Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat). It was answered on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office.

Consultative Group on the Past

Question: The comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and others indicate the difficulties that lie ahead for the Secretary of State if he insists on proceeding on what he terms the basis of consensus. There was a broad consensus on recognition payments, and it was broadly opposed to them. He was right to abandon the proposal, but I hope that he will proceed with the remainder of the Eames-Bradley report, which is excellent in its conclusions. Does he agree that so-called moral equivalence is not what the reconciliation process is about?

Answer: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the key word of the Eames-Bradley report—reconciliation. They rightly understood that they needed a clear objective, which was to promote peace and stability. In order to promote that, it would be necessary to reconcile people and communities, and that is why they recognised the excellent work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the police ombudsman in investigating the past. Eames and Bradley also rightly—in my opinion—came to the conclusion that the current arrangements probably need to be changed for the long term. That is one example of one proposal in the Eames-Bradley report that the Government are considering very carefully. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful consideration of the entire report, not just one highly controversial section.

Secondary information