Examination ofWitnesses (Question Numbers
20-38)
RT HON
SHAUN WOODWARD
MP, MR NICK
PERRY AND
MS HILARY
JACKSON
2 JULY 2008
Q20 Chairman: You appeared to imply—and
perhaps I am being unfair, so please shoot me down if I am—in
those remarks a few moments ago that you almost saw the disbanding
of IMC, et cetera, as part of the package that would go with devolution?
Mr Woodward: No, I do not see
that. I will not borrow your metaphor, if you will forgive me,
but I will correct you. I do not see them being simultaneous.
Chairman: Right. It is just important
to have that clearly on the record.
Q21 Mr Grogan: What is the latest
position on the pursuit of the murderers of Paul Quinn?
Mr Woodward: There continues to
be a very high level of cooperation between the police in the
south and the police in the north. Progress is being made and
perhaps I might suggest, Chairman, that might be something I could
comment on in the private session?
Q22 Chairman: Yes. Thank you very
much indeed. We will have a private session with the Secretary
of State if you wish, Mr Grogan, to refer to that. Do you want
to say anything on the record about the aftermath of the McCartney
trial on this one?
Mr Woodward: Simply to say that
I understand very much the feelings of the McCartney family and
I am sure all of us would have enormous empathy and share a sense
of frustration, but of course it would be quite improper of me
to comment on the findings of the trial other than to accept it
exactly and stay with the words of the judge.
Q23 Sammy Wilson: Can I just ask
the Secretary of State, given what the judge did say about the
involvement of the IRA and Sinn Féin in first of all the
cleaning up of the murder scene, the covering up, the training
of witnesses, et cetera, how can you possibly contemplate
the devolution of policing and justice and believe that anyone
in the Unionist community can have confidence in Sinn Féin
or anyone from Sinn Féin being involved in controlling
the police when the judge made such scathing comments about IRA
and Sinn Féin involvement in what was a brutal murder?
Mr Woodward: Again, Chairman,
I do not wish in any sense to move away from the very profound
sense of empathy I have with the McCartney family and it would
be perverse if what I am saying were to be distorted in a way
to allow that to be a reflection of what I am saying. Secondly,
I read what the judge said, but again you will understand, Mr
Wilson, why it is absolutely right and proper that I do not interfere
in that process. I may have views. You may have views. I think
it is probably appropriate, though, that I exercise discretion
at this moment. What I will say, though, in relation to the devolution
of policing and justice is that there are many people in the Unionist
community who actually do believe the time is right for devolution.
You will have seen the polls yourself which have been conducted
on this. You will also know that people in the community actually
do have confidence in the system which has been established in
the Executive and in the Assembly to establish that. It will be
a decision made by the Assembly and by the Executive, not by me,
and I believe it will be a decision which will require leadership,
but in the end that will have to be something which the Assembly
decides upon and the party leaders decide upon and it will be
something that you will have, undoubtedly, a very strong voice
on.
Chairman: At which point we will move
on to smuggling with Mr Fraser, or Mr Pound.
Christopher Fraser: I want to come back,
if I may, in due course, to the point about the devolution of
police power.
Chairman: No, I want to move on.
Christopher Fraser: No, I did not say
now.
Q24 Stephen Pound: On the issue of
fuel smuggling, Secretary of State—by the way, I do actually
have a book at home called A History of Catholic Unionism,
which is admittedly a very slim volume but I would be happy to
lend it to you if you wanted it. Could I just say that when we
have spoken in Northern Ireland about the offence of fuel smuggling
there has been much discussion about the creation of a specific
offence. We have the situation in GB, at the moment, where a number
of people who legitimately and legally hold marine and agricultural
diesel are having their homes attacked because of, obviously,
the global price in oils. This is now becoming an even more serious
issue. What is the current situation on the creation of a specific
crime of fuel laundering?
Mr Woodward: I think the interesting
observation you make about what is happening as a result of rising
fuel prices in the world has been that this, which has been a
very big issue as you know from your own reports in Northern Ireland,
is now becoming an issue elsewhere in the world. I am not sure
that it has become any more important to people in Northern Ireland
than it was this time a year ago, or two years ago, because they
have always felt it to be an enormously significant issue, either
because of people's feelings about organised crime and its relationship
with organised crime or because people (whether you agree or disagree,
or approve or disapprove of it) have taken advantage sometimes
of the opportunities which have been afforded by the practices
which arise from this. But in relation to the offence of fuel
smuggling, it is an issue which I feel particularly strongly about
because I am concerned, and have been concerned, to see that there
has been so much of it, with such a small number of people who
have been prosecuted, who have been involved in this. I said that
we would look at it and next week there will be an announcement
made by the Security Minister and Jane Kennedy which will be a
joint announcement made between the two departments, which will
be moving this issue forward, but it would be premature for me
to anticipate that.[2]
Q25 Stephen Pound: With respect, Secretary
of State, you said pretty much the same thing in January, when
you told us that within a matter of months hopefully there should
be progress on a specific offence of fuel laundering.
Mr Woodward: There will be an
announcement next week.
Q26 Stephen Pound: Excellent! I am
delighted to hear that. But the issue is that nowhere else in
the UK do we have huckster sites on roundabouts, the absolutely
flagrant and blatant selling of illegal fuels. There are tonnes
and tonnes of cat litter being bought in areas where there are
not thousands and thousands of cats. This is so blatant, this
fuel laundering, and the point is that it is not just the smuggling
and the illegality, it is the process of laundering, dyeing and
filtering that is happening in a most blatant and outrageous way.
Do you honestly feel that we are getting a grip on it? Are the
people who are doing this being punished and do you think that
the statement next week—which obviously we cannot anticipate—will
actually finally move us forward on this?
Mr Woodward: I do not think there
is any prospect that we could end the crime which is taking place
by an announcement next week or what may be new legislation. I
think that would be wholly unrealistic, but I do say to you that
what matters here is not moving precipitately but moving in a
way which would be effective. One of the issues which has confronted
the police, and frustrated the police, is being able to find an
effective way of being able to bring charges for an effective
offence. That was one of the issues which I wanted the Organised
Crime Task Force to look at. It is one of the issues happening
between the HMRC and my own department. Therefore, as I say, there
is an announcement next week to move us forward on this, but let
us be under no illusion. If this was a simple issue, we would
have cracked it some time ago, but it is not a simple issue. If
it was a simple issue anywhere in the world, we would have cracked
it. I think we have got one of the best Chief Constables anywhere
in the United Kingdom, who I think is not someone who is slow
in coming forward when a way can be found to deal with an issue.
It is hard, and I recognise that, but that does not mean to say
we are not determined to keep trying and I hope what we say next
week will make a contribution to it and move it forward.
Chairman: I hope it will show that you
have taken on board some of the points the Committee has made
in the past.
Q27 Stephen Pound: My final point
was, when you have actually got a bowser of fuel being sold by
a bloke in a boiler suit on a roundabout, that is absolutely flagrantly
illegal. There can be no possible excuse for that, and how come
PSNI can drive past a fuel bowser huckster site in this way, because
we are being told that is what happens? We have seen them. I understand
it is difficult and I understand all the community problems and
the difficulties about the actual filling stations being subverted
to illegal supplies, but this one example, the illegal huckster
site, surely we can be cracking down on that?
Mr Woodward: I am sure you have
had the opportunity to ask the Chief Constable yourself that question
and I think I would be the first person to be reprimanded for
interfering in the operational practice of the police. What I
would simply say to you is that I share the frustration. All we
can do is not to tell the police how to do their job but to make
sure they have got the powers to do their job, and one of the
powers they have been looking for is an issue we are trying to
address, and that is what we will do next week. But it is not
my job to actually run the police, tell them who to arrest and
how to arrest them.
Chairman: Because we want to have a private
session with you, I want to move on to the prisons, if I may,
with Mr Anderson.
Q28 Mr Anderson: Secretary of State,
you know the report we made last year and you know the points
I am going to raise because I have raised them on the floor of
the House with you, so I make no apologies for raising them again.
What is being done in regard to progress about people being held
on remand?
Mr Woodward: I am actually going
to ask Mr Perry to comment specifically around this area, but
if I may just make one or two brief remarks on this. We are making
progress on it. This is an area which I have been concerned about
and I have asked the Security Minister, particularly in light
of the work we have been doing on the stage two talks over the
last month or two, to take a lead on this, but I do think we need
to actually do something to address this issue which this Committee
has rightly raised. It is not just a question of the speed of
those on remand, it is who is on remand, which is why it was important
to begin to deal with the issue of fine defaulters, but perhaps
Mr Perry might like to just adumbrate a little further.
Mr Perry: Just on the general
point, Mr Anderson, as you know, Paul Goggins has set up a Delay
Action Team, which has all the relevant departments on it, to
look at ways of reducing delay in the criminal justice system
at large, including the remand side, and certainly for the statutory
agencies there are set targets to meet. Today in Belfast a new
group, the Criminal Justice Issues group, chaired by a senior
member of the judiciary is meeting and one of the issues it has
on its agenda is the whole issue of delay. It is right at the
top of the Chief Justice's agenda as well as Paul Goggins's, so
there is a great deal of effort going into it and Mr Goggins meets
the Delay Action Team on a quarterly basis to check progress and
the trends are positive.
Q29 Mr Grogan: How positive? Can
you give us figures?
Mr Woodward: We have one figure,
which is that currently 33% of prisoners are on remand compared
with 35% earlier this calendar year. It is a small reduction in
the last few months. I would be nervous about reading too much
into that because statistically there could be a number of explanations
for it. What matters here is that we have begun to put the will
into wanting to change the system. It is not that there has been
a will against changing it in the past, I think there has been
a tolerance, which has been more of a problem. There has been
a sense that, "Well, this is the way it is and we'll accept
it." I do not think the way it is is good enough and what
we need to do, particularly with some of these people, is that
some of them just should not be there. So it is not just a question
of speeding it up, it is a question of actually making sure that
some people are just simply not on remand at all.
Q30 Mr Grogan: Quite right. You touched
on fine defaulters. Has there been any improvement in the number
of people going to prison for fine defaulting?
Mr Woodward: We have seen a marginal
improvement on the issue again, because we have raised it in the
consciousness of judges, but what I would say is that again I
think the work of this Committee and the work that we have now
put in place will begin to get people to understand that actually
people defaulting on fines are not dangerous to the community
and that prison should be a place for putting people who pose
a danger to the community, and that there are many other ways
of delivering punishments to those who have deliberately defaulted
in the community, which are (a) likely to be more effective, (b)
less costly to the taxpayer, and (c) making sure that the places
we have got in our prisons are kept for the kinds of people who
ought to be put away because they are the people who pose a danger
to the community. The absurdity is when we have not actually got
places in our own prison system in Northern Ireland and when,
therefore, people who should be able to be put in prison at less
expense to the taxpayer have to be transferred far greater afield
because a place is being taken up by somebody who did not pay
a small fine.
Q31 Mr Grogan: Finally, has there
been any progress made on the creation of a dedicated women's
prison?
Mr Woodward: The concern you raise
is one that I certainly share and we are, as you know, trying
constantly to address. Again, I commend the work of Robin Masefield
in this, who I think is an outstanding figure in our prison service.
We are trying to improve the conditions as they are and we are
looking at the prospects of doing this in the future. It is difficult
for us to commit what would be significant public funds beyond
2010/11 and with huge respect to my officials I am always being
advised about not wanting to commit future money in a future Parliament.
I have to say that if I have anything to do with it, there will
be one.
Q32 Christopher Fraser: Before I
ask the question I would like to ask, could I just raise the point
Mr Grogan has just made? On this whole issue to do with fine defaulters
you actually said in January that you would personally address
the problem. It was a statement you made, that you would personally
address the problem. I hear what you say, Secretary of State,
about the issue and what needs to be done, but you must be able
to put some timeframe on it?
Mr Woodward: You will respect,
Mr Fraser, that I am not the judge, I am not responsible for catching
people, and perhaps some people might suggest maybe the other
way, actually paying a cheque for people rather than them being
sent to prison. When you say what I personally could do, what
I can do, of course, is actually bring people together and make
them do something. Some people, for example, think it is taking
quite a long time to get devolution of policing and justice. Some
people think it is taking an extremely long time, and I say there
will be an appropriate period of time to be allowed to elapse
before it happens. The fact of the matter is, it is sometimes
difficult to make people move when you would like them to move.
That does not mean to say they are not right to resist the movement.
Mr Wilson obviously feels very strongly on that issue. But sometimes
perhaps they might move slightly more quickly. Therefore, in respect
of this issue, I have asked the judicial system through the Northern
Ireland Office and the court service to come together. They will
be actually issuing a joint consultation paper on this. This has
to be something which is done with the judiciary. At the end of
the day, the judges hand out the sentences. But the fact of the
matter is, we are making them aware of the problem. I think this
will lead to a change in the system, but equally let us also be
clear that people who actually think they do not have to pay fines
do need to face some kind of punishment, because otherwise why
should any of us pay a parking fine, or indeed any other fine
come to that? So I think we have to have some respect for those
who actually want there to be an effective punitive system. I
just happen to think that it is completely the wrong place, to
use prison as a place for where you punish those people.
Chairman: So does this Committee.
Q33 Christopher Fraser: Yes, indeed.
You have said that the final cost for the Saville inquiry will
be as much as probably £200 million?
Mr Woodward: £183 million
is the figure I have recently quoted, but it could be slightly
higher.
Q34 Christopher Fraser: £183
million and rising. About half that amount has been expended on
legal fees. That is correct, is it not?
Mr Woodward: In relation to the
Saville inquiry, we estimate that slightly over half of it has
been related to the legal costs, which is why, of course, we introduced
the Inquiries Act so that we could actually control costs on these
inquiries, which has had a significant effect in bolting down
the costs.
Q35 Christopher Fraser: In terms
of that control, could you just explain a little more how that
control actually works, because I think there is a great fear
from people that costs always seem to escalate in these types
of inquiries?
Mr Woodward: I am very happy to
write to the Committee in detail if you would like me to, to actually
explain how the legal system and the bolting down works in practice,
but the overall principle is that what we do is we restrict the
amount which can actually be paid on fees so that there is a limit
to the astronomical amounts which have been claimed by some people.[3]
Again, before that is distorted by anybody—and I am not
suggesting you, Mr Fraser—I am not suggesting that people
who have taken part in inquiries have deliberately set out to
take money from the taxpayer. However, if you do not have a system
of controls, as we know, it is possible to spend unlimited amounts
of money. It is very important that people have proper representation
and I would not wish to deprive them of that, but again it is
why we have been insistent that inquiries now have to be held
under the Inquiries Act, because there have to be measures of
accountability and control, which regrettably under the old system
did not exist and which is why it is extraordinary that the Saville
inquiry—which was originally estimated to be something which
would come in at around £10 million—is a figure which,
as you said at the beginning, is going to be somewhere between
£180 and £200 million, although I am pleased to say
that Lord Saville has indicated that he hopes to be able to send
me the report by the end of the year or the beginning of next
year.
Christopher Fraser: Finally, can you
tell us anything further about the question of security of confidential
information held by the inquiries?
Q36 Chairman: I think Mr Fraser has
in mind the slipped disk!
Mr Woodward: Absolutely. It was
an appalling breach. The problem, of course, about an independent
inquiry is that it is precisely that. What you do is you offer
them very clear senses of responsibility, but unfortunately in
this case they had an appalling breach. I condemn it totally.
It should not have happened, but it is not something for which,
of course, I have any responsibility because it is actually their
information, handled by them. Nonetheless, I have taken the precaution
through the Permanent Secretary not only of writing to them but
writing to every other inquiry and reminding them of their responsibilities
under the Data Protection Act, which of course are quite onerous.
It is terribly important that any public body, however independent
it may regard itself, actually operates under the law as well
and gives due care, attention and diligence to how they handle
information and the care they attach to this information.
Christopher Fraser: Thank you.
Q37 Chairman: Secretary of State,
before we move briefly into private session, the Committee will
be in Belfast on Monday, as you know, and apart from publishing
our report we will be having one or two meetings, including a
meeting with a deputation from Omagh. I did raise this with you
on the floor of the House last week. Do you have anything to add
to what you said then?
Mr Woodward: I am always conscious,
again, of Mr Wilson and his concern, but I would just remind Mr
Wilson, therefore, that since I have been asked about Omagh and
the military bases I will actually now respond to it and talk
about the military bases, but I am not wishing to get in the way
of the devolved Assembly in doing so. I am conscious, therefore,
that it is quite difficult for me to express an opinion about
it, but since I was invited by members of the DUP as well as the
UUP and all the other political parties to visit, perhaps I could
simply say that I think it is terrific project. I wish those putting
it together every success and if I am allowed to be helpful I
would love to be helpful, but of course that is a decision for
Mr Wilson and his colleagues.
Q38 Chairman: It is a decision also
for you, Secretary of State, because as things currently stand
this land is in the ownership of the MOD. It is a UK governmental
responsibility. You are a Member of the Cabinet and, as I mentioned
last week in the House, there are sites of roughly equivalent
value owned by the current occupiers, the schools, and so this
need not be a great financial transaction but perhaps rather a
transfer?
Mr Woodward: That is right, Chairman,
but again it is important to have some clarity on this. There
are a number of proposals on the table for what could happen at
that site around any education project. It is not just one proposal,
there is more than one proposal. Therefore, even if (and I am
very advised about those words "even if") a way could
be found forward on this, and whether this might be some way of
cash flowing it (and, as I say, even if it might be possible),
the title might be held by the MOD but at the end of the day there
is a responsibility to the taxpayer which will be rigorously explored
by those in this House, I would suggest, if any arrangements were
made, whether it was a gifting of the site or any other variation
of that, as to whether or not the taxpayer got value for money.
Again, I am just very conscious of the way in which Mr Wilson
dealt with me earlier about this issue, but the fact of the matter
is we are responsible to the taxpayer and if sites are gifted
there is a cost to the taxpayer. It is irresponsible not to be
conscious of that, because it is not just the taxpayer in Northern
Ireland, it is the taxpayer in the UK, and I have a responsibility
to the taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom, not just Northern
Ireland, and it is entirely appropriate that we have a view as
to whether or not a site is gifted and money is made available,
therefore, by the taxpayer to Northern Ireland and that that money
is used in an appropriate way, a way which the taxpayers could
regard as having met the obligations they rightly would expect
from the Government.
Sammy Wilson: Chairman, I can understand
why the Secretary of State may feel sore, because he knows in
this case that he probably has overstepped the mark. If I can
just make it quite clear, people are quite happy for the Secretary
of State to be helpful but what they do not want are inappropriate,
insensitive and partisan interventions by the Secretary of State
which prove to be unhelpful, and unfortunately I think that has
been the hallmark of some of his behaviour over the last number
of months.
Chairman: One could be tempted to say
that if prizes for sensitivity were being given, you would not
always win them!
Sammy Wilson: That is absolutely right,
Chairman. I hope I have expressed the strength of feeling at the
partisan way in which the Secretary of State appears to deal with
Northern Ireland at present.
Chairman: I think you have, and for that
I am sure we are all exceptionally grateful. I would like to draw
this public session to a close. Thank you very much indeed for
being here, Secretary of State. We will now go briefly into a
private session.
2 "New group to crack down on fuel fraud",
NIO press release, 7 July 2008. Back
3
See supplementary letter to the Chairman, from the Secretary of
State, 9 July 2008. Back
|
