Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Redesdale: During his speech the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made an assertion that those who are opposed to this amendment and for the Bill are in some way appeasing terrorism or acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention, but that is the way that his words could be read in Hansard.

Lord Fitt: What I said then--and I repeat it now--is that those who are opposed to this Bill, not the amendment, have been accused of preventing the return of the bodies.

Lord Redesdale: I support the Bill. It would not be my intention to support terrorism in any shape or form. I realise that many noble Lords in this Chamber will

24 May 1999 : Column 647

have considerable difficulties with the Bill. The legislation makes challenging statements about real justice. However, the Bill is also about stopping some of the agony that has been suffered by the victims' families.

Many of us agree with the Government and support them. We actually believe the Government when they say that they are putting this forward as a humanitarian Bill. Indeed, the victims' bodies will not be found without it. However, I should like to challenge the idea of appeasement. Last Wednesday there was a meeting in the Committee corridor of Friends of Ireland, which Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness attended. After the meeting I went and asked Mr. McGuinness when he thought that the IRA would actually give back the bodies. I did this not in any great expectation that he would come forward with any definite details, but to prove a point; namely, that questions will be asked of these organisations. People have accused the Government of falling into a naive trap and have warned that games will be played--

Viscount Cranborne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As he was kind enough to favour Members of the Committee with an account of the question that he asked of Mr. McGuinness, it would be extremely interesting to many of us to know how it was answered.

Lord Redesdale: Of course, the answer Mr. McGuinness gave was that Sinn Fein is putting all its pressure on the IRA to come up with this information as quickly as possible

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Redesdale: Laughter may greet that reply, but, if games are played, it will be very difficult for Sinn Fein to answer the question that will be asked by its own communities. If a brown envelope is not given to the commission containing the names and the details of where the bodies are buried, what will be the reaction of noble Lords? Moreover, what will the communities in Northern Ireland think? It is a very dangerous game. It will be a public relations disaster for the terrorists if they do not come forward with this information.

The first amendment, which, I believe, the noble Viscount said he would vote on, stipulates the date of 30th June. I find that an unsettling date because there will be so much pressure on all the parties in Northern Ireland on that day that, if the amendment were to be carried, it would add just one more difficulty to those which already exist. On Second Reading, the Minister gave some of the reasons why a time limit is inappropriate for this Bill; indeed, such reasons were also given in another place. We on these Benches do not like the detail of the Bill, but we will support this Bill because the victims' families need to get these bodies back.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Blease: We have just heard what Members of this Chamber think about what is happening in Northern

24 May 1999 : Column 648

Ireland and what has happened over the years. I can tell Members of the Committee that there are many in Northern Ireland with bleeding hearts, suffering minds and suffering bodies. Noble Lords must believe me when I say that that does not reside only in this House.

The Bill has been welcomed in many areas of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Memorial Fund made a full statement in this respect. Professor George Bain of Queens University, lawyers and representatives of the various clerical groups--and, indeed, a host of others--have said that the Northern Ireland victims' Act meets the situation. A grant of £4,000 out of the memorial fund has already been given to some of the persons involved. So it meets the approval of the vast majority of people who undertake community work and who know all about the suffering that is going on. In no way do those people help to support terrorism either by voice or by way of written material.

There is one other point that I should like to make. I should like to know how many noble Lords from this Chamber took part in the march yesterday in which something like 100,000 people marched to cemeteries to reiterate the need for a memorial for the dead in this respect. Indeed, one report in the Irish News this morning states that around 30,000 people turned out to attend a church service on a cold and wintry day at Miltown cemetery. Those people support this legislation, and the report says that the spokesmen of several of those organisations have said so. The people of Northern Ireland are those who have suffered. Many of them support this particular aspect of the Bill.

Perhaps I may explain where I support the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in this respect. I think that a time limit should be stipulated. We should know in some way when this commission will be established. The machinery is already there. The Bill is about a commission and how it should operate. I feel that we ought to have some information about when the commission will be established. Under the terms, it is supposed to be set up within 12 months, but I think that an interim report should be made within six months as regards what has happened in that time.

This Bill is not intended to solve the terrorism and the problems of Northern Ireland; indeed, as far as I am aware it will take about 50 years to do so. I am someone of 85 years of age and I know all about the suffering that has gone on in this community. In no way will it be over in three or six months. It will take the people of Northern Ireland, and those who have been elected to represent them, a long time to get down to the business of looking after those who have suffered. I have in mind such matters as unemployment, medical and mental healthcare, and so on. The issue is certainly about the concern that justice should be done and that mercy should be shown to those who want to mourn their dead, just as people did yesterday. Let us look at the Bill in a sensible way and let it pass through its various stages, even if we do stipulate a timescale.

Baroness Strange: I should like briefly to express my support for my noble kinsman Lord Cranborne. I should also like to apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that I did not speak on Second

24 May 1999 : Column 649

Reading, but I had not at that time consulted with my ladies of the War Widows Association in Northern Ireland to discover what they thought. I have now done so, and we all feel that the terrorists have been given enough, with no sign of anything back, neither bodies, nor information, nor weapons.

Some years ago an associate member told me, "I would give anything to know where the IRA has buried my son." Last week I asked, "Would you pay the terrorists to reveal your son's grave and return the remains to you?" She said, "Do you not think it is bad enough I have to run the risk of meeting the four released terrorists walking this small town every day of my life? I do not wish to have them paid bounty money for giving information about the whereabouts of the last resting place of sons and husbands."

It takes two to make a quarrel; it takes two to make a peace also. I should perhaps add that everyone I asked said that they would go along with anything the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. Well, so would I, and so I do.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It is worth reminding ourselves what this amendment--which I for my part support--will achieve. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, described it as very moderate. I believe that we must all agree with that because it says in effect that the Bill shall cease to have effect unless before 30th June,

    "relevant information has been provided ... which has led to the location of remains". The term "relevant information" is defined in Clause 1 of the Bill as,

    "information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim". Therefore this amendment asks only for information as to the remains of a single victim which will lead to its discovery to be made available to the commission. That is a moderate imposition upon the IRA and upon any other terrorist organisation to whom it may apply.

Further, we need to remind ourselves of the genesis of this Bill. As I understand it, some months ago the IRA declared that it knew the whereabouts of a number of the "disappeared." It indicated--if not expressly, by implication--that it needed some protection from prosecution if it was to make that information available. I do not think that it is unduly cynical to suppose that its motivation in this initiative was to rid itself of an embarrassment. Time and time again one has heard condemnation of the IRA on the grounds that it will not even afford the relatives of those whom it has murdered the basic satisfaction--if that is the word, but I do not think it is--of being able to give them a burial. I believe that that was an embarrassment and was seen to be a severe embarrassment to the IRA. It may well have played a major part in leading the IRA to take this initiative.

I speak as someone who listened to all but the closing stages of the Second Reading debate. I did not feel it proper to intervene in that debate because I was not able to be present for the reply to the debate. But had I done so, I would have supported the Government on the principle of this Bill. I would have done so with as heavy a heart as those of many who spoke from the

24 May 1999 : Column 650

other side of the Chamber. I would have supported them because I hold to the view, which I held during the time I carried responsibility for Northern Ireland and in particular for people's lives, that it was necessary to go several extra miles not in order to achieve a realistic possibility that all violence would thereafter be banished from Northern Ireland for political purposes--I do not believe, at any rate in the short or medium term, that that is a realistic possibility--but because the few who nonetheless resorted to violence would be condemned throughout the world and see their position considerably undermined. It might even have been a practical possibility--had our ability to impose internment not been removed in the course of this Parliament--to have internment on both sides of the Border. I would therefore have supported the Government. I believe that the humanitarian purpose they espouse is a worthy one. Although there would have been some gain to the IRA in the removal of that embarrassment, I thought that the balance justified, perhaps by a small margin, the principle of the Bill. Had I spoken to that effect, I believe I would have been alone--certainly on the Back Benches--among your Lordships who spoke.

As to the amendment, what is being asked to be provided? The organisations concerned are being asked to come forward with information in respect only of one victim. We know that the IRA has acknowledged that it knows the whereabouts of nine victims, possibly more. What is the practical difficulty? On the other hand, if the amendment takes effect and is not complied with, what will be the consequence? The consequence must be that reasonable and right thinking people everywhere throughout the world will say, "They are not genuine and they made this offer only for cynical, self-seeking reasons." Therefore notwithstanding that I continue to support the principle of the Bill, I believe that confidence-building measures may properly be called for from each side and that they should operate in each direction. It is therefore entirely consistent with support for the principle of the Bill that I also support the amendment.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page