Dr Andrew Murrison

I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on special forces, but I do suggest that he look at special forces specifically, which is what I was talking about earlier. If he wants to heap laurels on me, as a former Minister for defence people, since these things take a very long time, I am perfectly happy to take some of the credit. I am grateful to him for that, but I do not think that it was the intent of his remarks. My question to him was about clause 4(2). He satisfied me in relation to the directors of investigations, but it is the commissioners about whom I am concerned. I think that, unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I should be grateful if he could clarify that for me at some point. Government amendment 259 and new clause 34 concern, respectively, commissioners and members of the victims and survivors advisory group. There is a mandate that commissioners cannot have been convicted of an offence “anywhere in the world”. That needs a bit of further thought, because in some parts of our benighted world today, people are convicted by jurisdictions for which I do not think we would have a great deal of respect. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely—but convicted nevertheless—in such a jurisdiction. I feel that we may need to revise the wording, either here or in the other place, to be clear about the Government’s intent. Neither is there any mention of the rehabilitation of offenders. New clause 34 does at least place a limit of three months on a custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think that this part of the Bill needs a bit of redrafting so that it makes more sense. Government amendment 162 touches on the provision of information via a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get-out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticability test. What I am not sure about, and what I seek clarification on, is what circumstances would make it “impracticable” for a person to provide information through live audio or video links. Comments have been made about the part that the Irish Government play in all this through the framework agreement. There is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on the Bill, and we have heard—particularly in relation to Omagh—why that should be. I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Irish Government have not been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and, indeed, had not seen the amendments before their publication, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State expects the Irish Government to implement, through their legislative channels, the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary to provide some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point it has been untapped, and until it is tapped, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin in trying to provide answers to many of the problems about which we have heard today. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was right to say that this is all about victims. It is also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There must be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years. There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles, and it is our job to do what we can to remedy that, difficult and imperfect though the process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s endeavours—he approaches this matter in good faith, as did his predecessor —but I fear that what we have at the moment simply will not do.