Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Owen Paterson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 May 2011. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Report.


Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Report

I have to say that I regret the shadow Secretary of State's tone. I made it quite clear in my statement that there were criticisms of state agencies, and on his basic question—if there was a question—of why Mrs Nelson was not protected, I made it quite clear that there were analyses of her security status by the RUC and she was twice deemed not to be at risk. However, the key point is that she did not ask for protection. It is not for me, who read the report overnight, or the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a shorter time than I had to read it, to second-guess this enormous work. What comes out quite clearly from this very lengthy report is that there were omissions, and that if they had not happened, the risk to Mrs Nelson would have been reduced. However, the report is quite clear that, sadly:"““There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk.””" It is the fact that we did not reduce the risk—his Government was in charge at the time—for which I have apologised on behalf of the British state.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
528 c649 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Bombings Homicide Terrorism Royal Ulster Constabulary Northern Ireland Office Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Nelson, Rosemary
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk