Tag: Owen Paterson

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 18 October 2010.

This is a very significant week for Northern Ireland. On Wednesday the Chancellor will announce measures to tackle the huge deficit that the coalition government inherited, the biggest in the G20. This will present challenges but it will also open up opportunities. The Coalition is determined to create the conditions for sustained economic growth. That can only be for the long term good of Northern Ireland.

I will be doing everything in my power to help Northern Ireland attract inward investment and welcome the opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Secretary of State Clinton.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 1 October 2010.

Wherever I went the same message was coming through loud and clear. The US is fully behind our efforts to work with the devolved administration to help Northern Ireland continue to progress towards long term political stability and economic growth.

It was particularly encouraging to hear that those who try to thwart that progress will gain absolutely no traction in the United States.

And support for Northern Ireland is not only in the form of warm words.

Congressman Richie Neal assured me that he is confident that the US Congress will shortly vote through a further $15m a year for the next three years for the International Fund for Ireland which enables bodies like Co-Operation Ireland to do immensely valuable work in Northern Ireland.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 15 September 2010.

I have received the ]24th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC)](https://whitehall-admin.production.alphagov.co.uk/government/admin/publications/137656). This report has been made under Articles 4 and 7 of the International Agreement that established the Commission. It reports on the murder of Bobby Moffett in Belfast on 28 May 2010. I have considered the content of the Report and I am today laying it before Parliament.

The IMC conclude that:

The murder was committed by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) acting as such;

These members had sanction at central leadership level. The fact that there was no subsequent condemnation of the killing by the leadership means that the UVF has, in effect, adopted the consequences of the murder;

There were 2 main reasons for the murder and the way in which it was committed: to stop Mr Moffett’s perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged;

Senior leadership in the UVF could have prevented the murder had it determined to do so.

In May 2007 the UVF issued a statement renouncing violence and committing to a process of transformation from a military to a civilian organisation. This was a major turning point for them. Last year they also took the step of decommissioning.

The IMC observe that “the murder does not blind us to the progress the UVF has made hitherto or of itself mean that the process [of transformation] will be reversed. But it does call into question the reference in the May 2007 statement to becoming a civilian organisation and shows that when faced with what it saw as a challenge to its standing and authority, the organisation reverted to physical force”. The IMC go on to say that “If this murder is to mark the end of the use of physical force it will require a more profound change of culture and attitude by the leadership and the organisation.”

The murder of Mr Moffett was brutal and shocking. The conclusions of the IMC in respect of the behaviour of the UVF leadership are a challenge to the UVF leadership to renew their determination to deliver fully on their collective commitment to transform their organisation.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 2 September 2010.

This is a very timely and significant report by the Centre for Social Justice. It highlights that in tackling poverty Northern Ireland has much to learn from Great Britain, but Great Britain can also learn much from the excellent work being done in Northern Ireland. I have seen a great deal of this at first hand in opposition and now in government.

The report also reinforces the need to move politics forward in Northern Ireland to focus on the mainstream issues that affect people in their daily lives. Many of the areas covered by the report are rightly devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I trust that local politicians will find the report’s conclusions a positive contribution to promoting social justice and a shared future for all the people of Northern Ireland. As I have said many times, this is a team effort between the UK government, the devolved administration and those organisations that are key to delivering these objectives on the ground.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 4 August 2010.

Anyone who meets victims of terrorism, especially young victims, cannot fail to be moved by the personal tragedy that they have suffered. But the contrast between the positive hope and inspiration of these young people and the emptiness of those who visited evil upon them could not be more stark.

There are still a small number people in our community intent on creating more victims, as evidenced in Londonderry and Bangor this week. The young people of Project Common Bond put them to shame.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 13 July 2010.

Along with Minister of State, Hugo Swire and Justice Minister David Ford, I watched events unfold late into the night before being briefed by the Chief Constable.

The contrast between the restraint and professionalism of the police who were there to maintain law and order and the mob which attacked them could not have been greater.

The Chief Constable and the Justice Minister should be justly proud of the incredibly brave men and women of the PSNI who held the line last night in the face of a sustained and violent assault.

It is vital that local people come forward with information to help their police service with its investigation.

The vast majority of gatherings pass off peacefully but there remain issues to be resolved around parading.

Northern Ireland has come so far because locally elected, locally accountable representatives have found the political will to resolve difficulties that not so long ago seemed insoluble.

I have no doubt that will be the case with parades.

But there will be those who will try to exploit and create community tensions.

They will not be allowed to put the future at risk.

The comments made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 9 July 2010.

I am delighted to be here in the City today and reaffirm my full support for the UK City of Culture 2013 bid. In a City that boasts everything from the Undertones to Seamus Heaney, The Field Day Theatre Company, Dana, Phil Coulter and many others, a place that is home to talent, creativity, energy and strength the bid deserves every success. While some call it Londonderry and others Derry I’m sure what we want to learn is that this hugely impressive bid is successful next Thursday.

The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 6 July 2010.

In anticipation of the publication of the report of the Billy Wright Inquiry, I have today asked a team of officials to commence the checking of the Inquiry’s report in relation to human rights and national security matters, as outlined below. I intend to adopt the same approach as was used for the checking of the report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

I am responsible for publication of the Inquiry’s report, once it is delivered to me. I am advised that I have a duty, as a public authority under the Human Rights Act, to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). To fulfil this duty, I need to take steps to satisfy myself that publication of the report will not breach Article 2 of the Convention by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk. I am advised that these obligations must be met by me personally, in my capacity as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Although the Inquiry is also a public authority under the Human Rights Act, I am not entitled to rely on the Inquiry to satisfy my Article 2 obligations and I have a duty to assess this myself. I also have a duty to satisfy myself that publication will not put national security at risk, for example by disclosing details of sources of confidential information.

During the course of the Inquiry, the Government submitted to the Inquiry Panel some material that was relevant to its work but which was too sensitive to be disclosed publicly, usually because it contained information which had been provided to the security forces by individuals. If those individuals could be identified from the details they provided it would endanger their lives. I understand that the Inquiry Panel does not intend to refer to any material which would constitute a breach of Article 2, or compromise national security, but I have a duty to satisfy myself before publication that none of this material has inadvertently been revealed in the report. The Inquiry Panel also agreed that the identities of a small number of individuals who were engaged on highly sensitive duties should not be disclosed and I need to be assured that these individuals have not been identified.

I have established a small team of officials and legal advisers to assist me in carrying out this necessary exercise. The team will be led by the Northern Ireland Office’s principal legal adviser, but will need to include members drawn from the Ministry of Defence, Security Service, and PSNI who are familiar with the sensitive material provided to the Inquiry Panel, but they will be granted access to the report under strict terms of confidentiality and for the sole purpose of carrying out the necessary checks, and they will report directly to me alone. Lord MacLean has agreed that this team can carry out the necessary checks on the Inquiry’s premises while the report remains in his custody, before it is submitted to me. I have confirmed to Lord MacLean that I am content with this proposal. I understand that the report will be made available for checking today.

I believe that these checks are absolutely necessary in order to meet the legal obligations on me. Following the approach used for the checking of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry report, I have sought Lord MacLean’s permission to allow members of the Inquiry legal team to be present during the checking process, to which Lord MacLean has agreed. At all times, members of the Inquiry legal team will be acting as representatives of the Inquiry and not as advisers to me or the checking team.

I want to publish the report in its entirety. Should any concerns about the safety of any individual arise, my first course of action would be to consider whether these can be addressed through alternative means. Were I to reach the conclusion, on advice, that a redaction to the text might be necessary, I would consult Lord MacLean. In the very unlikely event that any redaction was deemed necessary, my intention would be to make this clear on the face of the report.

The report must be published first for this House, and I intend to publish the report as soon as possible once the checking process has been completed. However, I acknowledge the importance of this Inquiry’s findings in the lives of a number of individuals. As with the publication of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry report, I intend to consider giving advance sight to those who were designated as Represented Parties by the Inquiry. I intend to discuss this with the Speaker of this House in due course.