§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day.—(Lord Richard.)
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is aware, on this side of the House we accept the Prime Minister's judgment in setting up this tribunal and do not oppose this Motion. But the Lord Privy Seal said on Thursday, when he responded to questions following the Statement, that the setting up of a new tribunal was in no way a criticism of Lord Widgery. That seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to say. He seems to be one of the very few people who believe that. After all, if the newspapers are correct about the papers given to the Government by the Irish Government, which include the new evidence and which have led to the new inquiry, they are filled with criticisms of Lord Widgery's tribunal, including the evidence that he did not take and the conclusions he came to.
The Lord Privy Seal also said that this was a wholly separate matter from the peace process. But, as I understand it, the Government hope that going into these matters will have a beneficial impact on the peace process. Whether it does or not only time will tell. We hope that it will. Is it not already clear that Sinn FeinfIRA are going to milk this new tribunal for maximum propaganda throughout? The Government should be prepared to respond to that.
The Lord Privy Seal did not respond to the question on prosecutions which he was asked last Thursday. There is another opportunity for him to do so in support of this Motion. But perhaps he would prefer to do so in correspondence.
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, I am perfectly prepared to respond. Such researches as we have been able to carry out lead us to believe that questioning of this sort on such Motions is virtually unprecedented in this House. Certainly on two occasions since 1994, when the previous administration set up tribunals of inquiry, the time for questioning was when the Statement was made and not when the Motion was presented. But there we are. If the noble Lord wishes to ask questions I suppose he is entitled to get answers.
I said that the tribunal was not a criticism of Lord Widgery, and I still say that. The great difference between now and then is that there is new evidence which he did not have. In those circumstances, to say to 433 a court of appeal that there is fresh evidence that the judge who presided over the trial would have considered if it had been available is no criticism of the first judge. It is merely saying that he did not have the evidence. That is what I said last week and that is what I am saying today.
The noble Lord asked that I expand on how this inquiry is separate from the peace process. It is self-evidently separate from the peace process. That process is a set of negotiations which are taking place. They are highly political and highly charged issues. This is an inquiry into events which took place 26 years ago. Of course the Government hope that it will have an effect in bringing the communities together. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing sinister in the Government expressing a hope that one of the results of setting up the inquiry, which is justified, is that the communities may come together rather than be driven further apart.
As to whether I have anything to add on immunity from prosecution, I say this. The establishment of a public inquiry does not preclude a criminal investigation or prosecution if in the light of all the evidence which may emerge either course seems justified. It will be open to the RUC to commence a criminal investigation at any stage where it is felt that the evidence so warranted it. Such investigation will receive full government co-operation. Any subsequent proceedings would be subject to any undertaking on immunity which had been given to those who provided evidence to the inquiry.
Perhaps I may say a word about immunity so that we can clear the matter up beyond peradventure. Because the inquiry is to be established under the 1921 Act, any person who can give material evidence will be under a legal obligation to do so, subject only to the right not to incriminate themselves. If the exercise of that right by any individual or group of individuals were to hamper the ability of the inquiry to obtain significant evidence. it could invite the Attorney-General to consider providing the witness with a suitable undertaking, or in an extreme case, immunity. Each case will be considered on its merits. I hope that that clears up the matter to the satisfaction of the noble Lord.
§ Lord BleaseMy Lords, within the provisions of the 1921 Act, does the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal consider that it might be helpful to the scope and purpose of the proposed tribunal to seek to include a suitably qualified citizen of South Africa or of another country outside the European Community?
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, the Government announced on Thursday that the tribunal would have three members. The name of one of the members has been announced; the other two are to be announced. We have said that they will come from Commonwealth countries with knowledge and experience of similar legal systems to our own.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.