Northern Ireland Peace Process (Hansard, 21 April 1999)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, the peace process in Northern Ireland, which was initiated by the previous government, has been developed in co-operation with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland. The experience of other countries may be relevant to some degree but the situation in Northern Ireland is unique and the peace process has been designed to reach an agreed resolution to the specific issues which arise in that context.

§ Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Are the Government not being deeply hypocritical? They are releasing from gaol hundreds of people who have bombed, murdered, maimed, mutilated, sometimes in sessions lasting many days, killed children and buried people in unnamed graves. Ministers are meeting people who have planned violence which has resulted in literally thousands of 1158 deaths. Yet, at the same time, in the case of the former president of Chile, the Hone Secretary, who has wide discretion in this matter, as evidenced by his refusal—

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
My Lords, I must advise the House that the case of Senator Pinochet is still sub judice and, therefore, cannot be discussed in your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I have taken the advice of the Clerk to the House. While other matters may be sub judice, the ruling of the Home Secretary is not sub judice and no application has been made for it to be reviewed in court, so it is not sub judice.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, it may be that our advice is slightly different. However, I am advised by the Clerk that, although it is in order for Members to raise with Ministers matters relating to Senator Pinochet not affecting the issues to be determined by the courts, including the Home Secretary's role in the proceedings, in suggesting that there is a comparative situation, the noble Lord is doing precisely that.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, perhaps I may attempt to be as helpful as I possibly can in answering those parts of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—

§ Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I have taken advice from the Clerk as to whether I may raise this question, and the advice that I received from the Clerk of the Parliaments is that the matter of the Horne Secretary's decision is not sub judice. The Home Secretary has wide discretion in this matter, as evidenced, for example, by his refusal to extradite an alleged IRA bomber to Germany. Therefore, is it not deeply regrettable that the Home Secretary should have ignored the express wish of the democratically elected government of Chile that peace and reconciliation in Chile, as in Ireland, is best left to the Chileans themselves to decide?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord's proposition is that this is hypocrisy. The prisoner releases in Northern Ireland were based on the Belfast agreement. To their undying credit, Mr. John Major and Mr. William Hague both campaigned that that Belfast agreement should be put into effect.
Significantly as a result of their efforts, more than 70 per cent. of those voting in Northern Ireland and more than 90 per cent. in the Republic voted in favour. Thereafter, democratically, appropriately and without hypocrisy, both Houses of this Parliament passed the legislation. I see nothing hypocritical about that. It upholds the rule of law, and everything that Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, has done has been consistent with the law and has upheld the rule of law.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is the tradition of this House to 1159 accept the guidance given by the Leader of the House in matters of this sort; and that it is wholly wrong to try to use conversations with Officials of the House at Question Time in your Lordships' House?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I have done my best to follow the advice given by my noble friend the Leader of the House. As I indicated earlier, I have done my best to answer the noble Lord as fully and informatively as I can within the rules of practice and sub judice.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, when do the Government believe that it is right to interfere in the affairs of another friendly democratic state?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, curiously this Government believe in the rule of law. We have international treaty obligations which oblige us to pay proper, due, lawful regard, as the noble Lord will know as a former Home Secretary, to extradition requests. The present extradition legislation is contained in the Extradition Act 1989 introduced by our predecessors.

§ Lord Redesdale
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only political party in Northern Ireland which has talked about a truth and reconciliation committee is Sinn Fein, and even it did not talk about it with any degree of seriousness? Is it not unfortunate, at such a fragile period in the peace process, that this Question was used to ask another question entirely?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, we all have responsibilities beyond our own personal interests. How we discharge them is a matter of individual conscience and taste.

§ Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's strictures that we should always follow the guidance, if possible, laid down by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Nevertheless, does the noble Lord not agree that increasingly—and extremely welcome it is—countries which have suffered from oppressive regimes have found it expedient to let bygones be bygones? That has increasingly become a way forward to building a consensus for representative government in the countries concerned. Does the Minister believe that interference from many thousands of miles away will help, in this case, Chile, South Africa and, in our case, Northern Ireland to build a polity which is likely to be able to face the future in a way that we should all welcome?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that I had uttered strictures. I have been very careful not to. I simply said that I had paid attention to the advice given to the House.
The rule of law is not divisible. It does not depend on the convenience of the moment. It has a moral validity beyond political convenience.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an area of discretion in these matters for 1160 the Home Secretary? In fact, discretion was used by the present Home Secretary when refusing to extradite RoisÍn McAliskey, for whom there was a very strong case for extradition to Germany with which we have reciprocal arrangements. How is it that the noble Lord can pray in aid only the rule of law and not refer to the area of discretion? Is any head of state free to come and go in this country when reconciliation has taken place and lines in the sand have been drawn?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, if one cares to study the Extradition Act 1989, even superficially, one will understand that discretion is part of the rule of law, but that has to be applied on a proper basis.
Perhaps I can remind the House that the Home Secretary declined to order the return of Miss RoisÍn McAliskey on health grounds at the end of the extradition process.

§ Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the ex-president of Chile could be released from his extradition charge because he is now over 80 years-old and it is questionable whether his health will be up to the long, drawn out process in front of him.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, any question of ill health can feature as part of the Home Secretary's discretion. I think he has made that plain on earlier occasions, but I am happy to confirm the noble Lord's understanding.