is important that we remember other victims, as hon. Members have reminded us. It should be recalled that on 15 June the Bloody Sunday families, as well as celebrating the verdict in the Saville report of the innocence of their loved ones, and as well as celebrating the articulate and compelling apology that was given by the Prime Minister in the House, took time to remember all the victims of the troubles. They did not think just of themselves. They did not think that they were the only ones who had been denied justice and truth, or that they were the only ones who had suffered in the bitter troubles that we have gone through. That needs to be remembered, in case some of us in the political arena turn this, unfairly and falsely, into an occasion for “what-aboutery”.

Many people have offered assessments of the Saville inquiry. I commend to Members an assessment of the Saville report—that is what it is called—produced last week by the International League for Human Rights. In particular, I commend the work of two respected human rights lawyers, Bob Muse and Jack Bray. Interestingly, back in 1972 the league did an assessment of the Widgery report as well. The assessments examined both in their time, and examined the evidence that was available then and now. They are not very long reports but they make compelling reading.

It is important for the House to remember that there are many other questions arising from the Saville report, so I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) in asking the Minister, when he replies, to tell us what has become of the report that was to be prepared by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence and given to the Prime Minister. Has that report been prepared? Are there other reports and will they be shared with the House and the wider public?

It is not enough for the present Government to say, “A lot of the questions that arise from Saville are not questions for us.” People might say that the question of prosecutions will fall to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland—to the police and the Public Prosecution Service. There is also the issue of whether there are to be prosecutions here in relation to any perjury that may have been committed when the inquiry took evidence here in London.

The question of the inquests is now a devolved matter. Many years ago the inquests that took place could deliver only an open verdict. That was all they could do. Now, in the light of what has become available by means of the Saville report, the families are clear that they want to see that issue addressed. I know that that will have to be followed through other channels, not just here in the House.

I have listened carefully to what other Members said, and I noted that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made the point that one of the problems with an inquiry into events so long ago was the difficulty of memories failing. I do not know whether, when he said that, he had in mind the case of General Sir Mike Jackson, who gave evidence twice at the inquiry. The first time he was in the witness box, in April 2003, he failed to mention that within hours of the shooting he was the person who wrote the account that became the received state version—effectively, the official version—of what happened. When he was back in October 2003, he agreed that he had provided such an account. He also said that he had written out the accounts of the shooting by the commander of 1 Para, Derek Wilford, of the commanders of each of the three companies deployed and of the battalion intelligence officer. He said that he wrote their accounts—that that was what he prepared—but in evidence, none of those officers remembered any such thing happening. The question arises whether he came up with the whole narrative himself. Was he the webmaster at the heart of a syndicated deceit that became the propaganda version—to use the words of the Prime Minister in his conversation with Lord Widgery—that went out through British embassies and the British media on the night of Bloody Sunday and in the days after, and again in the Widgery tribunal?

What happened with Widgery and with that relentless misrepresentation of the events of Bloody Sunday, which involved not just the Army and the soldiers who were there on the day but all sorts of agents of the British Government and the British state, was that lies were erected on stilts and they strutted the world to crush the innocent name of the victims of Bloody Sunday, who died marching for justice in their own streets and offering no violence.

When lies are erected on stilts in that way, dismantling them unfortunately means that a judicial inquiry, a proper, thorough judicial inquiry, was needed. Given all the circumstances, that was going to take time and money. I wish it did not take as much money and that it did not take as long, and I know that many of the families do, too, so let us get some of these things into perspective.

Questions also arise for the Government regarding the Saville report. If they are taking full responsibility—we have heard that phrase used—what are the consequences of that responsibility? Is it just a case of the articulate apology in this Chamber that was so well received in the Guildhall square in Derry? Was that enough? Does that mean that it is over? Are there other questions to be asked?

What of the position of the Parachute Regiment? They were not just involved in Bloody Sunday; as other hon. Members have mentioned, there was Ballymurphy and Springhill. Let us remember that in September 1972 there was Shankill, where the paratroopers again killed two innocent Protestant men. In a poignant irony, one was called McKinnie and one was called Johnston—names that appear in the list of the innocent dead in Derry as well.

Is anybody going to look at what was going on with the Parachute Regiment and its use and deployment? Many of us, when we look at the Saville report, welcome the clear findings on the events of that day and the detailed findings on each and every one of the shootings that took place. We feel that Saville left other questions perhaps not fully accounted for. Should people have known what was going to happen as a consequence of the deployment of the paratroopers that day? If John Hume—and, as evidence now shows, officers of the British Army at the time—had serious worries about the paratroopers, given what had happened in Magilligan, should nobody in charge in government and no commanding officers have had any worries or anxieties about their deployment?

It is quite clear that the RUC senior officer in Derry at the time had serious qualms not just about the Paras being brought in but about the tactics and approach that were being used. His concerns were brushed aside. In the debate in the other place, one noble Lord suggested that part of the problem that day was that unfortunately the RUC local commander was not available as he had the day off. The concerns and position of the RUC commander, Frank Lagan, whom I knew personally, were dismissed on that day.

Wider questions should be asked about the thinking of the Government and others in command that day. People find it hard to believe that this aberration, as some hon. Members have called it, just boiled down to a lack of fire discipline on the day by some squaddies and to the madness and irresponsibility of one officer, namely Colonel Wilford. Let us remember that in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday—little more than a year later—Colonel Wilford received an OBE in the Queen’s honours list. I understand that there is an Honours Forfeiture Committee; is it considering the honour that was given to him? It came as a huge insult to people not just in Derry but throughout Ireland because they saw it as his reward for what had happened on Bloody Sunday—for the injustice and murder of that day and for the lies that were concocted and propagated thereafter. What is being done in that regard?

In the years after Bloody Sunday, the families of those victims, like so many of the grieving families of the troubles, received pretty insulting ex gratia payments. They were told in December 1974 that they would receive those very small amounts of money and negligible compensation was awarded in the name of so many of the young dead who were unemployed or who had no dependants. Those families had to suffer not only the level and terms of those payments, most of which they did not take themselves but passed on to charities or gave away because that is how they felt about them, but being caricatured, besmirched and traduced by a cartoon in a British newspaper—The Sun, I think. Because the news came on 18 December 1974, The Sun did a cartoon showing Santa with £250 notes coming out of his sack.

Let us remember what the Bloody Sunday families have been through. In trying to correct the injustice of that day, they have faced insults, injustice and indifference and they have put up with prevarication and provocation. Let us be clear that they have achieved something not only for themselves but for those who search and thirst for justice in other parts of the world where people face the violations of unaccountable power.

May I correct the suggestion by some hon. Members that Lord Saville’s report deals only with the events of Bloody Sunday? It deals also with the context in which Bloody Sunday happened: there are nearly 1,000 pages dealing with events before and leading up to that day. It deals with other deaths, including the murder of the two policemen in the days before. I was at the funeral mass of one of those policemen on the day before Bloody Sunday. That morning, I heard Father Anthony Mulvey condemn the murder by the Provisional IRA; he condemned the IRA, its efforts and its effects not just for what it did to those policemen but for the threat it represented to everyone else. I then heard Father Mulvey again, on the Sunday night, condemn the murder by the paratroopers. He was right about the Provos and he was right about the Paras. Some of us have always held to that line and we welcome the fact that the Saville report has at least released many people from the burden of the wrong verdict on Bloody Sunday—but unfortunately not all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister acknowledge that Irish Governments have successively, no matter what party was in government—not just the current Taoiseach but previous Taoisigh and Ministers for Foreign Affairs—provided particular support to the Bloody Sunday families? A dossier submitted by the Irish Government helped to lead to the establishment of the inquiry and the current Minister for Foreign Affairs has been particularly supportive. He is particularly in the thoughts of the families this week given the personal and family grief that he is going through, as he buried his young daughter yesterday.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and our heart goes out to him. The Secretary of State and I have written to him at this ghastly time.

Let me conclude by reiterating the Government’s unambiguous position on this report. What happened on Bloody Sunday was unjustified and unjustifiable. The Government are deeply sorry for what happened. The wider challenge that we all face is to ensure that the past is dealt with in a sensitive manner that allows Northern Ireland to move forward to a genuinely shared future.

I am sure the whole House will join me in acknowledging the enormous strides forward that Northern Ireland has taken. As we look back on the terrible events of 38 years ago, we must be thankful that Northern Ireland is now a very different place, but, as some right hon. and hon. Members pointed out, challenges still remain. The Government are determined to play our part in helping to ensure that the future for Northern Ireland is one which is peaceful and based on trust and confidence across the community.

I hope that Lord Saville’s report has, to use a quote adopted by the families, set the truth free. In doing so, it has helped to bring to a close a painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s troubled past. Let me finish by reiterating the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:

“Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 742.]

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

Billy Wright Inquiry

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I endorse his feelings for his constituent, Mr David Wright, whom I met a couple of weeks ago. He has battled staunchly to try to find out how his son died. I also echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and those of the Chairman of the Select Committee, about those who work in the Prison Service, who were given great praise in the report.

As for the future of the Prison Service, that matter is now in local hands. It is down to the local Justice Minister, who is accountable to the Assembly and sits on the Executive. I will sit with him on Monday and we will go through the very serious failings that have emerged from the report—which are, of course, from another era—and through its recommendations. What happens next, however, is very much down to the local Minister, working with local politicians.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I too have met David Wright; unfortunately, I never met Billy Wright, but I too felt David Wright’s pain as a father. I have also met many victims of Billy Wright and the LVF. We remember them today, just as we should remember all the victims of all the terrorism of the INLA, who will have very mixed feelings on a day like today.

The Secretary of State has told us in the statement that the report emphatically rejects the idea of collusion. But does he not agree that that is partly because the report relies on the fact that the word “collusion” was not in the terms of reference for the inquiry and also because it specifically demurred from Judge Cory’s definition of collusion—a definition that was, of course, clearly embraced by the police ombudsman in the recent report about Claudy?

As for the findings, the report identified six wrongful omissions by the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which the panel say facilitated the murder or death of Billy Wright. Three further findings of wrongful omissions were identified that indirectly facilitated his murder, as well as two wrongful acts by the NIPS, one of which is held directly to have facilitated the murder, and one serious failure on the part of the Prison Service and its chief executive, involving a decision with ministerial knowledge, with conclusions attached to that to the effect that wrongful acts or omissions indirectly facilitated the murder. One Maze prison practice was concluded to have assisted the murder; one further prison failure undoubtedly facilitated the murder; and one wrongful omission by the Royal Ulster Constabulary that facilitated the murder was held to be negligent rather than intentional. In relation to the same issue, there was one most unfortunate conclusion against the security service. Yet all that adds up to “no collusion”, so what does it add up to?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have to remind him that we did not commission this inquiry and we did not set the terms. We received it yesterday afternoon and we have come straight to the House to publish it. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly lists the very severe criticisms of factors that led to the murder of Billy Wright in prison, which were serious failings that should not have happened to any British citizen in protective custody in a high-security prison. I have been open about that and I have sincerely apologised on behalf of the British Government. In fairness to ourselves, we have to take the report as commissioned and as it has been presented to us, and under those terms, the tribunal is quite clear that there has been no intent of collusion and no act that could be regarded as collusive either by commission or omission.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We have a process through the HET that is achieving very high levels of satisfaction—of the families who have had a report, 95% credited it for professionalism and 86% for performance. That is working. Before we go further, we need to work with local politicians. As I keep repeating, there is no role for us, as the national Government, to impose. I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to comments made by David Ford this week.

“We cannot have a Saville-type inquiry for all the tragedies of the past, but the fundamental matter of dealing with the past is something which has to be dealt with collectively by the Executive.”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

5. What plans he has to take into account the recommendations of the report of the Consultative Group on the Past in formulating policy on reconciliation measures in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

In determining what role I can play, I will of course consider the recommendations made by the Consultative Group on the Past. I will shortly publish a summary of responses to the previous Government’s consultation on the group’s proposals.

[Mark Durkan]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and I thank him and his predecessor for the quality of contact and consideration that they extended to the families regarding the publication of the Saville report. On the wider issues of the past, there are thousands of victims, all of whom have different needs in terms of truth, recognition and remembrance. Does the Secretary of State agree that the community also has a collective responsibility to discharge its regard for the past so that future generations will know that it was a dirty war and that we will never settle for a dirty peace?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful for that question and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken me to his constituency. I met the families in the Bogside two or three years ago, and on that trip I also met Dr Hazlett Lynch a few hours later. That drummed into me the fact that there is no consensus on the past. We have to work at local level, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to work with his colleagues in the Executive, in collaboration with us, to find a way forward. However, there is no black-and-white solution that will work if we impose it from above.