Category: Northern Ireland

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 24 August 2010.

The Claudy bombing was a terrible atrocity carried out by terrorists during the bloodiest year of the Troubles.

I absolutely condemn the actions of the terrorists who were responsible.

It was a despicable and evil act carried out by despicable and evil people.

My anger at the actions of those responsible for the attack is matched in strength by my sorrow that the survivors of the atrocity and the relatives of the dead did not see those responsible brought to justice for their crimes.

I recognise, of course, that all those involved in combating terrorism at the time were making decisions in exceptionally difficult circumstances and under extreme pressure.

The Claudy bombings took place during a month which also witnessed the end of a temporary IRA ceasefire, the Bloody Friday bombings, Operation Motorman and widespread civil disorder and violence.

Nearly 100 people died in July 1972 alone, making it the most violent month in the most violent year of the Troubles.

In relation to the interaction between the RUC, the then Secretary of State and the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland about Father Chesney, the Ombudsman’s report states that “the actions of the senior RUC Officers, in seeking and accepting the government’s assistance in dealing with the problem that Father Chesney’s alleged wrongdoing presented, was by definition a collusive act.”

With respect to the government, the Ombudsman observes that the government was “asked by police to assist in resolving a matter of public interest. They had a legitimate interest in doing so. In the course of this enquiry the Police Ombudsman’s investigation found no evidence of any criminal intent on the part of any government minister or official.”

In his conclusions, the Ombudsman finds that the RUC decision not to investigate Chesney was “wrong” and “contrary to a fundamental duty of police to investigate those suspected of criminality.”

The PSNI have expressed their regret that opportunities to arrest and interview all of the suspects were not taken in 1972.

For my part, on behalf of the government, I am profoundly sorry that Father Chesney was not properly investigated for his suspected involvement in this hideous crime, and that the victims and their families have been denied justice.

In the course of their investigations both the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman have conducted enquiries with the Department. I can confirm that the Department’s files have been extensively searched and that all relevant documents were provided to the Ombudsman.

The only document referring to discussions about Father Chesney is **the letter of 6th December 1972** quoted in the Ombudsman’s report.

In the interests of transparency I am today publishing the document and will send a copy to the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland, the National Archives and the Linenhall Library.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 28 February 2011.

In my written statement of the 31 January 2011, I informed the House that following an announcement by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that they planned to prosecute three individuals in connection with the death of Robert Hamill, I would not publish the report of the Robert Hamill Inquiry until these legal proceedings had concluded. Publishing the report while proceedings are ongoing would jeopardise the individuals’ right to a fair trial.

I also set out the checking process which is required to meet the obligations on me in relation to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in relation to national security. I can confirm that this checking process has now been completed and I have received advice from the checking team which confirms that there is nothing in the report which, if published, could breach Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk, or put national security at risk. I am therefore satisfied that once legal proceedings have concluded, the report can be published in full. I have advised Sir Edwin Jowitt, the chairman of the inquiry, of this.

I have also asked Sir Edwin to retain formal custody of the report in a secure location until the legal proceedings have concluded and it can be submitted to me and be published. The report has not been shown to me or to any other member of the government, or to any officials except the two members of the team which carried out the checking process. I have not been briefed on the contents of the report, nor have any officials other than those in the checking team.

Again, I reassure the House that once the legal proceedings have concluded, I intend to publish the report in full and as soon as practicable. Once a timetable for publication becomes clear, I will update the House accordingly.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 10 February 2011.

This is a terrible tragedy.

I offer my profound condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of those killed and injured.

I have spoken to our Ambassador in Dublin who is on his way to Cork and who will be working closely with the Irish authorities.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 11 January 2011.

In my written statement of 11 November, I set out a period of two months during which I would receive representations as to whether it is in the public interest that I should establish a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane.

As part of this process, my officials have had a constructive meeting with representatives of the Finucane family and a further meeting will be arranged. In light of the fact that useful discussions are underway between the family and the government, I have decided, with the agreement of the family, to extend the period during which I will receive representations by two months.

When this further period has concluded it remains my intention to consider the family’s views carefully and in detail, along with any other relevant representations I receive, before taking a decision as to whether or not it is in the public interest to hold a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 16 December 2010.

I have laid before Parliament the Third Report of Robert Whalley CB, Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (the 2007 Act).

This Third Report provides an assessment of the operation of sections 21 to 32 of the 2007 act and the procedures adopted by the Brigade Commander 38 (Irish) Brigade for receiving, investigating and responding to complaints. The report covers the period 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010.

The report highlights the security situation in the past year and the activities of residual terrorist groups who have been dangerous and disruptive and remain heavily involved in organised crime. The Reviewer states that the police have had to deal with more threats and attacks this year, and this has led to a substantial increase (22%) in the use of stop and question and stop and search across the range of police powers. He also makes note of the heavy demand for the services of Ammunition Technical Officers (ATOs).

The Reviewer acknowledges that the Police have responded to his recommendation to further develop recording systems and notes some improvement from his limited sampling of the records; however, there is still some way to go in pursuit of best practice. He welcomes the development of electronic recording which the police are pursuing and the Thematic Review which is being conducted by the Human Rights advisor to the Policing Board into the comparative use of police powers and development of best practice. He comments that it will significantly compliment and enhance work in this area.

Mr Whalley highlights the marked decrease in military complaints and notes that the departure of the Pumas of 230 Squadron RAF has significantly altered the pattern of military flying in Northern Ireland. He states that the complaints system is efficient and responsive and must continue to function as effectively as it does now. He also emphasises the importance of engaging complainants, and suggests that it should be standard practice to offer a visit to Aldergrove (if not a flight in a helicopter) when a repeat complaint is made. He recommends The Flying Station at Aldergrove should take it as a high priority task to keep the website on planned flying times up to date.

The Chief Constable and the Brigade Commander 38 (Irish) Brigade have both welcomed the Independent Reviewer’s report and the recommendations made. I too would like to thank Robert Whalley for his work and for the recommendations contained in his third report. I will consider them carefully.

The speech made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 25 November 2010.

I met George Osborne to discuss the financial situation in the Republic of Ireland at the beginning of last week.

We have been in close touch ever since to make sure that Northern Ireland’s interests are fully represented and considered.

These have been a dramatic few days in Ireland.

So let me reiterate what George Osborne has said.

Ireland is a friend in need. It is hugely in the interest of the whole of the United Kingdom that Ireland is both economically stable and prosperous with a sound banking system.

That’s why the Coalition Government will continue to stand by our closest neighbour and in so many respects partner.**

We said that we’d be prepared to help if invited. And now we have.

But it’s important to remember that the assistance we are providing is a loan and not a grant.

It will need to be repaid and the best means of ensuring that is for the Irish economy to grow its way out of its current difficulties.

So we will defend the rights of sovereign EU member states to set their own taxes to suit their own circumstances.

And that includes corporation tax.

Along with my colleague Mark Hoban, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I discussed these matters with local ministers and party leaders on Wednesday.

And there was a strong consensus that we are doing the right thing.

Mark and I also made absolutely clear, independent of events in the Republic, our determination to publish, by the end of the year, a Treasury paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.

And we re-affirmed that it will include potential mechanisms for giving the Executive here the power to set a separate rate of corporation tax.

We must look at all possible means of reviving the private sector in Northern Ireland.

That would bring economic benefits, social benefits and help to undermine those residual terrorist groups who want to drag Northern Ireland backwards.

So I am working very closely with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, on this.

He and I should be in a position to share our thoughts with Executive Ministers shortly so that we can have their ideas and their input into the paper before publication.

After all, this is a team game.

And it’s also a key priority.

But there’s another pressing issue here in Northern Ireland that rests solely with the Executive.

George Osborne announced the spending review settlement over a month ago on 20 October.

I repeat the Coalition Government’s view that it was a fair settlement.

The Executive is being asked to make reductions in current spending of 1.72% a year over four years.

While the reduction in one of the capital spending streams is higher, having discussed in detail with the Treasury we are confident that – using the same assumptions and calculations as Gordon Brown in 2007 – we will deliver the £18 billion promised after St Andrews.

And we gave the Executive precisely what they asked to achieve a fair and just resolution of the crisis in the PMS.

But a settlement is precisely that – a settlement. It is not the opening round of a negotiation.

NI is now the only part of the United Kingdom that hasn’t set a budget following the spending review settlement.

That cannot go on. People need clarity and certainty.

So I very much hope that the Executive now proceeds rapidly to provide clarity and certainty by setting a budget as a matter of urgency.

The speech made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 22 November 2010.

It’s a great pleasure to address this session of the British Irish Parliamentary Association

This is a ‘first’ for me and also for you since I represent the first change in administration for 13 years.

Given that we now have a Coalition Government in London as well as Belfast and Dublin, I think it would be appropriate if I were to set out the priorities of my Government in relation to our responsibilities following the transfer of policing and justice powers from Westminster to Stormont in April this year.

I am conscious that I am the first Secretary of State since the Northern Ireland Office was created in 1972 to come to Northern Ireland without a major political and/or security fire storm raging overhead.

I want to pay a warm tribute to all of those -some of you here today–who have helped transform Northern Ireland over the last near 20 years: from John Major and Willie Whitelaw through to Gordon Brown and my predecessor Shaun Woodward.

But that is not to say that there are no longer challenges to face as we build on the great successes of the peace and political processes.

It will be by facing those challenges that we will clear the space for economic delivery in Northern Ireland.

The institutions established under the Belfast Agreement and developed further at St Andrews are in the early stages of their development and we must not forget that.

To emerge fully from more than three decades of bloody conflict which was itself a terrible physical manifestation of centuries of distrust, fear and, at times, hatred will not happen over night.

We have seen great examples of political leadership and courage in Northern Ireland and not a little political ingenuity to give form and substance to the out working of that leadership and courage.

I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that the Coalition Government is fully behind the institutions in Northern Ireland.

If they are to change or evolve in any way then that must be on the basis of agreement and consensus among those who are charged by the people of Northern Ireland with making them work for the good of the whole community.

We will also stand by the other commitments set out in the Belfast Agreement and at St Andrews insofar as they remain within our competence post Devolution.

There will be a session on the Bill of Rights, for example, and I look forward listening to contributions to this important debate.

Let me set that in context from the Government’s perspective.

The Government remains committed to maintaining human rights protections in Northern Ireland

The previous Government’s consultation on Next Steps on a Bill of Rights revealed deep divisions and a lack of consensus on a way forward

There was similar division in a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly earlier this year (with members voting by 46 votes to 42 against a motion calling for a robust, enforceable Bill of Rights)

It is difficult for the Government to make further progress on a Bill of Rights in the absence of this consensus

A legislative consent motion must be passed by the Assembly in circumstances where the Government intends to bring forward any legislation at Westminster – like a Bill of Rights – which will have a significant impact on devolved policy

Many members of the Assembly clearly have reservations about a Bill of Rights and it appears unlikely that any motion could be successfully passed

Building consensus is therefore crucial and I will ask supporters of a Bill of Rights to focus their energies on engaging with those members who are sceptical.

Of course there are some who fear consensus on anything in Northern Ireland and indeed who fear democracy itself.

They not only defy the expressed will of the people in Ireland, North and South as clearly expressed in referendum and successive elections they fly in the face of world opinion from the United States to the European Union and beyond.

We do not for a moment underestimate the threat they pose to the whole community with their cynical and murderous recklessness.

But nor should they underestimate the determination of the great majority of people in the United Kingdom and Ireland, supported by their Governments, never to allow them to put at risk all that has been so hard won.

They are stuck in a poisonous mindset that cannot be allowed to infect future generations who have had no experience of violence and who want to live in a shared future with the past that these residual terrorist groups represent put where it belongs.

We accept of course that for many people who suffered grievously, their Past is with them constantly; when they wake up and when they go to bed, at work or in the pub, at church on Sunday.

From the years that I spent visiting Northern Ireland every week and from my experience as Secretary of State since May, I know how complex and potentially divisive dealing with the past can be.

That does not mean we can simply ignore it.

This government has shown that we do not shirk difficult issues.

We published the Saville Report as soon as possible after coming to power and the Prime Minister immediately accepted full responsibility for what was revealed in the deeply shocking conclusion of the Report.

Shortly afterwards we published the results of the consultation on the Eames/Bradley report on dealing with the past which revealed that there was no consensus on a clear way forward.

I met Mrs Finucane and her son John, the first Secretary of State to see the family since 2006.

Within days of the meeting, I set out in a WMS how I intend to proceed on the issue of an inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.

I have not formed a final view on how we will move forward on dealing with the Past and with Minister of State, Hugo Swire we will continue to listen to representations.

But be assured we will not let this issue drift.

Nor will we let the economy drift towards the financial catastrophe that we were on course for when we came to office.

I will set the figures out once again.

The Government inherited the worst deficit in the G20.

We are borrowing around £270,000 per minute.

We are paying debt interest of £120 million a day.

This is dead money that cannot be spent on schools, hospitals, social housing, the police or anything else.

The Government had no choice but to act quickly and decisively to halt the headlong rush towards financial bankruptcy.

Anyone who thinks that addressing the deficit can be done at a leisurely pace is deluding themselves and misleading everyone else.

Of course that means hard choices have to be made and that was reflected in the Chancellor’s emergency Budget and the recent Spending Review.

Had we failed to take the difficult decisions our deficit would be almost £100 billion higher at the end of this Parliament.

No one likes telling anyone that they will have to operate with less money than before and yet maintain the standards that the taxpayer has the right to expect of the services he and she pays for.

It may not be easy but it can be done.

My own department, the Northern Ireland Office, is committed to 25% savings.

The Northern Ireland Executive has been given a settlement that will require savings of 6.9% over four years.

Annually this represents £1.72 out of every £100 the Executive spends of its resource DEL.

I have absolutely no doubt that with political commitment in the Executive and Assembly and the managerial talent within the public sector relatively modest savings on this scale will be achieved.

I have also stressed that more needs to be done to boost the private sector in Northern Ireland.

No one is maligning the public sector when making the obvious point that for reasons that are well rehearsed and understood at the top level of Government, the economy of Northern Ireland is out of balance.

The degree of over reliance on the public sector is simply untenable in the long term.

That said the solution is not to reduce the size of the public sector as an end in itself and do nothing else.

That would help no one.

What we have to do is to build the private sector by making Northern Ireland increasingly attractive to inward investment and encouraging indigenous businesses to grow and prosper.

Everyone I have spoken to who has had experience of doing business in Northern Ireland speaks highly of the quality of the work force, of the availability of well educated young people, of the advantage of good infrastructure, broadband coverage and the highly competitive cost base.

There is so much going for Northern Ireland that can be built on given the right environment but this will take time; I have said it may take up to 25 years but we have to start now.

By the end of the year, the Treasury working with the Executive will have produced a paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.

It will look at proposals for turning Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone.

In addition it will examine potential mechanisms for giving Northern Ireland a separate rate of Corporation Tax.

Reducing Corporation Tax to the level of that in the Republic of Ireland, or indeed going even lower, could give a huge marketing boost to efforts to attract investment from across the world.

Every challenge is also an opportunity and if that is a cliche it is because it is true.

What we want to end up with is an effective public sector working alongside a thriving private sector.

I want to see bright young people being able to have the choice of going into public service or joining the private sector on the basis that both offer exciting and rewarding careers.

I have often said that in facing the challenges and exploiting every opportunity offered we function best when we are a team.

It is a team game and it is a team game that we can win.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 11 November 2010.

The House will be aware that one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Right Honourable Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), announced in the House on 23 September 2004 that he would take steps to establish a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane in 1989. To date no such inquiry has been established.

I believe it is right that I should determine the way forward in this case and that consequently I should set out a clear decision making process both to the House and to the Finucane family. I met the family on the 8 November to listen to their views and I have written to them formally inviting their representations as to whether it is in the public interest that I should establish a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane. I will consider those representations carefully and in detail, along with any other relevant representations that I receive over the next two months, before deciding this question.

In addition to considering representations on the case, I shall also need to take into account a broad range of other factors in determining what the public interest requires. The other factors that I will consider when deciding the public interest will include:

the commitment given to this House in 2004

the conclusions of reviews and investigations into the case and the extent to which the case has caused, and is capable of causing, public concern

the experience of the other inquiries established after the Weston Park commitments

the delay that has occurred since the 2004 announcement and the potential length of any inquiry

political developments that have taken place in Northern Ireland since 2004

the potential cost of any inquiry and the current pressures on the UK government’s finances

It is my intention to consider the public interest carefully and in detail at the end of the two month period for representations and then to take a decision after such consideration as to whether or not to hold a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2010.

I beg to move that this House does consider the report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

This debate follows the publication of that report on the 15th June this year and My Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement in this House in response.

I would like to thank the tribunal for its report. I have read the report in full and it is clearly a remarkable piece of work.

Mr Speaker, let me reiterate the government’s clear position on this report. Lord Saville’s conclusions are shocking. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable.

As my Rt. Hon Friend the Prime Minister has said, we do not honour all those members of the armed forces who bravely upheld the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

I am sure Honourable Members are familiar with many of the conclusions in the report, but I should put on record again some of the tribunal’s key findings:

Lord Saville found:

A “serious and widespread loss of fire discipline” by members of Support Company of The Parachute Regiment who entered the Bogside, “as a result of an order…which should not have been given.”

Lord Saville found that “despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.”

And that many of the soldiers “knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

In some of the most shocking sections of the report, Lord Saville concludes that some of those killed or injured were fleeing or going to the assistance of others.

The report says that Patrick Doherty was shot whilst “crawling….away from the soldiers”.

And refers to Alexander Nash who was

“hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son”.

Lord Saville records that James Wray was shot, in all probability, “when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.”

For those looking for statements of innocence, the report is clear that:

“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”

As my Rt. Hon Friend the Prime Minister has said we do not defend the British army by defending the indefensible. It is clear from the tribunal’s unequivocal conclusions that some members of our armed forces acted wrongly.

Mr Speaker, I reiterate the government’s apology for the events of that day.

The government is deeply sorry for what happened.

Just as the report is clear in its conclusions on the unjustifiable actions that took place in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday, so too it is clear in its other findings. There is no suggestion in the report that there was any premeditation or conspiracy by the UK government, the Northern Ireland government or senior members of the armed forces.

Lord Saville said that there was no evidence that the authorities tolerated or encouraged “the use of unjustified lethal force.”

Mr Speaker, the process surrounding this report has been the subject of much controversy. None of us could have anticipated that the inquiry would take 12 years or cost nearly £192 million. Our views on that are well documented. But I firmly believe it is right that our main focus now is not on the controversies surrounding the process, but on the substance of the report’s conclusions.

And of course we should reflect not just on the report itself but on the reaction to Lord Saville’s conclusions and the Prime Minister’s statement.

The whole House will have seen the memorable pictures broadcast around the world showing the response of the families and crowds in the Guildhall Square in Derry. The families of those killed, and those injured, had fought a long and determined campaign over 38 years to prove the innocence of their loved ones.

I met the families shortly after publication and again earlier today. I heard for myself the impact the report and my Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement has had on their lives.

I should also take the opportunity to record my gratitude for the hard work of my officials and the Department in successfully managing the publication of the report. Publication was a major international event, with 419 press passes issued for the Guildhall square alone.

It is also right to draw Honourable Members’ attention to other responses to the report that received less coverage but which are nonetheless important in illustrating the broad acceptance that Lord Saville’s report received.

The leaders of the three main Protestant churches in Ireland made a symbolically important visit to the Bogside shortly after publication. And the First Minister, Peter Robinson, publicly indicated his acceptance of Lord Saville’s findings.

Senior military figures, including the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards and the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, joined the Prime Minister in his apology for the events of Bloody Sunday.

Mr Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear – as my Rt. Hon Friend the Prime Minister did – that Bloody Sunday was not the defining story of the army’s service in Northern Ireland. Between 1969 and 2007, over 250,000 people served in Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history.

Our armed forces displayed immense courage, dedication and restraint in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. We should not forget that over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives, and many thousands more were injured, for that cause. Nor should we forget that the security situation in Northern Ireland had been deteriorating steadily since 1969.

As Lord Saville outlines in Volume 1 of the report, those who lost their lives included two RUC officers, Sergeant Peter Gilgunn and Constable David Montgomery, killed by the IRA three days before Bloody Sunday. They were the first police officers killed in the city during the Troubles.

Without the security forces, the peace process would not have happened. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who served in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, the hurt and suffering that victims of the Troubles from all parts of the community continue to feel must be recognised and acknowledged. Finding a way of dealing with the painful legacy of the past is one of the great challenges facing Northern Ireland today.

Our approach to the conclusions of reviews and reports in individual cases is clear.

Where wrongdoing or failings by the state are clearly identified the government will accept responsibility and apologise. We have demonstrated this in our rapid response to this report; to the Police Ombudsman’s report on Claudy published in August; and to the Billy Wright Inquiry Report published in September.

More widely there cannot, of course, be a Saville-type inquiry for each person killed during the Troubles. But there are ongoing processes that are helping to provide some answers. The Historical Enquiries Team is investigating all 3,268 deaths in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, including the deaths of soldiers and police officers who lost their lives.

The 86% satisfaction rate that the HET is achieving amongst families who have received reports demonstrates the success it is having in helping to bring a measure of resolution.

The Police Ombudsman continues to investigate legacy cases and there are a number of ongoing inquests relating to deaths from the Troubles.

I welcome the very important work that the Northern Ireland Executive, the Victims Commissioners and many voluntary organisations are doing in providing healthcare and practical support to victims.

The future of these processes is in the hands of the devolved administration.

And for my part Iam fully supportive of the important and difficult work that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains continues to carry out.

Our views on new public inquiries are, of course, well known. As my Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries.

This is not a policy based solely on financial calculation. Continuing to pick out selective cases to subject to a lengthy public inquiry is not a viable approach to dealing with the legacy of a conflict that saw thousands of people from all parts of the community killed.

And nor should we be under any illusion that public inquiries provide any guarantee of satisfaction for victims’ families.

The Billy Wright Inquiry report showed that even an inquiry lasting six years and costing £30 million can be accused of not having answered critical questions. Many commentators pointed out that the report recorded the panel’s regret that they had no explanation for how the guns used to murder Billy Wright were smuggled into the high security Maze prison.

But whilst our position on new inquiries is clear, we cannot simply shut down the past.

I recognise that there are no easy answers. The previous government’s consultation on the Eames-Bradley report ended in October 2009 – we swiftly published the responses to that consultation in July this year.

Those responses clearly showed that there is little consensus at present on a wider mechanism to address the past.

But we have not let that stop us from continuing to listen to the views of people in Northern Ireland and to find a way forward.

My Honourable Friend the Minister of State and I have met with victims groups, community organisations, academics and politicians from all parts of the community to move forward the debate on this important issue. We will continue to do so.

Many different views have been expressed. But one clear theme does emerge from these discussions, and from the experience of existing mechanisms such as the HET. That is the desire of the families of victims of the Troubles to understand those traumatic events better. Helping families, and wider society, achieve that greater understanding and closure is vital, however difficult that may be.

It will require leadership from all those involved in the events of the past 40 years – in Westminster, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I plan to continue exploring ideas on the contentious issues of the past over the coming months. Our approach will remain measured, sensitive and realistic.

Lord Saville’s report closes a painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s troubled history. In so doing it makes an important contribution to helping Northern Ireland move forward to a genuinely shared future.