Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 24th May 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The troubles represented a terrible period in Northern Ireland’s past and in these islands as a whole. They claimed the lives of some 3,500 people in Northern Ireland, across Great Britain and in Ireland. They left tens of thousands injured and they impacted all aspects of our society. Many across the whole of our country still bear the scars, both visible and invisible, today. That Northern Ireland in 2022 has come so far in so many ways is a testament to the spirit and strength of its people and to the vision, bravery and determination of those who forged the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. It is also a testament to the sacrifice of those men and women who went out each morning to uphold democracy and save lives, rather than those who went out to take them.
Looking around today, I see many wonderful examples of a transformed, inclusive, peaceful Northern Ireland, yet despite this exceptional progress, the troubles continue to cast a shadow over all those impacted and over wider society. Community tensions and divisive politics can undermine stability. This legacy of the troubles is an issue that successive Governments have attempted but ultimately been unable to resolve, because it concerns one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult periods in our country’s history, but we cannot stand by and do nothing; we cannot let the status quo continue. To do that would be a dereliction of our duty to the people of Northern Ireland and to those who served their country during that dark period. It would be a dereliction of duty to families across the United Kingdom who still seek answers about what happened to their loved ones, in some cases more than 50 years ago.
This Government recognise the huge challenges involved in seeking to address Northern Ireland’s past. We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations do not suffer in the same way as those who have gone before them. With every year that goes by, the opportunity to obtain answers for those who lost loved ones in the troubles diminishes further. We have a responsibility to ensure that children can grow up together, be educated together and understand all aspects of our shared past—a past that, at times, was bitter, difficult and inordinately painful for everyone involved.
The current system is broken. It is delivering neither justice nor information to the vast majority of families. The lengthy, adversarial and complex legal processes do not offer the most effective route to information recovery, nor do they foster understanding, acknowledgment or reconciliation. Faith in the criminal justice model to deal with legacy cases has been undermined. The high standard of proof required to secure a successful prosecution, combined with the passage of time and the difficulty in securing sufficient evidence, means that victims and their families very rarely, if ever, obtain the outcome they seek from the process.
We need to be honest about the limitations of focusing on criminal justice as a means to secure truth and accountability in relation to what happened to those who were killed or injured. It is arguably cruel to perpetuate false hope while presenting no viable alternative to deliver the information that so many families and survivors seek. That is why we are introducing legislation that seeks to address this most difficult and sensitive of issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State mentioned those who served in uniform. I remind him gently and kindly, but seriously as well, that my cousin Kenneth Smyth and his friend Daniel McCormick, both in the Ulster Defence Regiment, neither of whom were able to—excuse me. No IRA man was ever made accountable for their murders 51 years ago. Stuart Montgomery, a wee 20-year-old police officer was murdered outside Pomeroy—no IRA man was ever made accountable for his murder. John Birch, Steven Smart, John Bradley and Michael Adams, the four UDR men killed at Ballydugan, four men who served this country in uniform—no one was made accountable for their murders.
Secretary of State, you can understand the angst and the agony that I have on behalf of my constituents. I want to have the justice that they have been denied for over 50 years—in the case of the four UDR men, for 32 years this Sunday past. What are you doing to make sure that happens?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman gives a powerful and clear outline of the difficulty and pain that people feel, as he has just shown, in this very complex and sensitive area. He makes that point better than almost anybody else could. He touches on the very challenge we face, as we have seen over the past few decades, with the failure of the current system to bring that accountability, understanding and truth for people. As I will outline over the next few minutes, through this legislation we want to achieve an outcome that means people get the truth, with which comes accountability. He is right to focus on that for his constituents.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have met many victims of the violence and the loved ones of those who died. They still want the Stormont House agreement to be implemented. The Secretary of State has to account for this. The civil proceedings on the Ormeau Road events revealed a lot of detail, as did the Kingsmill and Ballymurphy inquests. They all revealed truths that had not been known. What the Secretary of State describes as an adversarial approach to seeking justice actually works. This will disappear and he has to account for that.
Brandon Lewis
It is not going to disappear. What we are looking to do is to have a full, independent, investigative, article 2-compliant process. I will touch on that in the next few minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brandon Lewis
I will just make a bit of progress and then take some more interventions.
Drawing its core principles from the important work and principles of Stormont House, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this legislation focuses on effective and timely information recovery, and the answers and accountability that come with it, for both families and survivors, as well as aiding reconciliation and helping society move forward.
The Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to the veterans of our armed forces, security services and the Royal Ulster Constabulary by providing the men and women who served to protect life in Northern Ireland with the certainty they also deserve. Many of them, of course, are also victims, or friends and family of victims.
No longer will our veterans, the vast majority of whom served in Northern Ireland with distinction and honour, have to live in perpetual fear of getting a knock at the door for actions taken in the protection of the rule of law many decades ago. With this Bill, our veterans will have the certainty they deserve and we will fulfil our manifesto pledge to end the cycle of investigations that has plagued too many of them for too long.
I acknowledge the many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who have campaigned tirelessly and with great dignity on this issue. Indeed, I recognise that many victims and veterans groups more widely across Northern Ireland and Great Britain have campaigned for a long time for better outcomes for victims and survivors.
We were clear when we published our Command Paper last July that we would listen to feedback with an open mind, and my team and I have done just that over the last 10 months. We have heard the pain and perspectives of people from all viewpoints and communities. During those conversations, we repeatedly had to confront the very painful reality that, with more than two thirds of troubles-related cases now 40 years old, the prospect of successful prosecutions is vanishingly small, which is why this legislation marks a definitive shift in focus by having information recovery for families at its core.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In all candour, I do not envy the Secretary of State’s task. He describes it as painful, difficult and sensitive. All those words are absolutely correct, but this is not the first time we have been in this situation. Since the days of John Major and Tony Blair, the only way we have been able to make progress is to get everybody together to build consensus and then introduce legislation. It is surely already apparent from today’s debate that the Secretary of State does not have that consensus, so what does he hope to achieve by introducing this legislation?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. As I said, it is widely acknowledged that this is a very difficult and painful area on which there has not been consensus. There was not even full cross-party consensus on Stormont House. That is why there are times like this when, having listened to everybody—the political parties, the victims groups and the veterans groups—it is sometimes for us in Government to take those difficult decisions to find a way forward that can deliver a better outcome for people.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think I heard my name in the list the Secretary of State read out earlier.
As early as April 2017, the Select Committee on Defence recommended a statute of limitation combined with a truth recovery process. One reason we felt able to recommend this is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 meant that no one, no matter how many murders they had committed, could face a jail sentence of longer than two years, which meant being released in one year or 18 months at most. So there is no question of punishment fitting the crime, and there is no question of it not being the same for service personnel and terrorists—the Act has already established that—so the question is, what will stop the process, because the process of trying elderly veterans is the punishment, rather than the sentence.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very aware that the Defence Committee has published two reports in this area, and they are well worth reading. They recognise the changes that mean the criminal justice system for these cases is not like the criminal justice system for other types of crime across the United Kingdom. The reality is that, after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we had the 1998 Act and decommissioning, among other things that I will touch on in a moment, and it means that we in Government are looking at what we can do, based on the reality of where we are, with a very difficult and imperfect situation that has developed through difficult decisions made in the past, to deliver a better outcome in the future.
It is also about understanding that, regrettably, a distorted narrative of the past has developed over time. This legislation will help to ensure that more victims and survivors, some 90% of whom are of course victims of terrorist violence, are able to obtain answers about those who caused it.
Jim Shannon
The person who killed Lexie Cummings, who was murdered in Strabane, escaped across the border with an on-the-run letter. Where is the justice for Lexie Cummings’ family, when his killer has an on-the-run letter, gets away with it and now has a prominent role in a political party across the border? Where is the justice, Secretary of State?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me just a few minutes, I will answer that very question very specifically.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I applaud the intent of the Bill and I want to see the end of the harassing of our veterans—people who have served this country well in uniform. My right hon. Friend talks of accountability a lot. Where is the accountability in the granting of immunity to people who have murdered or seriously maimed other people?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the things that has been clear in talking to victims groups, and obviously one of the challenges of this issue is that different people, even within the same family, can have very different views about what they see as a successful outcome for their family, in terms of finding a resolution, or information and understanding. With that information and understanding, as the Bill will outline, can come accountability. It is right that we have accountability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who was Chairman of the Defence Committee, outlined in his report, we cannot have justice in the sense of the punishment fitting the crime following what was done in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. I will touch on that in a few moments.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. May I ask him a linked question? Is not one of the problems that those who can be pursued through the courts tend to be those who were working on behalf of the Government, because there are records, which are well kept and in huge detail? There is little in the way of records on those who committed terrorist acts, on whichever side of the community. What, in general and specific terms, will happen to the letters of comfort that have caused such chaos in many of those cases?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes the same point, and I will deal with that issue specifically in a few moments.
My message to victims and survivors, many of whom have engaged with us since we published the Command Paper last year, is that we have listened, and carefully. We understand that, no matter how small the prospect of a successful criminal justice outcome, that possibility is something that they do not want to see removed entirely, and I know that, despite the changes we have made, this legislation will none the less remain challenging for some.
I want to say directly to all those individuals and their families that I, and we as a Government, respect the personal tragedies that drive their determination to seek the truth and accountability for the losses that they have suffered. I share that determination. The Government are not asking and would never ask them to forget what they have been through in the name of reconciliation. This is about finding a way to obtain information and provide accountability more quickly and comprehensively than the current system can and in a way that aids reconciliation both for them and for the whole of Northern Ireland.
I am immensely grateful to the many people who have engaged with us, sharing their deeply moving experiences and helping us to understand the sheer frustration and hurt that they feel over the loss of loved ones. Every tragedy remains raw, as we have seen even this afternoon in this Chamber, with the pain of many as strong today as it was on the day it happened.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I have a question about engagement with the Command Paper. The Secretary of State will know that virtually every victims group and every political party had major concerns about that. With whom have the Secretary of State and his officials engaged on the details of the revised legislation? As far as I can see, not a single victims group in Northern Ireland has been engaged with on the details, never mind supports it. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which the Government have a statutory duty to consult, have not been engaged with. The political parties in Northern Ireland have not been engaged with. So who exactly have the Government engaged with on the Bill before us today specifically?
Brandon Lewis
I do not recognise that description of events from the hon. Gentleman. There has been wide engagement on this, both with the political parties, including his own just last week, and with parties more widely.
The first part of the Bill provides that, for the purposes of this legislation, the period of the troubles is defined as beginning on 1 January 1966 and ending on 10 April 1998—the date of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Part 2 provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for information recovery, tasked with carrying out robust, effective and thorough investigations into the deaths and injuries that occurred during the troubles, for the primary purpose of information recovery.
We recognise the importance of the new commission being able to deliver its functions with absolute independence. This will be crucial to gaining the trust of families, survivors and individuals who decide to engage in the information recovery process. That is why the UK Government will have absolutely no involvement in the commission’s decision-making process. The new commission will have all the necessary policing powers to conduct its own thorough investigations, including the ability to compel witnesses and test forensics. The body will be supported for the first time by a legal requirement for full disclosure from UK Government Departments, security services and arm’s length bodies to make sure that it can gather all the evidence that it needs to establish what happened in each case.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I recognise that my right hon. Friend and the Government are doing their level best in good faith to deal with a sensitive and intractable situation. Does he recognise that the establishment of the Goldstone commission in South Africa, which is not an exact parallel but has similarities, was itself beset by considerable controversy at the beginning, but its ultimate success was largely due to the stature and integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair? He was a former Supreme Court judge of South Africa and a former prosecutor for the international tribunals in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, so a man of impeccable integrity and independence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, when we look for someone to be the chief commissioner, that is exactly the sort of person we will seek—someone with experience in these jurisdictions, but not necessarily even from the UK jurisdiction? Having someone of that level of standing will be critical, will it not, for the credibility of the decisions that the commission will be entrusted with?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gives. I will reference another one later. Operation Kenova has been successfully led and was also regarded with some scepticism at the beginning. It has shown that a piece of work, if properly done by the right people, can gain credibility, acceptance and understanding. My hon. Friend gives a good outline of exactly how this can be taken forward in a successful way for people.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend the Government for doing all they can to deal with this sensitive issue—as we have seen today. Having served in Northern Ireland for three tours, I quite understand where the sensitivity comes from. If this commission is going to find the truth, the likelihood is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said, that on the soldiers’ side the evidence is there but for terrorists on both sides of the divide, it is not. How are the victims going to get the peace that we all want them to have when the truth is unlikely ever to be found?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. He is quite right. One of the challenges is the point about balance that I made a few moments ago. As we go forward it is important, first, that records will be made available in a way that they have not been made before, going beyond what we have done before with a legal duty for the first time on Government Departments, agencies and bodies, which will mean that a whole range of information will be available for the commission to look at. Of course, if people come forward with information, particularly in a demand-led process, as I will outline in a few moments, it will provide an opportunity for people to seek the investigation of crimes by an investigatory body with the right kinds of powers. Those crimes were committed in the vast majority, as he has rightly outlined, by terrorists who went out to do harm in Northern Ireland.
We as a Government accept that, as part of this process, information will be released into the public domain that may well be uncomfortable for everyone. It is important that we as a Government acknowledge our shortcomings, as we have done previously in relation to that immensely challenging period. It is also important, as hon. Friends have said this afternoon, that others do the same. Some families have told us that they do not want to revisit the past, and we must respect that. The new commission will therefore be demand-led, taking forward investigations if requested to do so by survivors or the families of those who lost their lives. The Secretary of State will also be able to request a review, ensuring that the Government can fulfil their obligations under the European convention on human rights.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State used an interesting phrase when he said that others must play their part. On the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we have heard evidence of hundreds of people being murdered along the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but the terrorists having then fled to the safety of the Republic of Ireland for sanctuary and stayed there. What assistance, if any, has the Republic of Ireland given? Will any evidence that is gathered there never be made available to the commission in Northern Ireland? Will we therefore have a blindsided, one-sided process that does not allow the Republic of Ireland to be held to account for its covering over and hiding of terrorists for decades?
Brandon Lewis
I know that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues have previously raised cases with both me and the Irish Government. One thing that was outlined in the papers that were signed off and agreed by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government around a year ago was that the Irish Government also committed to bringing forward legislation in Ireland on information recovery, to deal with that very point.
Brandon Lewis
I have not seen it yet, but I hope we will soon see something from the Irish Government to ensure that in both jurisdictions we are working to make sure that people have as much access to information as possible.
Written reports of the commission’s findings will be provided to the families or survivors who request an investigation. The reports will also be made publicly available, to provide accountability by ensuring that wider society can access the commission’s findings and understand and acknowledge the events of the past.
After we published our Command Paper, many individuals and organisations told us that an unconditional statute of limitations for all troubles-related offences was just too painful to accept. They said that we must not close the door on the possibility of prosecutions, however remote the chances might be. We have also heard from those in our veterans community who are uncomfortable with any perceived moral equivalence between those who went out to protect life and uphold the rule of law and terrorists who were intent on causing harm. Of course, there never could be a moral equivalence of that type.
For the reasons I have just set out, we have adjusted our approach to make this a conditional model. To gain immunity, individuals must provide, if asked, an account to the new commission that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. That condition draws parallels with aspects of the truth and reconciliation commission that was implemented in South Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) outlined. The commission will require individuals to acknowledge their involvement in serious troubles-related incidents and to reveal what they know.
Let me turn to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and others. The provisions will also apply to individuals who have previously been provided with the so-called on-the-run letters, or letters of comfort. When issued, those letters confirmed whether or not an individual was wanted by the police, based on evidence held at that time. However, I want to be crystal clear that the letters have absolutely no legal standing and cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the OTR letters, some of us stated at the time, and have done since, that the only way that the people of Northern Ireland and across the UK will be able to understand and believe that the OTR letters are null and void is when a person in receipt of such a letter stands in a court of law and the judge says, “Irrelevant. The case will proceed.”
Brandon Lewis
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why I made the point I just made, which I will repeat because I want to be absolutely clear about this: these letters have no legal standing. They cannot and will not be accepted and they cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach. The new body’s investigations will continue regardless of people holding those kind of letters.
Brandon Lewis
I am just going to make a bit of progress.
It is crucial that people with the right level of expertise take the important decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst outlined. That is why a judge-led panel will make the decisions about whether immunity should be awarded, aided by guidance that we will publish prior to any such decisions being made.
The introduction of this legislation is firmly in the context of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the decisions taken as a result of that agreement in the name of peace and reconciliation, outlined by others this afternoon, that have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Let me ask my right hon. Friend a specific question. If somebody who committed a terrorist act appears before the truth and reconciliation commission and, during that appearance, talks a lot about what happened and names names, including the name of somebody who was involved in such a crime with them but refuses to give evidence to the commission, will the courts use the evidence provided as part of the truth and reconciliation process to prosecute the individual who refuses to testify before the commission?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. I will go further: as we will outline in guidance, people will not be able to benefit if they come forward at the last moment. They have to engage at the point when they are asked. The short answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the fact that after four years and two general election manifestos, the Government have finally brought forward the Bill that they have been promising the House for so long, but will the Secretary of State reassure me and my colleagues on one very important point? There are suggestions that the reconciliation process could take five years or longer. Many of our veterans are in the autumn of their lives, many are in poor health and some may well pass away before we get to that point. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and the House that this legislation, which was advertised as bringing vexatious prosecutions to an end, will not actually institutionalise precisely that problem?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I can give that assurance. As will be shown throughout the Bill’s passage, we are absolutely determined that it does not institutionalise the kind of problem that we are seeking to resolve, as well as, obviously, looking to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance.
Brandon Lewis
I shall take one more intervention and then make a fair bit of progress.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Secretary of State allowing this intervention. On the matter of the on-the-runs, can he confirm that Rita O’Hare is still wanted by the authorities for her deeds in respect of the murder of British personnel? Can he confirm that an elected representative in Northern Ireland holds an OTR letter?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not going to comment on particular cases, but I will say again that the so-called on-the-run letters have no basis in law and will not prevent or play a part in the process that we are outlining in this Bill. If somebody is in possession of one of those letters, they will still be subject to this legislation and, potentially, to prosecution.
As I have outlined, as a country we have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences. We have seen the early release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the process of secretly decommissioning weapons, and of course there is already an effective amnesty for those who provide information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. Although the Government believe that the difficult decisions taken at those points were absolutely right for the peace process, the overall approach to addressing legacy issues has not since been adjusted to reflect those very decisions.
We cannot simply pretend that things did not happen or that challenging compromises were not rightly made. As a result, the context in which we approach these issues is fundamentally different from that for any other crime across the country. The Bill strikes a balance between a focus on information recovery through an investigative process that is compliant with international obligations, and ensuring that those who choose not to engage will remain liable to prosecution, should the evidence exist. The provisions will apply to everyone equally.
Part 3 of the Bill details the impact of the proposals on ongoing and future proceedings within the current criminal, civil, inquest and police complaints systems. From the date the Bill comes into force, no other organisation in the UK, apart from the new information recovery commission, will be able to take forward a criminal investigation into a troubles-related incident.
Sir Robert Neill
Will my right hon. Friend give way on the criminal justice point?
Brandon Lewis
Just a moment.
Any existing cases in which a decision has been taken to prosecute will be allowed to continue to their conclusion. Future prosecutions will remain a possibility for those involved in offences connected to a death or serious injury, if they do not actively come forward. We have listened to the concerns expressed, following the publication of our Command Paper, about active civil claims and inquests, which is why we no longer propose to bring them to an immediate end. Civil claims that had already been filed with the courts before the Bill was introduced will be allowed to continue, but new cases will be barred. Inquests that have reached an advanced stage by 1 May next year, or the date on which the new commission becomes operational, will continue. New and existing inquests that have not reached an advanced stage by that point will not continue in the coronial system, but may be referred to the judge-led commission for investigation.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he help me on two matters? First, will he explain—this harks back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—how he envisages the interaction between clause 7, which will set limitations on the admissibility of certain material in criminal prosecutions, and the provision in clause 22 on the commission’s power to refer material? By the sound of it, compelled testimony and other types of material will be excluded, in meeting what I take it will be the full code test that will be applied by the relevant prosecuting authority.
Secondly, has the Secretary of State assessed the risk of satellite litigation by means of legal challenges to the decisions of the commission to make referrals? How will such challenges be dealt with?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes insightful points. We are cognisant of those things and will go through them in Committee and in the guidance that we will issue. That is why it is important, referring to his earlier point, that this is a judge-led commission, which involves very highly respected investigative individuals in the process.
While addressing the legacy of the past rightly focuses on those most directly affected, it is a sad fact that the troubles have touched the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the rest of these islands in different ways, including many of those born after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. It is therefore important that we think of reconciliation and remembering in a societal as well as in an individual context. That is why, under part 4 of the Bill, an expert-led memorialisation strategy will lay the groundwork for inclusive new structures and initiatives to commemorate the tragic events of the past—to help us all collectively remember those lost and ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.
Brandon Lewis
No, I will make some progress.
A major new oral history initiative will be launched. We will want to make this one of the most ambitious and comprehensive approaches to oral history that has ever been attempted, drawing on international models and concentrating on collating lived experiences and testimony and setting them within their appropriate historical context. The public, including academics and historians, will have access to more information than ever before. As well as opening up archives in a major digitisation project, rigorous new academic research commissions will allow for a fuller examination of the conflict than has ever been possible. This will be supported by a new official history, led by independent historians with unprecedented access to the UK documentary record. Consistent with the Stormont House agreement, these provisions will create opportunities for people from all backgrounds, particularly those who may not have been heard before, to share their experiences and perspectives relating to the troubles and to learn about those of others.
The legislation we are bringing forward will implement a legally robust and effective information recovery process that will provide answers to families, uphold our commitment to those who serve in Northern Ireland, and help society to look forward, while, importantly, also recognising that those who chose, or do choose, not to reveal what they know should remain indefinitely liable to the threat of prosecution. We must recognise that, notwithstanding the important changes that we have made to the proposals as set out in July last year, this legislation, I accept, will be very challenging for many.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) will hone in and focus on this in more detail in his contribution, but there is one point that I want to raise. One of the most difficult aspects of the Belfast agreement was the decision that, if someone was convicted of a terrorist-related offence, they would serve a maximum of two years in prison. Under the proposed Bill, that will now be reduced to zero tariff—no time spent in prison. Where is the incentive in all of this for someone to come forward and to co-operate in a possible prosecution process when they know that, at the end of the day, if they just hunker down for the next five years and say nothing, there is no downside for them because they will never go to prison anyway?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that it is one that he and his colleagues want to explore over the period ahead, and I look forward to discussing this with them. However, there is a very big difference here with somebody having a criminal prosecution. One thing that has been fed through to us, and one comment that has been made in a number of engagements with different groups and parties, is that it is not necessarily about somebody serving time in prison, which, as a number of colleagues have said this afternoon, no longer necessarily fits some of the heinous crimes that were committed by terrorists during that period. It is about that accountability that comes with a prosecution if one is successful. None the less, I do recognise the point that he has made.
Trust and confidence in the new commission will need to be earned through its actions. As the commendable work of Jon Boutcher and Operation Kenova has proven, this can be done and has been done successfully in that example. As the historic Belfast/ Good Friday agreement approaches its 25th anniversary, now is the moment to move forward in dealing with the terrible legacy left by the troubles, to find answers for families who seek it, to provide accountability for the wrongs done on all sides and, ultimately, to bring understanding to the next generation so that they can move forward in peace in a society that has reconciled itself with the horrors of its past.
This is a hugely significant step towards enabling true reconciliation. In order to enable society to look forward with confidence, letting the status quo continue is just not good enough. Compassion and commitment require honesty about these painful realities and about the difficult compromises that we have already had to make and that we need to make going forward. The moment has come for us all to face these head-on for the sake of the next generation.
The Northern Ireland Office has recently relocated to offices in the centre of Belfast, which is another sign of progress and something that would have perhaps seemed unthinkable 20 years ago. On the building opposite our entrance, there is a quote on the wall that colleagues will have seen as they walk past, or visit, that establishment. It reads:
“A nation that keeps one eye on the past is wise. A nation that keeps two eyes on the past is blind.”
That is our challenge: to see how we can provide families and society with a way to remember and reconcile, but also enable us to look forward and to focus on a better future for all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, let me say that I am sure that colleagues will be aware that there are many people who wish to speak in the debate on this extremely important Bill. In order to avoid a time limit, I encourage Back-Bench colleagues to keep their remarks to about 10 minutes.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill. Since the Bill was deemed incoming, I have taken the approach of trying to find common ground, so that we can move forward; the people affected by the subject of this Bill deserve that. I have not at, any point, tried to tribalise or to party politicise the issues here. I wanted to put that on the record now because I will certainly be going on to criticise aspects of the Bill, but that is not what I set out to do in the first place. I thank the Secretary of State’s officials for briefing me on the contents of the Bill last week. Unfortunately, that was before the Bill was published, but I am grateful none the less.
We all agree in this House that we must find a way to resolve the outstanding legacy issues from the troubles. The conflict touched every family in Northern Ireland: more than 300,000 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured, and that was among a population of fewer than 2 million. A thousand of those killed were members of the security forces. Terrorist atrocities were also committed in British cities from Birmingham to Brighton.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have huge respect, has just misspoken. Three hundred thousand people did not die in the troubles. Three hundred thousand veterans served in Northern Ireland, and 3,500 people lost their lives. I am sure that he will welcome the chance to correct the record on that.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting the record. Three thousand and more lost their lives in the troubles, and I apologise to the House for getting a zero in the wrong place.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement sets out that
“we must never forget those that have died or been injured and their families”.
In truth, though, victims and their families were left without a clear path to address their personal tragedies through the peace process. The Good Friday agreement was a staggering achievement, but is ambiguous as to how to eventually address the killings committed during the troubles. While this was necessary to reach an agreement to end the conflict, it left victims’ families wanting. In 2015, following years of failings, the five main political parties in Northern Ireland and the UK and Irish Governments signed the Stormont House agreement. The result of months of painstaking negotiations, it provided a comprehensive way forward on dealing with the past. Its centrepiece was the establishment of an independent Historical Investigations Unit, with full policing powers to work through, in chronological order, outstanding troubles-related cases, and a separate independent commission on information retrieval. Despite Stormont securing the support of all elected parties at the time in Northern Ireland, regrettably this Bill jettisons that approach.
Northern Ireland deserves to look forward to a bright future, rather than living in the shadow of its past. That can only happen when those who have lost loved ones no longer have to spend countless hours searching for answers. The UK Government have a critical role to play in building a brighter future by building trust and acting as an honest broker to find a way forward.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide victims’ families with a process they can trust. In fact, it deepens their pain and trauma. Its provisions would set up a new body, the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, to provide answers to families about what happened to their loved ones during the troubles. All criminal investigations, all inquests that are not at the very advanced stage and all civil actions would cease and be folded into the new body.
The Government argue that, due to the passage of time, we have a duty to empower that body to grant immunity to killers in return for information they have about their actions. There is still the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to provide an account of their actions to the commission, but the bar for immunity is set so low that it is hard to see prosecutions happening in practice. The commission must grant immunity if three conditions are met: the perpetrator requests immunity, they then give an account to the body that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief, and the conduct they describe would otherwise have exposed them to criminal investigation or prosecution.
I must be blunt. Such a low bar for attaining immunity is offensive to the families who have lost loved ones and, in many cases, waited decades for answers. I will illustrate that concern with an example. Raymond McCord was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in November 1997. His father joins us today in the Public Gallery. There was no coroner’s inquest into Raymond’s murder, no police investigation that involved or reported to his family and no public inquiry. Raymond Sr. went through two court cases to have information regarding his son’s death released. He won, but when he received all the information, he found out that of 303 pages, 296 were redacted. At the same time, his son’s gravestone has been repeatedly vandalised, an action clearly intended to deepen the pain felt by his family.
Across the House, we must consider today whether this Bill offers Raymond’s family as many new rights as it does his murderer. I do not believe it does. Under this legislation, Raymond’s murderer has the right to come forward and, should he tell a basic but realistic account of his crime, he must be given immunity from prosecution—an immunity that stands even if in future that account is proved to be false. He could even go on to write a book about it, and wave at the victims’ families in the street as they pass.
Those are the rights given to Raymond’s murderer, yet nothing in the Bill says that the independent commission must listen to victims, communicate with them or take measures to protect their dignity and health. Those seem pretty basic rights to me, but even that low threshold is not met. The situation I have outlined is not hypothetical. These are real fears that are frequently felt by victims and that cause crippling anxiety. We must be on their side.
Just as disturbingly, the Bill does not prohibit anyone who has committed or covered up acts of sexual violence during the conflict from seeking immunity. Máiría Cahill, who was the victim of years of sexual abuse at the hands of the IRA, has said:
“This bill is, quite simply, disgraceful. Government say they take sexual violence seriously. Yet they are prepared to grant amnesty to those accused of conflict related sexual offences either in NI or England. It is an affront to victims, to justice and is gross hypocrisy.”
Let us be clear what we are talking about here. This Bill could well lead to someone who has committed rape being given immunity from prosecution. None of us can even imagine the impact that such a thing would have on the victim.
I will return to that theme but, before I do, I will talk about how the Government have approached the Bill in the wider sense—namely, the staggering lack of consultation and care given to this incredibly sensitive issue in the way this new Bill was conceived, drafted and is now being legislated. For reference, in 2018 the Government ran a public consultation on the previous legacy proposals, which ran for 21 weeks and received 17,000 responses. That was the right way to handle the issue.
I agree with the words of this Government in 2018:
“In order to build consensus on workable proposals that have widespread support we must listen to the concerns of victims, survivors and other interested parties.”
In comparison, the process for this Bill, with its unprecedented policy of granting immunity for murder and serious violence, has lacked any meaningful consultation at all. The Government published the Bill a mere seven days ago. It is 90 pages long and, in the words of one victims’ group, “heavily legal”. Yet, regrettably, the Northern Ireland Office refused to give detailed briefings to victims’ groups until today’s debate. That has caused not only hurt but confusion about what the Bill is offering. It damages rather than builds trust.
There seems to be a dismissive attitude towards prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill. Let us take the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement specifically to safeguard rights in Northern Ireland. Its advice on the Bill was not asked for, and yesterday it announced that it appears incompatible with our human rights commitments. It read the Bill at the same time last week that the rest of us did. Had it been consulted before—that is, after all, part of the purpose for which it was founded—the Bill could have avoided some of the stinging criticism it is currently receiving.
Similarly, the Bill will have material consequences for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the judiciary. Both currently manage legacy cases, yet neither seems to have been given advance notice that the Government were planning to strip them of their role with almost immediate effect. The Irish Government, our partners in the peace process and co-signatories to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, did not see the Bill until it was published. They have now said they cannot support it in its current form.
With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, consistent polling has shown that the UK Government are now the least trusted actor in Northern Ireland. Rushing these proposals into Parliament here in Westminster has already damaged the reconciliation we are all aiming for. I understand that the Secretary of State is trying his best to find a way forward, but any proposal to deal with legacy must have victims and communities in Northern Ireland at its heart.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I want to build on the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made earlier. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission dealt with many such concerns and fears; I used to live in the country and I have heard first-hand testimony from people who participated in it. What struck me as incredibly important in that set-up was the leadership and sponsorship of some of the greats such as Mandela, Tutu and other members of the community. I have listened carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State is saying and it feels very down in the detail, but can he encourage leaders in the different communities to give the Bill that sponsorship to get people to give it a chance? The truth is a nebulous as well as a legal concept.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the intervention. I have some understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; I was studying for my doctorate in South Africa while it was running and I followed it very closely.
The figures who the hon. Lady mentioned were not just involved in running the commission; they were all also involved in conceiving it. The figures who lead communities in Northern Ireland—some in the House today, some not—were not involved in this Bill or consulted for it. The only process that did that was the Stormont House agreement, which has been jettisoned by the current approach. Sadly, the key learnings from it have not made it into the current Bill.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making about moral and political leadership. In South Africa, there was a huge, concerted effort to bring forward support from all communities, but what we are discussing is coming from Westminster into Northern Ireland. The provisions should be birthed in Northern Ireland and come through to Westminster.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I do not want to pre-empt the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—it is vital that victims groups should be at the heart of this process. I think he is going to come on to this, but I am just checking: what about the veterans? They play a key part and should surely be at the heart as well.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indeed pre-empting the remaining parts of my speech, which I will get on to as quickly as I can. He is free to catch my eye at that point, as he raises an incredibly important point.
What we needed from the Government in the run-up to this process was empathy. That requires listening and real care in the face of the most terrible tragedies. Let us take the case of John Molloy. John was walking home in north Belfast in 1996 when he was stabbed to death in a brutal sectarian attack. He was just 18 years old. John’s mother Linda wanted me to put her response to the Bill on the record:
“Why is John’s sectarian murder in Belfast different from a racially motivated murder in London? If this legislation gets through whoever murdered John could simply get away with it. It is just wrong that perpetrators will be able to get on with their lives officially, given amnesty by the state, while we are left to cope with the devastation. We brought our children up to believe in law and order and it is so wrong that the rule of law can be overridden in this way. The hurt never goes away.”
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that justice is just a word if it does not come to fruition? The current system is not leading to successful claims for the overwhelming majority of those affected. Surely there has to come a time when we have to try a better way. More than 50 years on from the start of the troubles, surely that time is now.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We are not talking about whether we want to move forward or not; the important thing is that we move forward in the right way.
Investigations are absolutely central to families being able to move forward and to the ability to deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman will notice from the Bill, which I am sure he has read in great detail, that the word “investigations” is mostly replaced by “review”. The emphasis that has proven successful in the past—from the Stormont agreement right through to the ongoing Kenova investigations—has provided, in limited circumstances, the kind of reconciliation, truth and justice that victims have requested. That is where we believe the future should be.
Currently, there are 32 files with the prosecution service of Northern Ireland as a result of the Kenova investigations. Not one has been picked up, because the prosecution service does not have the resources. There has been progress, and I am sure that the justice that we are talking about could be dispensed if the prosecution service of Northern Ireland had the right resources.
Dr Murrison
I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s line of reasoning at all, but on immunity, does he not accept that that ship sailed in 1998—a concept, of course, that his party needs to take quite a lot of responsibility for? He says that justice is being denied, and I have some sympathy with that, but does he accept that as a result there has been 20 years-plus of peace in Northern Ireland?
Peter Kyle
Since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement there have been long periods in which politics has been functional, and there has been huge progress that had been inconceivable before. Its achievement was totemic. As I have already said in this speech, the commitments and aspirations in the Good Friday agreement with regard to victims have not been realised and we need to make effort. We are losing the generation affected by these issues, as has been said. We need to get on with this, but we need to get it right.
Sir Robert Neill
I appreciate the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, but may I put this to him? It follows from my earlier intervention. I get the sense that he is suggesting that we return, where possible, to allowing a normal criminal justice process to take its course. Is not the difficulty that once immunities have been given, for whatever reason, there will have been a departure from the norms in any event? We are not, therefore, in exactly the same territory as we would be in relation to other offences in other places. That being the case, what alternative do the Opposition posit as a solution?
Peter Kyle
The alternative, clearly, was in the Stormont House agreement. Plus there is the additional learning from Jon Boutcher’s work on the Kenova investigations and inquiries, and the real desire among victims to make progress.
Of course victims are realistic about the chances of prosecution in some cases—what a lot of them want is often quite different—but the great thing that I have seen from talking to families who have been subject to investigations by Jon Boutcher under the Kenova system has been how it has been tailored and sensitive to the needs of victims, while being realistic about the prospects of prosecution.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress, as others want to get in; I am aware of your desire for us to get on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To proceed with this Bill, we must be able to answer Linda’s question, put in the quote I read a moment ago, and be sure that we are promoting reconciliation and not further division. Quite simply, the test for a way forward is that it must provide more benefits for victims than for those who committed acts of terror. In so doing, it would also offer greater fairness to our armed forces and veterans.
Last year, the Government suggested a blanket amnesty for everyone involved in the troubles. The vast majority of those who benefited would have been republican or loyalist paramilitaries, but it would also have stopped any further prosecutions of veterans of our armed forces. The origins of this proposal can be found in the Conservative manifesto of 2019, which promised:
“We will continue to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues that provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and do more to give veterans the protections they deserve.”
The vast majority of those who served in our armed forces in Northern Ireland should feel proud of their service. Over 250,000 personnel were involved in Operation Banner and 722 were killed by terrorist actions. We cannot forget, and we remain grateful for their service, but it is clear that not every action met the standards that we set: a very small minority did not.
From a quarter of a million personnel, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland has brought cases against six former military personnel for offences committed during the troubles. The vast majority of our veterans deserve the chance to talk about their service with pride. They do not need to be granted immunity; in fact, the very assumption that they might need it creates a toxic moral equivalence between military service and acts of terror. What has caused so much anger among the Northern Ireland veterans community is the idea that there is no fairness in who is being investigated. The Bill fails to provide a fair and balanced system for veterans that recognises their service, addresses reinvestigations and provides welfare support. Delivering a Bill that provides more benefit to terrorists than veterans or victims is not fair to anyone.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The shadow Minister has spent some time admiring the problem, but I believe he is very light on the solution. What message might he have for our security forces, our armed forces and our veterans if his party votes today against this Bill?
Peter Kyle
My party will be voting against this Bill today because of the equivalence it makes between people who served in the armed forces and those who committed acts of terror and because of the incredibly low threshold. We should remember that 722 service people lost their lives by acts of terror, and the people who committed those acts—against our armed forces—could get immunity from prosecution with the very lowest possible threshold. That is what we will be voting against today. A better process would start by listening, rather than forcing solutions on people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Kyle
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I served in Northern Ireland, and I do not feel in any degree that there was equivalence between what I was doing and what terrorists were doing. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to clarify a point for me? He has spoken about some victims and quoted them, and in particular one who wanted to know the balance of what makes this work or not work. He talked about there being this equivalence with terrorists. Is the balance about punishment; is it about investigation, or is it about knowledge? Where does the balance in this lie for him? This is important. Instead of dancing around what is complained about, where does he think the balance lies for somebody who is a victim?
Peter Kyle
I have been very clear: I want to make sure that the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists and people who committed crime in the era of the troubles. This Bill does not achieve that. Proper scrutiny and proper preparation would have delivered a Bill that did.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make progress. The provisions of this Bill will also have the independent commission carrying out so-called reviews into deaths and serious injury. The Bill provides that the independent commission officers can be designated as having police powers. However, it is unclear when or how such powers are to be exercised, nor is it clear whether the reviews that the independent commission carries out will in fact uncover any new information. In the additional notes to the Bill, the Government set out their view that
“for the ICRIR to conduct successful information recovery investigations, which will in turn significantly aid reconciliation in the long term, it is essential for the possibility of a prosecution outcome to be restricted to those who fail to participate effectively in the truth recovery process.”
We have concerns about how much truth will come from this immunity scheme. Immunity will be retained even in circumstances where the account given is deemed as being truthful by the perpetrator themselves, but is subsequently found not to be in accordance with the accepted historical account. The immunity requests panel is also not obliged to seek information from anyone other than the person coming forward in order to verify the truth of the perpetrator’s account. It comes back to the point I made earlier about the lack of investigatory work going on beforehand—it should be leading the process.
I again put on record how this Bill is affecting victims whose loved ones were killed by terrorists. Jean Caldwell’s husband Cecil was one of eight workmen killed by an IRA landmine in Teebane in January 1992. Today, Jean says:
“I want justice. All this talk of amnesty has brought it all back to the fore again. What will they”—
the IRA bombers—
“tell that will be of any benefit to me? It’s so deeply unfair. My blood runs cold. There is no ‘amnesty’ for victims”.
Scott Benton
In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman suggested that rape or sexual offences committed in conflict during the troubles would be subject to immunity. That is not the case at all. Only offences relating to a death or a serious injury will be eligible for immunity. Is he happy to correct the record?
Peter Kyle
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to read the Bill for himself. There are circumstances in which people have committed rape and other crimes and the whole lot would be subject to immunity. These are things that we have taken advice on before saying them here in the Commons today and that are now accepted by a great number of people with a prosecutorial background who have studied this area. They are absolutely clear that this Bill does not contain the right measures. At no point in the Bill is there an exemption for people who have committed sexual crimes, and that is something the hon. Gentleman should look for. If he can point to a line in this Bill where sexual offences and rape are excluded from immunity, I look forward to seeing it.
The Bill also contains the laudable aims of establishing oral history, memorialisation and academic research on the conflict, but it is the Secretary of State who will decide the designated persons to take forward the programme. There is also a more fundamental issue that with such widespread opposition to this Bill from victims and survivors, there is a danger they will refuse to participate in any historical projects that come from it.
Peter Kyle
I will make a bit of progress. On these Benches, we wanted to work with the Government to find a way forward on legacy issues, but the Government’s approach is to bulldoze their plans through without addressing the needs of victims and survivors. Alternative options, such as Operation Kenova, have shown that there is a way to handle legacy issues in a sensitive manner that delivers for victims, the security forces and wider society. The Government have the numbers to get this Bill through today, but I urge Ministers to reflect on what has been and will be said in the Chamber today and the reaction that this Bill has received on the island of Ireland. Reconciliation is difficult, and as the peace process has shown us, it requires compromise. This Bill is uncompromising and therefore has lost the legitimacy that it could have had.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Just the first two Front-Bench speeches and the interventions from Members across the House clearly show the thorniness of these issues, their long standing, and their polarising nature in views, interpretation and, indeed, in coming up with solutions. At the start, I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and the Secretary of State’s office, for their courtesy and engagement with me as these proposals have come forward.
Because the Bill concerns those issues, it is uncomfortable, and it is tricky politics. We would all like—I agree with many—the majesty of the law to run its course in the normal ways we all understand, but that has not happened up until now, and evidence that my Committee has taken from the PSNI and others clearly indicates that there is simply a lack of investigatory resource and court time to deal with all these cases in a way that could be reasonably defined as timely.
When we use the phrase “the troubles”—it is one that we all use—is it not just too euphemistic? It is the sort of wording we might use for a slightly embarrassing medical ailment, but let us remind ourselves that it was blood and it was a period of fear, of people being maimed and of death. It was horror, so we need to deal with these things in a serious way.
Is the Bill perfect? No, of course it is not, and no legislation is, but let us not lose the good, or at least the intent to achieve the good, in pursuit of perfection. The Government need to be clear, and the House needs to be assured, that the proposals before us are fully article 2 compliant—that is a key test for anybody, irrespective of which side of the argument they are coming from and their own personal experience. Without setting a precedent, I urge those on the Treasury Bench to give active consideration to putting Treasury counsel’s advice on this matter in the Library of the House of Commons so that we can all be persuaded, if on no other point than that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Briefly, my hon. Friend is right. Many Conservative Members served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. He will accept that we in this place tend to underestimate the pain caused for many families by not knowing what happened to their relatives, the victims—some of whom disappeared altogether. We should also always remember that there has been a dearth of prosecutions since the Good Friday agreement, and it is not as though we have made great strides on that. We should balance those two factors carefully in the consideration of the Bill.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is right. It is a sadness that there has been that dearth, which has led to huge frustration and has compounded the agony. He is also right to remind the House that each individual victim or survivor or victim’s family will respond to these things in different ways and will have different requirements from the process. We should be very careful not to resort to language such as, “This now delivers closure,” or, “This draws a line.” It will deliver closure, answer questions or draw lines only when that person is satisfied, and there will be myriad ways in which people will be looking for that satisfaction.
The Government are to be congratulated on the tangible policy evolution since what many of us recognise was the rather ill-judged, and certainly wrongly toned, written ministerial statement of March 2020. The Secretary of State and the Government are to be congratulated on facing into this issue. If there were easy solutions, by God they would have been delivered by now. If we want this to work, we have to make sure that this too-long-neglected issue is dealt with, and it has to be through this Bill. So much time has been spent on it and so many years have been spent discussing these issues that I cannot envisage—I could be wrong; I often am—
Simon Hoare
There was no need for such an endorsement; it is nice to see the collegiate nature of the Select Committee burgeoning on the Floor of the House.
As I was saying, I cannot envisage this or any other Government, or any other Secretary of State, devoting future time and energy to trying to resolve these issues, so I am tempted to say that although the Bill needs some amendment, it will be this or it will be nothing at all.
As we know, the politics of Northern Ireland can be different and difficult and testing. I am inclined to think—this may be a strange way of looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope—that it is possibly a good thing that no one and no constituency of interest in Northern Ireland is claiming absolute victory or absolute defeat. To me, that would have suggested that the Government had got it wrong. There is within the Bill the potential for something for everybody who has a legitimate interest in this issue.
I will turn to a couple of specific points. On the programme motion, eight hours for Committee, albeit on the Floor of the House, and one hour, as I understand it, for Third Reading is simply not enough. Physically, this is not a huge Bill in terms of the number of clauses, but it is a mammoth Bill in terms of history and issues. A sceptical Northern Irish audience needs to be given full comfort that full scrutiny will be given to the Bill and the proposed amendments to it. I suggest to the business managers—such as the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, who is on the Treasury Bench—as much as to the Secretary of State that the Bill should be given at least four days for Committee and half a day for Third Reading. That would give comfort to those people who want to make sure that the solution is properly scrutinised.
My Committee will be looking at the Bill, so I do not want to prejudice its deliberation, but I will make a few observatory suggestions. The Secretary of State appoints to the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. I would like to see a parliamentary vote affirming those appointments, which would give the body extra legitimacy. On the commissioners, I would certainly like a seat to be reserved for an international participant; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. He referred to South Africa, but there are lots of people with United Nations experience. Again, they will add credibility, independence, a new voice and a perspective that should give extra help to those people who are looking to get the proposals over the line and to invest their faith in the commission. There also needs to be an oversight panel to the commission, as we have with Kenova, which could include groups representing victims, the Veterans Commissioner and others.
We need to accept, with regret—I am perfectly honest about that—that Stormont House is dead. We can flog it as much as we like, but it is a horse that will not get out of the stable. It is gone. It is that ex-parrot. That is unfortunate, but it is true. The need for coalition building remains alive, however, and the need for the Government to take people with them is as strong as ever.
Clearly, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the Bill will work better if the Republic is engaged and on side. I agree with him that north and south are two sides of the same coin on this, which have equal weight and responsibility to bring forward solutions that are binding and that can command support and confidence. I hope that the Irish Government will try to meet in the middle, and I would urge them to do so, to try to build that consensus and that joint approach.
Sir Robert Neill
It is a quick one. Building on that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of our relationship with the Republic reinforces the importance of the quality and international nature of the commission’s membership? Given that the Republic adheres to the same common law jurisdictions and has the same approach to criminal jurisprudence as we do, that would surely be a means of rebuilding trust in that regard.
Simon Hoare
I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend. I urge the Secretary of State to continue his conversations with Minister Coveney. It might be a step in the right direction to say that one of the commissioners could or should be a nominee of the Irish Government. I know that that would be contentious for some, but in trying to build that consensus and share the obligation, it may—there is no guarantee—pay a dividend.
Ian Paisley
Can the hon. Gentleman reflect on what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box? He said that, more than a year ago, the Republic of Ireland indicated that it would bring forward something, but it has brought forward absolutely nothing. I do not think that augurs well; I think that it will turn a blind eye to the issue for as long as possible and do nothing, because if the veil is lifted on its legacy of the troubles, it will not be a pretty sight.
Simon Hoare
Well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place, referenced, it has taken two general elections and four years to bring this Bill to fruition, so I am not sure that we are in a position to lecture, or are entirely innocent on that point. As we all know, however, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth, and it is not too late for both sides to build that consensus and to bring forward either conjoined proposals or separate but mutually corresponding ones. That would be a good thing.
On clause 5, which relates to full disclosure, subsection (1) is absolutely right that
“A relevant authority must make available”
the items that are listed, but subsection (2) says that
“A relevant authority may also make available”,
which depends on interpretation. The relevant authority could have some information that it thinks might be important and of relevance to an inquiry, but that has not been specifically asked for and that might be unhelpful to that authority, so it might hold it back. I would like to see the compelling nature of “must” in subsections (1) and (2), and I am certain that amendments will be tabled to address that.
The Bill needs to give further thought to how the PSNI interlinks with the commission. I hope that the PSNI will allocate the about £30 million that it spends currently on legacy purposes to invest in providing resource and support to the new process.
In summary, this Bill is not perfect.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have listened intently to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and I do not think that he has really mentioned veterans much, if at all. As 15 May was the anniversary of Captain Robert Nairac’s death at the hands of the IRA, perhaps—I know other Members present also served in Northern Ireland—we should have more talk about veterans as well as the victims. Both are equally important.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is probably right, but of course there were many veterans who were also victims, as were their families, because, as we have heard with the figures, there are those who died, or were injured or maimed. We will not help this debate—can I just say this gently to my right hon. Friend?—if we characterise it as one side being more important than the other—
Simon Hoare
And I am not putting words into his mouth. I did reference the fact that the Veterans Commissioner could be on the observatory panel and the advisory panel, or scrutiny panel, to the commission. That would be important, but it is important, I suggest—and I know that he knows this—to get that absolute balance right.
There is a difference in view among the veterans community. Some have been arguing for a blanket clearance from day one. Others have told the Committee that they do not want to see that, because they want to make sure that those who did wrong are held to account—of course there are some who did wrong; the terrorists did everything wrong, but some of the police did wrong and some of the military did wrong—and they do not want everybody to be tarred with the same brush. So there is a difference of view in the veterans community on how we deal with this. I think the Bill broadly gets it right by making sure that one side is not favoured over the other.
As I say, the Bill is not perfect, but it does create a framework that can and could help. We do need more time to consider it in this place, which is why I make the plea for revision of the programme motion. After all these years, something needs to be done to try to ensure that progress is made. This is the Bill to do it. We need to be driven, I suggest, by that imperative. If anything can unite the House in this debate, it might be this point: what we should be seeking to achieve in this Bill is to ensure that future generations are not infected by the poison of this too long neglected and running sore.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Could I begin by thanking the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), in particular for the time he took to brief me on the contents of the Bill? Allow me to say that I very much appreciate what has been attempted here and the sentiment behind it. We certainly look to the memory of all those who lost their lives during the troubles, to the tens of thousands of those who were injured and to the families, relatives and friends to make sure that we approach this in the right way to get the right outcomes.
On 14 July 2021, the Secretary of State addressed the House on the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, and the view that he then expressed clearly was that the current system for dealing with the legacy of the troubles was “not working”. The paper that was published that day achieved something quite unique, I think, in Northern Irish politics in that it united every single spectrum of opinion in opposition to what was being proposed. We have yet to hear the substantive contributions of the Members who are elected to this place from constituencies in Northern Ireland who take their seats, but I suspect, notwithstanding the changes that have been made in approaches by the Government since then, that the Government may be about to achieve the same feat once again.
Dr Julian Lewis
Given the length of time that this has all gone on, is it not quite clear that there is no way that there is a single solution around which consensus can be built? Therefore, the Government are left with two choices: either do nothing and carry on as has been happening, or come forward with the best solution they can come up with, in the full knowledge that everybody who has been fighting among themselves without reaching a solution will find something to object to in it. The fact that they are all objecting to it by no means means that this is wrong; it is the only way forward, other than doing nothing.
Richard Thomson
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He is certainly correct that this is a very difficult and intractable set of issues that need to be navigated through, but if he really imagines that by introducing this Bill the Government are in some way cutting the Gordian knot, he is very sadly mistaken. I do not think that that kind of approach is the one that could yield the greatest amount of fruit. I do not believe that it needed to be the case that this was the outcome.
Stormont House was not agreed by everybody, but nevertheless it did provide a platform for a potential route forward. By failing to try to establish and build on what consensus there was in that, we are highly unlikely to reveal truth satisfactorily and we are certainly not creating the conditions whereby reconciliation might be achieved.
It is fair to say—certainly from the representations that I have received, particularly over the last 48 to 72 hours, from groups in civil society in Northern Ireland and from those who take an interest in the law and its application—that confidence in this process and this legislation is low. It is not being helped by the fact that we are here to discuss the Bill on Second Reading just days after it was announced formally in the Queen’s Speech. To only have two days in Committee here is, I think, thoroughly inadequate for the parliamentary scrutiny that a Bill of this kind deserves. It certainly does not pay the respect that I believe is due to victims groups and those with a stake in the outcomes here, in and across the island of Ireland and in veterans communities, to try to get us to a place of closer consensus.
In responding to the statement on 14 July, I was clear that I felt Ministers needed to think again about introducing any statutes of limitations or effective amnesties. I was also clear that, whatever proposals were eventually brought to the House, where independent prosecutors considered that there was sufficiency of evidence, a likelihood of a successful conviction and, most important of all, it was in the public interest to do so, they would still be able to bring those prosecutions. It is not simply about achieving truth and perhaps closure, and it is not necessarily about a prosecution resulting in a conviction; that investigative process and that testing of facts in a court of law, but even just simply the investigative process undertaken by the authorities, can in and of itself help to provide some of the closure that is required by the families.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about closure. I do not think that so far in this debate there has been enough conversation or debate about closure. Convictions are important, but we also need to make sure that the families of victims have the facts to bring closure—whether that is where the bodies of the disappeared are buried, how their loved ones were murdered, or if they had a glass of water before they were executed. Does he not agree that the Bill will make it more likely that some of these terrorists and people will come forward to give those details? It tries to bring closure for victims’ families.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. No, I do not agree with that and I will go on to explain in a bit more detail why.
As I have said, the Bill would clearly make that kind of continuation of the judicial process and the process of investigation impossible. So the question that I have been left wrestling with is whether the approach in the Bill can work and, if it can, whether the potential benefits of doing that outweigh the very negative and real consequences of bypassing the normal processes of the rule of law. I have to say that I have reached the conclusion, and my group has reached the conclusion, that they do not.
We have very deep concerns about the manner in which somebody might be granted immunity. There is a real danger that the process set out in the Bill as it stands actually puts more power in the hands of the perpetrators of past crimes or atrocities than it does in the victims’. The bar, as has been set out by the Labour shadow Secretary of State, is extraordinarily low in this respect. Simply to say that to give somebody immunity they have to request it but that what they then say has to be true to the best of their knowledge is not the sort of standard we should be hoping for in a completely open and accountable process of reconciliation and truth telling, because it means that there is absolutely no compulsion in there to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if we did wish to remove the process from a purely judicial setting, surely the very least we should expect from somebody seeking amnesty for their crimes is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before such a panel or tribunal.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say, when he sums up, about the exemptions that are to be granted on the grounds of national security and what the independent commission should or should not do. Clearly, we would not want the commission to do anything that would imperil national security, but we can all see the potential conflict between revealing information that is held on file and the use of the national security clause to draw a veil over it. The process of reconciliation will require some hard truths, not just from the UK Government but, I suspect, from the records of the Government of the Irish Republic. Having that prohibition in the Bill potentially represents a further tilting of the balance away from revealing the truth and delivering justice.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the Bill is the way in which it seeks almost to bring down the shutters on families who have already engaged in inquiries or in the process preparatory to inquiries. To remove the rights of individuals to pursue a criminal or civil remedy appears to me to be in clear breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and therefore aspects of the Good Friday agreement, as the convention is hardwired into it.
My reasons for opposing the Bill are ones of principle, articulated by those with a care for the legal and constitutional implications of what is before us, as well as the many strong and clear voices of those who have been affected by the troubles. In the light of those real concerns, I remain unpersuaded that the goal of truth and reconciliation will be more likely to be achieved by this process, or that it justifies setting aside the norms of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the individual to seek recourse or to uphold their rights through the law.
I am also bound to observe the dismay of the Irish Government at the proposals. At a time when open dialogue and good will are in greater demand than they perhaps have ever been as far as the present UK Government are concerned, it is a missed opportunity to go about this process as they have, rather than try to find a way in which both Governments’ sets of records could be made available and open up a process applicable to all victims on both sides of the border.
Operation Kenova shows what can be done when police investigations into historical inquiries are allowed to take place. It is not good enough to point to the backlog in the PSNI historical inquiry unit as a reason for introducing the processes in the Bill. That backlog is an argument for adequately resourcing the PSNI so that the historical inquiry unit can complete the work it was tasked to do.
I do not think that reconciliation is something that can ever be imposed. It is something that has to be achieved. The legislation is being imposed, to the great distress of many, and that is unnecessary. The Bill in its current form is not one that my party can support.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The issues that the Bill seeks to address are some of the most sensitive and challenging in our nation’s history. Drawing a line under the past in Northern Ireland is a challenge successive Governments here have sought to address. As we have heard, recent work has been based on agreement between the UK and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, with a commitment that law and justice matters are devolved and dealt with locally. That was confirmed by the Stormont House agreement in 2014, which almost all Northern Ireland parties signed up to along with the UK and Irish Governments. The Bill, driven from Westminster, overrides both the policy of Stormont House and the focus on consent present in that international agreement. I am deeply uncomfortable about voting for a Bill that will formalise immunity for those who have committed murder and other crimes, but I do acknowledge that none of the range of policy options for the Government is straightforward.
I want to focus my remarks on the fact that with the substantial policy shift that has occurred since Stormont House, now crystallised by the Bill, victims and survivors are deeply concerned that not only will they have to deal with accepting amnesties, but they will have to accept less rigorous reviews of their cases, rather than robust, evidence-based judicial investigations. Throughout the Bill, there are references to reviews, not investigations. The victims point to the fact that the powers in the Bill to compel testimony are weak; that there is a focus on existing evidence, rather than exhaustively looking for new evidence; and that prior investigations cannot be reconsidered. They are extremely wary that the UK Government will be the arbiter of every aspect of the process, from the choice of commissioners to what Government information is shared with the new body.
When I speak to victims, families and survivors, there is a consistent theme—a burning desire to know what happened to their loved ones. Take Shauna, who was just 10 years of age when her mother Caroline Moreland was abducted by the IRA and held for 15 days before being shot dead at the border, just weeks before the IRA ceasefire in 1994.
Shauna said:
“Without this investigation we would never have got answers. Operation Kenova has been important as someone else thought my mum’s life was worth something. Everyone has the right to a thorough investigation”.
Or take Kathleen Gillespie’s husband Patsy, who worked as a chef in an Army base in the city of Derry. On 24 October 1990 Patsy, who was 42 years of age, was abducted by the IRA from his family home. Patsy was chained to a lorry containing a large bomb and forced to drive to an Army checkpoint. He shouted a warning to the soldiers just as the IRA detonated the bomb. It killed Patsy and five young soldiers from the King’s Regiment. The IRA opened fire from across the border, and many soldiers were injured but many saved because of Patsy’s warning. Kathleen has never had a full investigation, and she is devastated that the men and women who did this to her husband will walk free.
Many victims feel that they have been hit by a double whammy by the Bill—their route to justice cut off and, at the same time, their route to the truth restricted.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I really appreciate the contribution that the former Secretary of State is making, and I know that he is deeply invested in finding solutions from his time in Northern Ireland. We appreciate the work that he has done. I served in the armed forces and lost comrades who were murdered by the IRA, so does he agree that this issue is not simply black and white? As president of the regimental association of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I speak to many UDR widows who are crying out for justice and want the opportunity to have the murders of their loved ones investigated in an article 2-compliant investigation.
Julian Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. The widows of RUC members, and other victims, are at the centre of our thoughts as we debate the Bill today.
Lawyers, victims’ groups, Liberty, Amnesty International, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and experts at Queen’s University also fear that the proposals will not meet the requirements under article 2 of ECHR and will breach both the UK’s international obligations and the Human Rights Act, which requires independent and effective investigations. If those fears are right, the Bill risks leading to ongoing legal challenge and a highly unstable environment for victims, which many argue would be worse than the patchwork system of troubles justice in place in Northern Ireland today. I urge the Government to look again at the independence and investigatory powers of the body and ensure that it can guarantee victims a full, thorough and legally compliant investigation of their case.
The way in which the Bill will shut down civil cases and inquests is also a source of much anger and worry. Civil actions have provided an effective mechanism for victims to obtain discovery and reparations. As recently as 2021, the Ministry of Defence had to pay significant damages with regard to the Miami Showband attack. In 2021, there was a review of inquest cases and a five-year plan for when each case would be heard. Many families now have the commitment from the justice system that their case will proceed. Inquests provide next of kin with substantial disclosure and provide families with information, answers and results that were previously denied. With the Bill, families who have been promised that inquests will take place risk having them thwarted just because of their place in the queue.
Those inquests have been shining a spotlight on new evidence. For example, the long-running inquest into the IRA murder of 10 Protestant civilians at Kingsmill has involved the largest volume of intelligence material disclosed in any inquest that has run in this jurisdiction. We saw recently in the Ballymurphy inquest, completed in July 2021 after 100 days of evidence, that the verdicts and findings of Mrs Justice Keegan were that the 10 victims were entirely innocent and the force used by the British Army was not justified. It is important to acknowledge that the inquest system has sucked up significant resource, often without conclusions. I urge the Government also to look at that. There must be a fairer way of completing the current work programme and avoiding such an unfair cut-off point.
I return to the shift from the Stormont House agreement to the Bill. Many victims have had their confidence shaken by the lack of support for the proposals from Northern Ireland political parties, Ireland and the US. Policy content aside, key to Stormont House was agreement, buy-in and consent. Consent is vital when dealing with legacy at a practical level for cross-jurisdictional changes that need to be solved and need assistance from Ireland. Consent also has an impact on the ground in Northern Ireland today. The Bill is about the past, but it is also about the present. Paramilitarism is still a key feature of Northern Ireland society, and how issues of the past are dealt with feeds into the groups and organisations that traumatise Northern Ireland society today. Balance and an even hand are vital.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Julian Smith
I am sorry; I will not give way.
Above all, consent builds trust, which in turn increases the acknowledgement required for resolution. In 2010, when the right hon. David Cameron made his statement on the Saville enquiry in this place, he spoke about the long commitment and service of those who served in Operation Banner but, at the same time, he acknowledged the wrongs of that day. Bloody Sunday was “unjustified and unjustifiable”. When you stand in the Museum of Free Derry and see a copy of the former Prime Minister’s speech in the display cabinet next to the bloodied clothes of those who were killed, and when you hear what it meant to the people in Derry that the UK Government finally apologised, you get a real sense that that particular UK acknowledgement has made a tangible difference to reconciliation. In the brilliant “Derry Girls” finale—I am sure that all of my colleagues watched it on Channel 4 last week—the lead character Erin’s monologue on coming of age in Northern Ireland was set to clips of Bloody Sunday and, more importantly, David Cameron’s apology. It was a clear, modern reflection of the importance of that acknowledgement of the past.
Victims payment legislation has provided a further form of acknowledgment. When I visited the victims’ group WAVE two years ago, I was struck by the significance and appreciation of these acknowledgements to the patient and amazingly resilient victims who had lived with the most horrendous injuries over decades. Some of those whom I met on that day are now dead.
For Northern Ireland to come to terms with its past, there is a need for acknowledgement from all sides: from the IRA for the thousands of murders; from loyalists for the hundreds of killings; from the Irish Government for their role in the troubles; and for the killings and collusion by UK forces. Having spoken to many in Northern Ireland, I genuinely believe that there is the potential for achieving those acknowledgements. Acknowledgements will allow victims and families and Northern Ireland as a whole to come to terms with the past, to deal with the present and to give hope to future generations rather than passing on the pain and hurt of the past.
On investigations and inquests, I therefore urge the Government to pause and to listen to the voices of our valued Irish partners in the GFA, to Northern Ireland parties and to the victims and survivors. I hope, too, that the Government will reflect on how they can reframe the Bill to gain the trust required to help deliver a resolution to this fragile and unique part of our country.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I hope that the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) will echo not simply around the Chamber but around these islands. The tone that he struck was the one that I wish to see, and I wish—I do not mean this personally—that it were the one coming from the Government. His points about reconciliation are absolutely fundamental. Like many hon. Members, I have met many victims of the violence and the loved ones of those who were killed, and it is hard to listen to victims without recognising their tremendous hurt and how that will continue to be there. They need to go through the knowledge process, which is so fundamental to their own ability not to reconcile—in a way, it is a very difficult thing to lose a loved one—but at least to accept that the state, as the arbiter of these things, has made every conceivable effort to ensure that their pain is recognised and moved through.
I can think of no victims who will be satisfied by the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot say that any of them are in favour of this piece of legislation, nor did he even try to suggest it. Many of the victims would say to me that the two-year limitation of sentences is already a betrayal of what they seek, and I have genuine sympathy with that. We can almost certainly balance that with the fact that the process led to peace. Different people have different views on that, but, nevertheless, even with that two-year sentence limitation, it is not about the magnitude of the sentence; it is about recognition that somebody has been held to account for the crimes that took their loved ones away or changed their individual lives. That is so important.
Do we have a victim-centred process before us? The answer is, simply, no. I really regret that. Yes, it is an improvement on the absolutism of the amnesty that we had before us only a few months ago, but it is only a very limited improvement. In any case, in five years’ time, we will have a de facto amnesty. In the short-term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) pointed out, because of the very low bar on granting immunity, it is nearly certain that the amnesty will become the de facto process that applies.
I have to say to Conservative Members who campaign for the rights of veterans that it is worth reflecting on the over 700 veterans who died during the conflict, because they, as victims, also have rights. I think the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made exactly that point about those with whom he had served in the UDR, and we can take that across different parts of our armed forces.
Tony Lloyd
So there is a genuine issue about victims, but victims who were serving soldiers.
I have to make this point as well. I have listened to this debate over many years. One of the things I find intriguing is that when I talk to former members of the RUC, the PSNI and the armed forces they will say to me very directly that those who were culpable of criminal acts should be prosecuted, because they offer no credit to those who served under the law and in protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The idea, therefore, that we pit the rights of veterans in some way in opposition to the rights of victims is simply a dangerous fiction and one we have to dispense with. Frankly, that lies very much at the heart of the Bill. The reality is that the Secretary of State has given in to what he perceives to be the demand from his own Back Benchers, but at the expense of the many people who could have been served by a much better Bill. That has to be recognised.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, I think he is mischaracterising the concern of those of us who served and who remember what others went through. No one has ever asked for immunity. Everybody has always said that those guilty of a crime must face the normal judicial process. That is an established fact. The problem for them is that, because they are the ones on which information exists, there has been a fishing expedition going on without any real evidence to start the process. Then there is an inquiry and it goes on and on for people, without end. That is the problem: it is the process that is actually the penalty, not the prosecution.
Tony Lloyd
Actually, I would not want to mischaracterise the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, because I have heard him say that before. I have always welcomed the fact—the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) made the same point and he is a very well-respected former serving soldier—that there is no demand for an absolute amnesty, and that those who broke the law should face the consequences of the law, whether they are from a paramilitary organisation or from those who claim they were there to serve the public good. That is right and proper. I recognise that that is the position he has always taken, but nevertheless there has been the demand elsewhere for amnesty as a way of simply saying, “Let’s move on”. That is precisely what the Bill will do. In five years’ time, there will be an absolute amnesty. De facto, there will be an effective amnesty under the provisions in the Bill.
We need to look at whether the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. I know that for some on the Conservative Benches that is a contentious issue in its own right, but nevertheless we should be compliant with that convention. There is considerable opinion that the Bill does not conform to either articles 2 or 3 of the convention in terms of the need for proper investigation, in particular in terms of torture, and to make sure there is adequate redress. The Bill is almost certainly not compliant, but, in a way, important though it is, that is a lawyer’s point. What lies behind the lawyer’s point is delivering justice to the people who suffered during that period of violence.
There are other defects in the Bill that have to be established, because any system of justice, if it is going to satisfy victims, must have enough transparency and a sense of independence. The Bill simply has neither. When the Secretary of State appoints the commissioners, the process will already be undermined because it is open to political manipulation. When the Secretary of State can direct the commissioner, for example in granting immunity, we have a very dangerous political precedent. The idea that this will be equivalent to the South African truth and reconciliation process is, frankly, a joke. There was a very different process in South Africa, one that was independent of politicians—that was important—and one that, of itself, allowed for challenge of the evidence brought forward by those who came seeking the amnesty process. That is why only 17% of those in South Africa were allowed that form of immunity from prosecution.
In that context, we have to recognise that there are many, many things that must change in Committee. In the end, we have to deliver something that is trusted. The words on reconciliation depend on trust. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said a few moments ago, the words on reconciliation need all parties—the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries, the Irish Government and our own Government—to stand up and accept that things went wrong in their name. That process is important to reconciliation and it is not there in the Bill. In the end, it is important that there is trust in the justice process that, frankly, will not be there and is not there, because victims’ groups and politicians across the piece in Northern Ireland just do not accept that this is the legislation that will move things on. Unless we have that trust, we will not move further on down the road of reconciliation.
I will finish at this point because of the time and to let others speak. I hope the Secretary of State will now listen to the voices that have come here. This is not a party political division or a division on ideological grounds; it is a division because this is a bad Bill that will not deliver justice to either veterans or victims. It will not deliver the capacity for Northern Ireland to move on down that road of reconciliation.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would be inclined to agree with many of the speeches made from the Opposition Benches, not least the eloquent one from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), if it were not for one salient fact. As part of the peace superstructure, in 1998 the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill was passed. That Bill put an end to the argument that we must not treat terrorists on the same level as security forces, because it does that in one sense only, which is that everybody is treated equally before the law. It was often said at the time, “Security forces personnel could go to prison for life, but terrorists could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail no matter how many people they had killed.” I had a meeting with MPs from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin MPs, who pointed out to me that, as far as they knew, that applied to the security forces just as much as it applied to the IRA. And they were right: it does.
I think the Defence Committee was one of the first organisations, if not the first, to introduce the concept of a statute of limitation into the current debate. We did so in 2017 with our first report, but I had heard of the concept of the statute of limitation some 50 or 60 years ago in the context of Nazi war criminals who were escaping justice because a certain number of decades had elapsed since they had committed their crimes. As it happens, a few years before I was born, the vast majority of my family in Nazi-occupied Poland was murdered for nothing more than the crime of being Jewish. I felt then, as I am sure the victims’ families feel now, that it would be outrageous for the perpetrators to get off simply because a certain amount of time had elapsed. However, there was a difference then, in that legislation had not been passed—as it was felt necessary to pass it in this context in 1998 —to say that no matter how many people someone had killed, they could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail and they would not serve more than a derisory few months of that sentence. So the pass has already been sold on the question of getting justice for heinous crimes.
We then come to the question of those who say, “Well, it is not so much the length of the sentence that matters, but that we should have our day in court.” There is another problem here: all these years have elapsed and people have not had their day in court, because there has not been enough evidence adduced.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I tried to raise this point with the Leader of the Opposition and I pose it to anybody: what do people want? Do they want the knowledge of what happened or do they want the prosecution and the punishment? As my right hon. Friend said, the punishment is pretty much gone. The point of the prosecution is also gone, unless it is only about the knowledge—in which case, how do we go about getting the knowledge? That is clearly what this seems to be settling down to, if people are honest about it.
Dr Lewis
That is exactly the central point. There are perhaps two ways of getting the knowledge. One way is to go on as we have been in trying to investigate these things piecemeal, with everybody trying to hide everything to the maximum because they feel that they will be prosecuted. The other way is to bring in a truth recovery mechanism which, in return for the granting of immunity, maximises the possibility that the truth may come out.
Stephen Farry
Does the right hon. Member concede that a middle path is to have investigations, rather than reviews? That is what a lot of the commentary in Northern Ireland is focusing on. The prospect of prosecutions actually happening is very limited, but victims are looking for the interrogation of evidence and the challenge that happens through a proper investigation rather than, simply, a desk-top review.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I apologise, but I want to develop this point. Is the Bill not, in fact, about changing and tightening the process, if knowledge is the key element, to make it happen in an interrogative manner—in which case, that would be the way forward?
Dr Lewis
I can happily live with that compromise, if the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) can do the same.
In our 2016-17 inquiry, we approached this question from the point of view that serving and ex-service personnel were being dragged into court—because we were worried not that guilty service personnel might be found guilty, but that innocent service personnel would be found innocent only after they had gone through a horrendous process of trial, investigation, reinvestigation, and on and on. There are numerous cases of perfectly blameless personnel who, as a result of vexatious litigation, have found themselves being investigated over and over again. We have heard much about the trauma of the victim’s family, and I empathise with that totally—not least because of what I said about my family history—but we have not heard enough about the trauma of innocent service personnel and security forces who were being investigated over and over again. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear murmurings of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who knows more about this than most.
Sir Mike Penning
It is not just about those who were dragged through the courts; it is about those who have been at home for years and years afterwards—I first served in 1976—worrying about whether a letter would come through the box. It is about the fear felt by innocent people as well as those who are being dragged through.
Dr Lewis
That is absolutely right. It is all about protecting innocent service personnel from the vexatious use of the legal process. As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is not the punishment, but the process; indeed, the process is the punishment.
In the Defence Committee’s inquiry, we were fortunate to discuss with four eminent professors the applicability of the statute of limitations. Of course, I do not attribute my views to any of them, but I record the then Committee’s gratitude to Professor Sands, Professor Rowe, Professor McEvoy and Professor Ekins. They made it very clear that any statute of limitations had to apply to everybody or to nobody; there could be no legislating for state impunity.
The professors also made it clear that international law required not a prosecution, but an adequate investigation, and that that requirement could be met by a truth recovery process. The one concession that I make to those who have been criticising the Bill is that the Government need to be absolutely sure that the truth recovery process that they propose will stand up to that test in international law.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
indicated assent.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am glad to see the Secretary of State and the Minister of State nodding, because it is essential that the process stand up to the test.
As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), we can do one of two things. We can do what the Opposition parties want, which is to go on investigating cases more or less ad infinitum with very few prosecutions and even fewer convictions, but with a miasma of fear percolating among people who know themselves innocent—particularly those who served with distinction in the armed forces, but feel the sword of vexatious legal persecution hanging over them. We can go on with that process in the almost certainly vain hope of convicting a few more murderers, or we can protect those people, but the only way to protect them is by protecting everyone.
That is what we did in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, so the Labour party, which introduced that Act, has no basis on which to criticise a Bill that proposes exactly the same thing, for the same reason: to put an end to this persecution and, perhaps, to increase the possibility that, through the truth recovery process, families will find out more about what happened to their loved ones. One thing is certain: the families are unlikely ever to see the people who killed their loved ones brought successfully to court. Those people are even less likely to be convicted, and even if they were, they would serve only a few months in jail.
Bereaved families are being asked to make a sacrifice, but they are being asked to make it on behalf of a huge number of former soldiers and others in the security forces who deserve to be protected from vexatious pursuit through the courts. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He and I have parsed the course on this issue and the myriad alternatives within legacy over many years. I served on the Defence Committee with him during the 2016-17 inquiry, and the later inquiry whose findings were published in about 2018. We do not agree, and I am not sure that his synopsis of the views of those four academics was entirely fair; but I will return to that later in my speech.
Before I proceed, let me say that I thought the contribution from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) was the most powerful that we are likely to hear this afternoon. I think that it was motivated not by prejudice or political aspiration of one hue or another, but solely by the right hon. Gentleman’s emotionally charged and personal experience in Northern Ireland. It was rooted in principle, and I thank him very much for it.
I have been thinking back to a debate that we had in Westminster Hall about proposals for legacy, and I was reading some of the speeches in Hansard this morning. I recalled a radio interview that I had heard on the morning of that debate. Alan McBride, a victims’ campaigner from Northern Ireland and a victim himself, was talking about a day of reflection for victims in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. He said, “When we were thinking about a day of reflection in Belfast, we tried to find one day—one date—when nobody died.” They could not find one. They could not find a single day in the calendar when somebody had not been killed in Northern Ireland. They chose 21 June, the summer solstice, because that day heralds a new dawn, that day heralds a new season, that day heralds warmth and aspiration.
When it comes to our party’s approach to the issue of legacy—and, in fairness, the approach of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland—we cannot detach ourselves easily from victims, or their experiences, or their hurt, or the lingering fears and doubts that pervade our society. I know that it is easy for others in the Chamber to take a more “singular” view—a singular constituency-based view, or a single veteran’s view—but we cannot do that. A principle that we have applied throughout the myriad decades of consideration about legacy has been one that keeps open the hope of justice, no matter how easily those who have spoken today have tried to detach us from it. It keeps open the pursuit of justice, of recognition by the state that what happened to people’s loved ones was wrong. It is the principle that natural justice and the rule of law in this country still matter, still count, and should still run through our system. That is something that we have attached to every proposal that has been brought before us.
There is a second principle. I do not attach this to other parties, but we have never wanted to see an equivalence between people who lived innocent, peaceful and wholesome lives and were cut down in their prime as a result of terrorists—or those brave women and men who stepped forward and stepped up to protect all of us and give us the freedom to stand in this Chamber and political chambers throughout Northern Ireland, and to stand up for what is right and what is true—and those who went out to destroy and wreak havoc in our society.
I am afraid that on those two principles, this Bill fails. I take no joy in saying this. I know that there are Members in this Chamber wo are thinking, “For goodness’ sake, Northern Ireland legacy again, can they not just agree?” We do all agree in Northern Ireland that this Bill is wrong, that this Bill will not command support, that this Bill drives a coach and horses through the pursuit of justice, although I take no pride in that.
We have been through the discussions about a statute of limitations. I chided the right hon. Member for New Forest East earlier about his revisionism—perhaps his fair rehearsal—of the approach of the four academics, but I said it fondly, because I have huge admiration for him. He is right to say, and the academics were right to say, that should anything be brought forward, principled and detailed, as a statute of limitations, it would have to apply equally; but the landscape in Northern Ireland is not equal.
We always advanced the argument that no one who broke the law could escape the law and no one who deserved justice should evade justice. When those who served our state and put on the uniform of our brave armed forces—whether it was the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or other organisations—were involved in incidents that led to a killing, there will have been an investigation. We know that, post-1973, those investigations were article 2 compliant. We have always advanced the argument that where our state can demonstrate that it has discharged its duty, we should be able to move on: no reinvestigations, no trauma and no fear of that knocked door, because the state has done what is required of it under the European convention on human rights. For whatever reason, however, there were too few within the system of government that wanted to embrace that argument. I say that the landscape was uneven in Northern Ireland because when the state was involved, an investigation duly followed, but I am afraid that when the state was not involved, there were far too many deaths for which there was no investigation. That is how that principle could have been applied.
There has been mention of two years: the Good Friday agreement, the early release of prisoners and a maximum sentence of two years. Explanations have been bandied about today, including, “That’s just the way it is”, “That was proposed by the Labour Government”, “It was passed by referendum in Northern Ireland” and “It was ultimately put through this Chamber”. I will not be shy in saying that I found it obtuse and offensive then, and I find it offensive to this day. Two years—that is all. If you have served it, out you go. That is not justice. There were no cheerleaders for that proposal in Northern Ireland. Some accepted it as a compromise as part of the Good Friday agreement, and others did not.
How many times have we heard in the debate this afternoon that two years is not what we are talking about here? Read schedule 11 of this Bill; it will not tell you that the Bill removes those provisions. It will not be two years in jail; it will be nothing—no jail time whatsoever, whether someone engages in the process, seeks immunity from prosecution and tells the truth, or they do not. If someone sits outside the system, if they offer no answers for relatives of victims and their loved ones and if they decide that this process and this Bill are not for them, it does not matter because the British Government seek our support in this Parliament for legislation that reduces their time in jail to nothing. Who could be proud of that proposal? Schedule 11 does not even spell it out, but those are the ramifications of the Bill. Engage or do not engage—it does not matter; you will serve no time.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that these provisions are not something remote in the sense that they apply only to incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland, but that in fact the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 apply to terrorist incidents that occurred in Great Britain and elsewhere? They include the murder of British citizens in this city, in Birmingham, in Manchester and, indeed, in many of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. Those Members need to understand that this injustice does not just apply to the people we represent; it applies to every single family in this United Kingdom whose loved ones were cut down in cold blood by terrorists, and that that capacity remains in this country to this day.
Gavin Robinson
I agree, and I hope that the point is not lost.
No intended time, and no consequence. With no consequence to not engaging in this process, there is no inducement to engage in it. I heard the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who has been fair in his contributions on the legacy issue over many years—ask what it is that people want. Do they want time served in jail or do they want answers? There is no single answer to that question— there are many victims. It has been said today that people just want to know the truth. There are victims the length and breadth of Northern Ireland who know exactly who killed their loved one, and they see the perpetrator walking freely through their town on a daily or weekly basis. As they walk the lonely path to the graveside to see their loved one, the person they know to be responsible for their loved one’s death walks free through the streets with their family. That person still walks and there has been no effective investigation.
To bring the question into this House, how often do Members walk through the double doors into the Chamber and look at the plaques right above? There is commonality between each of those three plaques, because each gentle man stood for election to this House, each gentle man believed in democracy and the rule of law and each gentle man was murdered by terrorists related to the Northern Ireland troubles.
Rev. Robert Bradford was murdered by the IRA at his constituency surgery in Belfast South in 1981. Airey Neave was murdered in his car by the Irish National Liberation Army with an under-car booby-trap bomb in 1979. In 1981 Ian Gow was murdered by the IRA, again with an under-car booby-trap bomb. They were our colleagues and predecessors who stood up for democracy in this country, but they were cut down in their prime. What else connects them? Nobody has been made accountable for those crimes. The perpetrators have evaded justice.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Is he aware that the chief suspect for the murder of Airey Neave in the precincts of this House is currently operating a bar in Spain? He has eluded justice and, under the provisions of this Bill, will never have justice served upon him.
Gavin Robinson
That is exactly why I raise these issues. I want hon. Members to know that this is not just about cold cases that have never had a prospect of success in the courts. There are people out there today who are guilty of the most heinous crimes during the Northern Ireland troubles, against our state, our citizens and our neighbours across the communities in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. They have evaded justice, they have fought extradition and they have squirrelled themselves away into the Irish Republic and, under the political offence exemption, have stayed there. Some of them live in the United States of America, and our Government have sought their extradition because they know they are responsible and they want to bring them to justice, yet they stay in their safe havens. And some freely walk the streets of Northern Ireland in exactly the same position.
Those perpetrators of violence, be they republican or loyalist, will be able to sleep soundly in their beds once this Bill is passed. They will know that they never have to spend a day in jail. They know that the focus will be on state cases for which there is information that will naturally run through the information recovery process. They will not engage in this, and there will be no consequence for their not doing so.
I say with as much respect as I can in the circumstances that the idea that our Government and this Parliament will pass legislation that allows perpetrators of violence who have evaded justice to retire in dignity is a disgrace, and retire they will. This Parliament has considered on-the-runs legislation in which our Government, at a request from the republicans, were going to pass measures saying that those who were on the run and evading justice could come home and get away scot-free. It was going to be passed by the Labour Government until Sinn Féin realised that it would apply to soldiers, too, and pulled its support.
After the on-the-runs legislation, we had the letters of comfort. I am glad the Secretary of State ruled out the application of letters of comfort today, but John Downey walked free from court as a result of letters of comfort. They were not issued by the Conservative Government; they just came to light after 2010. John Downey is responsible for the Hyde Park bombing that killed 11 service personnel and seven horses working alongside them. When he stood in the Old Bailey, he produced a letter that said, “You’re not currently or actively sought for investigation.” This Parliament has a history of bidding for the wrong people in my view. Our view will always be based on those who have suffered the most in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Government have got the impression that we will not be with them on Second Reading of the Bill, but the issues are far too important for us to say that we cannot have any part of it and therefore not engage. I want the Government to hear us loudly and clearly that we will be tabling amendments, and we will seek as much cross-party and cross-community support for those amendments as possible. I hope that if we do that in the spirit of good will and co-operation, the Government will engage in these thoughtful considerations about sentencing and time served, because getting a conviction, being out on licence and having all the freedoms that people enjoy while their victims do not is simply not sufficient. We need to rule out the ability of people who have actively evaded justice, and who the Government have sought through extradition proceedings, to come home and retire with dignity. I hope that we will get a willing ear, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If we have speeches lasting 16 or 17 minutes, we will not get everyone in. Guidance was given earlier about looking towards 10 minutes, and I hope that people will now start to look to do that. Going a shade over is not too bad, but I just want to get as many people in as I possibly can.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I have huge respect for many of my colleagues in this House, and I have listened intently to what has been said today on all sides on this issue, on a path that I have walked down for seven or eight years now, whether in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan or the unique intricacies of Northern Ireland. I have seen the difficulty with this issue laid bare today. I was the Minister who introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 that brought to a close the Iraq historic allegations team. Everyone understands that if people see someone commit a crime they want them to go to prison. Everyone wants accountability. To pretend otherwise is a huge disservice to the victims and those who serve in the security forces. That is to approach the world and this whole problem—it has been approached this way for the past 25 years—not as it actually is but as we would like to see it. We would all like to see those things. We would all like to have seen decent investigations from back in the day that would withstand ECHR challenge now. We would all like families to genuinely have hope of an understanding of what went on and have answers to their problems, but there is nothing we can do about that now. There is nothing we can do. That is not my opinion; it has been tested to destruction in the courts and the justice system in Northern Ireland.
The process of testing that to destruction has destroyed the lives of some of our people who sacrificed the most for the freedoms and privileges that are enjoyed in that part of the United Kingdom today. I am afraid that colleagues in this space have to get real and stick to the truth and the facts. A number of comments that have been made today are, I am afraid, not true. I dearly love my friend the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. He is a great friend of mine, but what he said about sexual offences is not true. The truth is written in the Bill, and Members can read it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an incredibly powerful speech, but he mentioned collusion. Collusion has never been proved—[Interruption.] Collusion has never been proved in a court of law. If anyone would like to challenge that, please do so now. The suggestion that it happened is incredibly offensive to those who went out there to try to sustain peace.
I urge colleagues to accept that there are no winners here. There are going to be no winners. There is no social media clip that they can send out to the people who vote for them that will suddenly make them think they are the best thing since sliced bread and ensure they get in at the next election. There are no winners in legacy. It is a mess. The whole thing is a disaster. But we have to do what we can to bring some sort of end, finality and truth to this process for the victims. That is what I want colleagues to focus on.
Some Opposition Members have consistently said in the press that people want individuals to get away with murder and all the rest of it. It is a total load of garbage. I have always been clear, from the outset, and I say it again, that all I have asked for is fairness. All this Government are looking to introduce is fairness to all sides. I have never argued for those who operated outside the law to be unaccountable—I argue the complete opposite, because it is a foundation of our society.
There are those who continue this argument. I go out to the trials in Northern Ireland and they ask why I do not engage with them. It is because they are deliberately propelling a false narrative for political ends. That has gone on for too long in Northern Ireland and failed too many people. I am afraid I will not be part of it. To those people I say again today, as I have said many times before, that uniform in particular is no place for those who cannot adhere to the standards set and maintained by the vast majority of those who serve in Britain’s armed forces. We can find that idea espoused most by the operators themselves.
As I have said, the core of the problem is that people see this issue not as it actually is—a complete mess in which the state has failed families and failed veterans—but as they want to see it and as they want their world to be. If they were totally honest with people, they would say, “Do you know what? You’re not going to get the evidence up to a criminal threshold that means we will convict someone for your son’s murder.” I will tell the House why they have not done that: because it requires a level or integrity and courage that has eluded so many politicians in Northern Ireland. That is the reality that is currently being tested to destruction every day in the courts. It is often said that it is not justice they seek but their version of justice. That is not my opinion; it has been proven a number of times—the evidence gathering was terrible.
If it was my family member, I would be leaping. I would be jumping up and down, absolutely furious if my brother, sister, father or mother had been killed in some of the situations investigated by the British state. The soldiers were not interviewed by the police, they spoke to the Royal Military Police and some of the statements were pre-written. It is a disgrace, and I accept that. People will get away with things they should not get away with. We can bemoan that all we like, make speeches and speak to our home crowd as much as we like, but it is never going to change. I tell you now, everybody knows that is true—the judges who serve on these cases, the prosecutors who promise convictions for bereaved and vulnerable families, the so-called community leaders who pump out this rhetoric without a care in the world for the damage they do to the families who are looking for answers.
Of course, for veterans this must end. They hound old men in courts over in Northern Ireland. Two weeks ago, I listened to what exactly the drills were for a GPMG—general purpose machine gun—weapons system at a particular moment in time 40 years ago. There was an old man on the stand and he simply had no recollection. It is a farce, and I tell you now: it looks appalling for Northern Ireland. It looks ridiculous for Northern Ireland, and it loses the credibility required to bring anybody along in the process. For people like me—who, I reiterate, are not protectors of those who break the law in uniform—it fatally weakens the cause.
Attitudes have changed. We cannot let history’s notoriously heavy hand be an impediment to reconciliation, peace and opportunities in Northern Ireland for the greater good. Truth about the past has an important role to play but, as I have said today and pointed out to individual Members, it is about the actual truth, not their version of the truth, and about all the uncomfortable, messy, bloody and disgraceful actions that occurred. It has to be the truth, not their version of the truth.
I wish to focus my remarks on two key groups: the families of the civilians who died and those who sought to uphold the law in the security services—I will come to the veterans in a moment. I am talking about the real people in this debate. They are not trying to get elected all the time. They are not saying ridiculous things in the Chamber like, “British soldiers went to my town to murder civilians”. They are not saying that sort of thing just to get social media clicks—[Interruption.] That is precisely what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said. That is exactly what he said, and it was an absolute disgrace. He is a disgrace to this House. These are real people, and they are not like that. They are real people without answers, without parents, without siblings and without loved ones, some of whom are under threat from almost interminable prosecutions.
I accept that the Bill needs work. The Government must overcompensate for the failures of the past, particularly on transparency. We cannot blanket rule out people finding out what happened to their loved ones because of national security. That has been the situation for too long, and the truth has not come out. Time has passed, and we are in this situation now. We must hand this over to the main protagonists, and chief among them are the team at Op Kenova led by Jon Boutcher. Time and again, I have said that the Government must bend over backwards to show what Boutcher is doing in that investigation, and that it should be lauded in all parts of this House. What he is doing requires really difficult skills, and it must be replicated in this commission, so that victims have confidence in what is being done.
I recognise that many Members have come out against the Bill, despite the fact that it has been in the public domain for only 48 to 72 hours, and I genuinely think that that is a mistake. This is an incredibly difficult space. We have probably a generational opportunity to get this right. Legacy is not an amateur sport. It is not about coming out and saying slogans and thinking that it will all go away—Members on the Conservative Benches have been as guilty of that as anybody else. It will not go away, and to imply otherwise is deeply misleading.
Critical to the success of this Bill is how it is handled by Ministers, and I encourage them in their endeavours. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for what he has done. When the Command Paper came out, it was clearly rejected—I was probably one of the few on these Benches to come out against it. But the Secretary of State has had the character to look at it and come back with more realistic and better proposals, and he should be commended for that.
Finally, I want to address the issue of veterans. The Good Friday agreement was an incredible piece of work, ending years of bloodshed in Northern Ireland. However, there is no doubt that the issue of veterans was left on the table, and there are some of us who will never accept that. We are not asking for favours; we are asking for fairness.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I know that he speaks passionately on behalf of many veterans, and I understand that. He spoke of the Government responding to his concerns. Does he agree that, when the Minister of State rises to respond to this debate later, what we want to hear is a willingness from the Government to consider carefully reasoned amendments to this Bill that take account of very real and genuine concerns that we have about this process?
Johnny Mercer
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman 100%. We have a job here to go down that route. It must be abundantly clear to families in particular that the powers in respect of information held by the security forces sit not with the Northern Ireland Office but with the commission, which has unfettered access to that material. Any evidence that exists must be allowed to have modern techniques applied to it, as is the case under Kenova, to ensure that the truest accounts—not a version of the truth, but the truest accounts—are given to the families. The commission must have the right to speak to anybody who is still alive and could shed light—the barman in Spain, for instance.
Finally, I do want to address the matter of veterans. This Chamber is not packed today. I tell Members now that there is no other country in the world that would treat its veterans like this. I totally get the emotion in people’s speeches—I genuinely do—but the way that this has carried on over the past 25 years is an absolute disgrace.
I promised veterans before I was in Government and when I was in Government that I would do whatever it took to help them—that I would not allow them to be left behind on the negotiating table, or to be left in that “too difficult” column, as has been the case for decades. Those decades have seen lives ruined and lives ended prematurely. The whole premise of a generation’s sacrifice in Northern Ireland has been questioned openly with almost no defence, save from a few hon. Members, some of whom are here today.
I never served in Northern Ireland and I have no relation to that wonderful part of the United Kingdom, but I know the institution that shaped me. While I know the UK’s armed forces will always have their challenging individuals, as any organisation does, and we must do better in holding them to account, the overwhelming sense is one of deep professionalism, humility, courage, integrity and self-sacrifice. Those values have been tested to destruction and beyond. I have personally seen men die in the upholding of those values.
In this journey, one of the most affecting testimonies I have heard—I realise I am going slightly over 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is important.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Not slightly; you are well over, Mr Mercer.
Johnny Mercer
Okay. I just want those soldiers’ voices to be heard at the end of this. We talked about the two-year limit and the pain that that has caused. Veterans are not stupid. We understand the need for difficult compromise. Peace must prevail and endure; that is ultimately why we sign up in the first place—to protect the peace. However, allowing veterans’ sacrifices to be used as pawns in this political settlement has to end. When I came to this place I could not believe the ease with which those sacrifices were trashed or the ease with which political leaders abandoned those veterans to their foes, who are now invited into government in Northern Ireland, with the full utility of the levers of state at their disposal. Never again must we allow them to rewrite history in their favour.
I say to veterans: the nation is deeply proud of your role in securing peace in Northern Ireland and profoundly grateful for your sacrifice. Whatever happens in the process of this Bill—I urge colleagues on both sides to work with Ministers and I urge Ministers to bend over backwards to get it through—I hope veterans begin to understand that there are some of us in this place who will do whatever it takes to get there in the end.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind people again that 10 minutes is the target we are looking at, otherwise I will introduce a time limit. And let us have temperate language, please, to one another throughout the debate.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I will point out one thing at the outset. I am sitting with colleagues from Northern Ireland around me, and while we rarely agree on much—I think they will agree with that—we agree on this. We come at it from different perspectives and we will make different types of speech, but we agree that this piece of legislation goes absolutely against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and against the interests of the victims in Northern Ireland. Nobody on these Benches is interested in social media clips or dipping in and out of an issue every couple of months. We have been doing this for a long time; we speak to every single victims group and we try our best to represent them. Some people in this House might not like that, but we will continue to do it.
I have great respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but he said that there is something in this Bill for everyone. I say this with great respect, but there is nothing in this Bill for the victims and those people who have been left behind by all the perpetrators who destroyed lives and families over many years.
I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He intimated that we have all been fighting with each other and we need the British Government to come in and sort out the problem for us. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened over many years and many centuries in Northern Ireland. The British Government are no neutral observer in what happened, and they cannot be allowed to make the decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We have already agreed how to resolve this issue: it is called the Stormont House agreement. As difficult as that is, as complicated as it has been, that is the only route that has buy-in from all the political parties and two Governments—at least, it used to have.
Before I came into this Chamber, I met for a cup of tea with a man called Michael O’Hare. His sister was called Majella, and she was 12 years old in 1976. She was walking with her friends to the chapel when she was shot twice in the back by a British Army Parachute Regiment member. Michael does not want an amnesty for anybody.
I was reminded of another case in my own constituency by the fantastic and heartfelt speech by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who talked about Patsy Gillespie. The IRA abducted Patsy Gillespie from his house, leaving his wife Kathleen and his family at home. Patsy worked in a British Army base. He was chained to a van full of explosives and forced to drive into that army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five British soldiers. The people who carried that out will be freed from any concern as a result of this legislation.
I also wonder about the Ballymurphy families. In August 1971, 11 people were killed by the British Army—by the Parachute Regiment, again. Daniel Teggart was one of the victims. His daughter is called Alice Harper. This is what she had to say recently:
“We identified my daddy by his curly hair. Fourteen times they shot him. The next day they blackened his name and called him a gunman. Two years later, my brother Bernard, with a mental age of nine, was killed by the IRA. We want no amnesty for anyone.”
The Ballymurphy families would never have seen the truth that the world got to see about what happened in Ballymurphy if these proposals had been brought in before the result of that inquest.
We hear that the new system will provide truth for people. Well, Columba McVeigh was 17, from Donaghmore, County Tyrone. He was abducted and killed by the IRA and his body was disappeared. His body has still not been found, despite the fact that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains allows for immunity in these cases. It would have allowed for the IRA to come forward and tell Columba’s family exactly where the body was buried. They have not done that—that is the point.
The idea that this legislation will bring truth to families is absolute nonsense. The pretence from this Government that the legislation is about victims or reconciliation is frankly an out and out lie. This is about politics and a manifesto commitment—about protecting the state, as it always is. It will protect every single perpetrator who committed those crimes in Northern Ireland. I cannot find anybody, apart from Government Members, who believe that this legislation is the way forward. The Queen’s University law school’s model Bill team describe it as unworkable and as breaching international law. Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland, said:
“we are sure that this Bill is substantially, in fact almost certainly fatally, flawed.”
This is an overt attempt to close down access to truth and justice for the victims of our conflict. It rips up the Stormont House agreement—an agreement that people have bought into—and it does not have the support of the parties in Northern Ireland. It has absolutely no support from victims’ groups in Northern Ireland: many have told us in the past few days that they will boycott the processes if they become law.
Others have said that there is no such thing as collusion. I cannot believe that they are still saying that today, given the number of times the police ombudsman has uncovered the fact that there has been collusion in Northern Ireland between the state and paramilitary organisations.
Colum Eastwood
Do you know what? I won’t.
The Bill is attempting to close down the police ombudsman’s opportunity to investigate issues of the past. I wonder why. It is also closing down access to the civil route for families. What happened last Tuesday? The Secretary of State announced that there would be no new civil cases after that day. Families who had been told that they were supposed to be at the centre of this were running around with their lawyers trying to get access to the courts before they closed that day. That is some way to treat the people who have suffered the most!
It is all right for the rest of us, who are still here and doing quite well out of the peace process. The people who have been left behind have been treated shoddily by this Government as recently as last week. People who have waited decades for an inquest and are now in the queue for one are being told that they will not have any opportunity to get the proper truth. If this is about truth, why are we afraid of inquests? I just do not understand it.
This legislation is riddled with Government overdrive and there is nothing independent about how the organisation will be constituted. There is no meaningful article 2 compliant investigation. Frankly, it is a recipe for impunity.
I have heard reference to Kenova. This Bill is not Kenova. It is nothing like Kenova. Kenova allowed proper judicial processes and proper investigation processes so that families and the rest of us could get access to the truth. South Africa, equally, it is not, and that argument has been well debunked.
The Government are telling us they want to see access to truth. Let me tell the House about two cases I know well. Paul Whitters was 15 years old in 1981. He was shot in the head by a police officer with a plastic bullet. Despite promises from this Government given to me, his file has been closed for a further number of years. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know when that file will apparently be opened? In 2084. He was 15 years old. In the same year, 1981, the British Army fired a plastic bullet that killed Julie Livingstone, 14 years old, in Lenadoon, west Belfast. Her file will not be opened until 2062.
The Government are telling us that they want truth and access to reconciliation for victims, but every single thing they have done—whether this Bill, the Ballymurphy inquest or the Bloody Sunday inquiry—has been to protect the state, to deny access to truth and to deny access to justice for those people who do not have the same ability to protect themselves. I heard we have a new shiny headquarters in Belfast for the Northern Ireland Office. Victims were standing outside it today, protesting these proposals. They were also in Derry and at Downing Street, because they believe—to a man and woman, in my experience—that these proposals are absolutely wrong. Raymond McCord is in the Public Gallery. He has had to fight against the state and loyalist paramilitaries to try and find truth and justice for his son, Raymond.
The question is, do this Government really care about Raymond and all of those victims, or do they simply care about fulfilling a manifesto commitment, protecting the state and protecting paramilitary killers, because that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do if it is passed?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much for keeping within the unofficial, but fairly official time limit.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to speak in this debate because I have had a long interest in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in 1975. I remember the billboards at Christmas saying, “Seven years will have been too much”. To be honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hated every moment of it. I did not ask or volunteer to go there. I did not want to be doing something that I did not think I was ever trained to do, although we did carry out training. It struck me as a real problem.
I also want to say one other word about it, because often it is bandied around that political parties over here do not really get it. The Conservative party has lost a large number of people to terrorism—in the Brighton bombings alone and in other killings. We can see their coats of arms up on the wall in the Chamber. My predecessor, Norman Tebbit, has had a lifelong period of pain. His wife was disabled. She is now dead sadly, God rest her soul, and she put up with a lot as a result of her husband being in politics. The sadness is, as he leaves politics now, that he bore that all the way through. After the Good Friday agreement, he had to watch those who he knew had done it walk away. They walked away under the agreement that reduced everything to two years, and the pain he and his wife must have suffered was enormous—I know it was. I speak therefore with a certain amount of humility, as much as I speak about my own service.
The truth is, I want to talk about one particular person. Captain Robert Nairac was a good friend. He was passionate about going to Northern Ireland as a Catholic. I am a Catholic myself, and he thought that he could do something over there to help and that he would understand it. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) served with him as well. The truth is that Robert was captured. He was taken, he was tortured, we understand, and we think he was eventually executed after attempting to escape, but we do not know the full circumstances.
The sadness of all of us who have watched is that we want to know what happened. We want to get some closure. We have never understood what happened. Where is he buried? His parents went to their graves never knowing where he was. They could never go to that grave and say some words over it. That is the reality of where we are today and the point is that many people already suffer because of it.
The truth is that I do not love this Bill. I think that it is, in many senses, imperfect—as it will be—and it has problems and difficulties, some of which were related earlier. The question that we need to face is what we are really after. If we want justice in terms of prosecution and, if necessary, eventual incarceration, we need to deal with the reality that we no longer have that, because two years for murder most foul is not justice. It cannot be justice.
So do we want the prosecution to raise information? The problem is that many prosecutions are taking place against people about whom there are huge numbers of records because they happened to be servicemen and women. That is why those cases can be taken up—because the Government have all those records. Those who committed terrorist acts, however, where there is little information and little willingness to do anything about giving evidence—they may have fled the country—will remain a mystery. I talked about Robert Nairac, but I have no idea who committed that murder or how many were involved in his final demise.
All I can say is that if the Bill is about knowledge, the system at the moment is imperfect. If it is about punishment and prosecution, the system at the moment is imperfect. So what are we going to do? I understand that the Bill is a process and I think it is a genuine attempt by the Government to try to find a way that allows the families of victims to at least know and understand what happened.
My point is that things will have to change if we are to see any of this happen. On that, I have a small comment for the Opposition. I understand their position, but I wish that they had said “Maybe” rather than “No”, because we now engage in a process. The question is whether we can get some of those things right during that process. That is the point. There was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) about exactly what we want to achieve at the end of this and whether it can be made to achieve it. That comes down to a couple of issues, which I will deal with now.
First, we have a problem in the reconciliation process. To allow someone to just come in and say, “As far as I can recall, this happened and that’s my lot,” and for them to be told, “Well, that’s okay. Now you can go away and you’ll never be prosecuted for it. It’s alright. Don’t worry.” does not work for me, and I do not think it will work in the process. It must be much more interrogative and individuals must be cross-examined about exactly how far their knowledge went.
Secondly, I would like the commission to decide whether we are going to go ahead with this regardless of whether it considers that, on balance, the individual has told the truth and deserves any kind of immunity from future prosecution. In other words, that needs to be tightened up a great deal. If families of victims are to have any faith in it, they will need to understand that there was due process.
Gavin Robinson
The right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point, because the commission would consider what the individual seeking immunity says and whether it is truthful, but under the Bill it is not allowed to consider any other information. Does it not strike him as odd that it has no ability to challenge the rigour or integrity of what it is told?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I understand that. As I said earlier, with all humility to my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I start from a position of trying to find a way through. That is one of the problems with the Bill. If it is about knowledge, we have to meet that requirement somehow in the Bill, because it is not happening out there. For all the talk about prosecutions and knowledge, few of those who carried out those heinous crimes have ever ended up in the courts or will ever end up in the courts, so how can we manage to make that happen?
Another part of the problem is those who do not co-operate. I worried about the two-year issue in 1998, because it seemed unfair and not really justice. If someone blows somebody else up; murders them; or takes away a family’s father, brother, sister or whoever or a member of the armed forces who was there to protect them, they should, after committing such a crime—murder most foul—face the fullest penalty.
I understand the compromise that was made at the time—I understand that. Many of us had to bite our lips, but we understood it. My point is that if we are going to open the door on the one hand to those who would entertain the possibility of coming to speak the truth, we must also say that those who do not will face the full penalty of the law for murder most foul: “You will not be given an exemption. You will not end up with only two years. You will face a full prosecution if you are not part of this process. In other words, either you co-operate, you face the interrogation and you actually come out as having told the truth, or else you go down the other road back into the justice system and you face full prosecution.” To some degree, that would at least give balance. It would at least give an idea that somehow the process not just sought the truth, but punished those who refused to participate in that process.
I end simply on the basis that the process will never satisfy everybody. I know that, and I know that families will feel very hurt by this process so far, but I think there is a way through. The one thing that has characterised, in many senses, this House over Northern Ireland has been somehow trying to find a way through the thicket of the different positions that people take. I for one think that the process of trailing veterans—where the information is there, they had given evidence previously and they have been fact-faced at interrogations—should not go on, because it is terrible and belittling, and at the same time creates real problems for them at home. We want to find a way to settle that, but I do not want to settle it on the backs of those who still await to find out what happened.
If we can find a way through on this Bill, imperfect as it is at the moment, that would be worthy of the effort. I would encourage the Opposition to engage as much as they possibly can, because this is too important an issue to divide on in a very political sense. I want to see closure: I want to find out what happened to my friend Robert Nairac, because it troubles me every single day and I never got to say goodbye to him.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am very conscious that this debate is most likely being watched by victims and survivors in Northern Ireland as well as those based here on the mainland. I am conscious of how painful this is for them—the hurt and the trauma inflicted and, indeed, the sense of betrayal brought about by this Bill. I make no apology for stating that it is those innocent victims of terrorism who are front and centre in how I and my party approach dealing with the past. The past is still their present. They paid the greatest price. They did not choose to pay that price; it was inflicted on them by the bomb and the bullet, by the evil, wicked hand of terrorism. All they seek in return for the price paid is justice, and for the perpetrator to be held to account for their deathly actions. While the widow and her young family stood at the graveside mourning the loss of the innocent husband and father, they craved the moment when the terrorist stands in the dock facing justice. As time has passed, that ray of hope has grown dimmer, but remained. Today, the Government are extinguishing that hope.
As a party, we have consistently applied a number of tests to any proposal around legacy. The tests are that there remains the opportunity for justice for victims, that there is no amnesty and that any process is fair and balanced. What we have before us today in the form of this Bill fails all three tests. As far back as the Belfast agreement, the DUP opposed the reduction in tariff for terrorist-related offences to a maximum of two years. We found such leniency towards those guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable to be a perversion of justice, yet what this Bill proposes is even worse, for there is no custodial sentence whatsoever in these proposals, only a period on licence. To the on-the-runs’ letters of comfort, add the freedom pass. How utterly repugnant.
We know how the process will work. In reality, a terrorist could come forward and tell whatever tale he or she contrives. With no new evidence and on the balance of probabilities, some will get the reward of an amnesty for their tall tale. I am yet to decide if it is naive or simply duplicitous of the Government to suggest the Bill will help to address the legacy of the past: to do that, surely truth must mean something. For Sinn Féin, “truth” means concealing as much as it can about IRA terrorism. When Martin McGuinness, an IRA godfather with the blood of many innocents dripping from his hands, appeared before the Saville inquiry, he stated that his IRA oath curtailed what he could say. He said, and the Government should take note:
“I feel I cannot answer that question because there is a Republican code of honour. For me to identify who these people are would be a betrayal, in my view. To do so would have been a gross act of betrayal. I have a duty, in my view, stretching back 30 years, to those people and I am not prepared to break my word to them under any circumstances.”
Despicable.
Let me raise one other issue in relation to our brave armed forces, who stood against those intent on death and destruction. We have seen the imbalance in resources and in the ferocity with which answers have been sought in instances involving our armed forces, compared with terrorism. It is not that long ago that I stood outside a Belfast courthouse with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the late Dennis Hutchings, who was chased to his grave by those intent on the vexatious prosecution of soldiers. Dennis, like others, was placed in that position in rural Ulster not through choice, but in response to a situation foisted upon our land. This country and this House put our young men and women in an incredibly dangerous position and, as part of their operational duties, they had to make very difficult operational decisions, sometimes with tragic outcomes. It is appalling that they should then be subject to the full rigour of criminal investigation, as proposed by the Bill. Furthermore, it is scandalous that should a soldier tell his story and it not be completely corroborated by documentary evidence, the burden of proof for the soldier is much higher than for the terrorist whom he was sent to defeat.
It was William Gladstone who famously said:
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
However, the Bill is much worse. It is justice denied and justice destroyed.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am honoured to speak in the debate and I understand the sensitivities, the emotion and the hurt that many people in the Chamber feel, given their personal experiences and those of loved ones. I shall try to temper what I say in my speech as a result.
I served for 18 months at the back end of the troubles, so I am one of the youngest of those who served there. My father served in Northern Ireland in the early days of the 1970s with the SAS. I grew up in Hereford watching my dad search under cars. I would ask, “Why are you looking under the car, Dad? What have you dropped?” We grew up with that—I lived two or three roads from the SAS camp. The fathers of many of the kids I went to school with served in Northern Ireland and were family friends. The whole community felt it, and we would regularly have bomb threats near the camp.
On a lighter note, some of my friends realised that if they called in a hoax bomb threat to the school, we would be sent home for the day. After three days of hoax threats, the school said that we would have to go in at the weekend, so the bomb threats stopped—at least, the hoaxes did.
In my community, we grew up understanding all that; it was always there. We would see it on the news when I was at school throughout the early ’80s. When I left school, I joined the Army and the Royal Green Jackets, which as a regiment probably lost among the most soldiers throughout the troubles. If we put it with The Rifles and the Light Infantry, they would without a doubt have lost more than anybody else. Every single loss of life in that experience is a tragedy.
When I joined, all our instructors at the depot were Northern Ireland veterans—they could not have been instructors without having gone through that—and we knew that, within a few years of passing out from the depot, we would be going to serve in Northern Ireland. Everything was geared around that. Twelve months after getting out of the depot, getting shot and recovering, I went on Northern Ireland training. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who did not look to enjoy it, I could not wait to go to Northern Ireland. I was looking forward to it and could not wait to serve my country over there.
I had had extensive training; I knew right from wrong; I knew my rules of engagement. I knew, in no uncertain terms, what I could and could not do. I and all my colleagues were tested to breaking point on the ranges in scenarios over and over again for several months. We took the experience from those who had served many times before. I know that quite a few hon. Members served over there. During the process, we were shown what had happened to some of our colleagues who sadly never returned. We saw, in graphic detail, the loss of life from car bombs and murders. We saw videos. We knew that, if it was to go wrong for us, it would really go wrong. We knew what that was like.
When I was deployed, I remember getting to Belfast—we were in big, armoured trucks—and, as I looked out of a gap, I could see what looked like my home area. I saw streets, not a war zone as I had thought. It looked like a normal area. I am not afraid to admit that I was afraid. I was nervous and did not know what to expect. I was a teenager on an operational tour. Most of my colleagues had not been there before—I think that only the corporals and above had—so we were very wary.
Initially, there was a ceasefire, but the Canary Wharf bomb going off at the beginning of 1996 changed what was happening. I was in Drumcree in the summer of 1996 when we stopped the marching, and the whole Province erupted. Several RUC, who were always outstanding in operating with us, were shot. I think that four were shot in one night. There were multiple attacks, with people getting burned out of houses. We were in riot, and we were being full-on attacked left, right and centre. That went on for a long time. After about three or four days, we realised that we had not slept. We were tired. We were exhausted. We were getting bricked and people were getting shot at and petrol-bombed. That was going on and on, but we knew what we could and could not do.
We must weigh up how, in that scenario, every one of us had a split second to decide whether the person running round the corner with something in his hand was running away from someone trying to attack him or running towards us to attack us. At that very moment, we held life and death in our hands. If we took action, we took a life. If we did not take action, we died or our colleagues died. We were in that scenario.
I believe that, through all of my operational tours, people acted in the most professional manner. There have been mistakes that have happened, and there has been wrongdoing by people in unform. That is a stain on what the British Army represents. Those incidents are few and far between, but mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. Things do go wrong. I am 46 years of age, and I sometimes struggle to remember what I did last week, let alone 25 years ago—
Stuart Anderson
I know—my right hon. Friend served the year before I was born—but many people would not remember exactly what happened then. Everyone in my patrol would describe those incidents in a different way. Dragging soldiers through the courts for what has happened is a stain on what we had.
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was put in place in 1998. I can see why it has taken until now to get to where we are, because there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of reasons—people always have a reason for why something cannot be done—so I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for getting us here. We have heard that there will not be unanimous support for the Bill. We see that. I look to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that Democratic Unionist party Members do not agree with the Bill and do not support it, but want to make some reasonable changes as it goes through. I understand that this has a different impact on them and their communities. Many of us will be touched by these issues, but DUP Members still live in those communities. It will be decades before there is change. No Bill will change the impact of the lives that were lost or the impact on people who went and served over there. People are never the same afterwards.
I would like to think that I am quite a reasonable person and I tend to measure what I say, but those on the Labour Front Bench have put up one Back-Bench Member to debate the Bill, and I find that an absolute dishonour to this House. I find it an insult.
James Sunderland
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is the party of the armed forces?
Stuart Anderson
No, I certainly do not. As I said, I am trying to temper my remarks, but Labour is going to vote against the Bill for political reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) turns around to look. There is not one Labour Member there. [Interruption.] There have been a couple, I will give him that, but they could at least put forward an argument for why they are not supporting the Bill, and not just from the Front Bench. Labour Members will be voting against the Bill without having put forward a reasonable argument and that is completely unacceptable. Words have happened too much in this House; we need to see action now.
Sir Mike Penning
I think my hon. Friend is making the point on his own, but I extend the hand of friendship and emphasise that this is Second Reading. It is plainly obvious that amendments will be tabled in Committee and on Report—we have heard that from across the House—and surely on Second Reading the Opposition could support the Bill and then change it in debate in Committee. It will fundamentally change. There has been no debate from Labour Back Benchers really. This is Second Reading, and we should extend the hand of friendship across the House and agree that we can make amendments later on, but to vote against the Bill now is a slight not only against the victims, but against the veterans who served.
Stuart Anderson
As I wind up, I want to make clear that this is not a personal attack on the hon. Member for Hove. He is here, but nobody else from his party is here and that is not acceptable. They could at least have come and put forward a reasoned argument for why they are not supporting the Bill. I will leave that there. I will be supporting the Bill because it is the right thing to do moving forward.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
At the outset, may I put on record that I think we can all be here in support of UK armed forces but have a different opinion on what is the right thing to do in terms of the legislation? I stand here as someone who wants to restate my support for the work that the armed forces have done in Northern Ireland in the past, where they served with great honour, distinction, integrity and sacrifice, and for the work they are doing in places right around the world at present. All of us are very clearly aware of the huge threats that exist in the international space at present. I want to pass on my thanks and appreciation personally to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and his colleagues for their service.
Our difficulty is that this debate is based around a false narrative of vexatious investigations and prosecutions that simply does not stack up under scrutiny. As a consequence, we are seeing the production of bad law—indeed, law that will prove to be utterly unworkable in the situation of Northern Ireland. Legacy is by far the most sensitive issue in our political space. There is a real prospect that what is happening with this Bill, including the manner in which it has been handled, will end up retraumatising victims, because no preparation has been done for what is coming down the tracks. People are seeing the potential prospect—slim though that may be—of justice being snuffed out over their heads. That cuts really deep, to their very sense of being and the slim hope that they have been holding on to.
Of course, the legacy process in Northern Ireland is fragmented and piecemeal. Outcomes are poor, in terms of justice and reconciliation. There have been some notable exceptions where results have been delivered, not least in some of the recent inquests. However, we have the legacy investigations branch of the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, inquests and civil cases, so the need for a comprehensive approach to legacy is clear. The Bill does not represent that solution. It is unworkable and incompatible with the principles of justice, the rule of law and reconciliation, and it is not compatible with international human rights standards either.
The Stormont House agreement of 2014 represented an agreement between the UK and Irish Governments and most of the Northern Ireland parties. It also has the support of most victims’ groups and other stakeholders, but it has never been implemented. It was never even given a chance. When people ask us, “What is the alternative?”, the answer is clearly “Stormont House—return to it and give it a chance before you move on to something else.”
The Bill is not even consistent with the principles of the Stormont House agreement. Furthermore, it is even a breach of the New Decade, New Approach agreement from as recently as January 2020 under the current Prime Minister. That agreement recommitted the Government to Stormont House—not to a different process. It is there in black and white.
The Bill is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. There is already very significant case law on requirements around the nature of investigations. The processes set out in the Bill do not, and cannot, provide the necessary independence, effectiveness or rigour, in terms of the interrogation of evidence, to be compliant with article 2. We have had an interesting debate about how that can potentially be addressed. We would have to recognise that a whole range of references to “review” in the Bill need to be stripped out and replaced with “investigation.” We are talking about surgery in which, essentially, we would have to select all and replace all, with “review” coming out for “investigation”.
I want to reiterate the following point: although we have to keep on the table the prospect of prosecutions happening in what may well be a small minority of cases—people will cling on to that hope—the important point about investigations relates to the rigour of the investigation, the interrogation of evidence and the challenge that actually provides answers for people. That is what they have been looking for, and that is the type of process that has reached results in limited cases so far. That is what an inquest does, for example. However, on paper in this Bill, we do not have that interrogative approach—it is very far away from that. Indeed, given the Bill’s failure to uphold the European convention on human rights, we could argue that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.
The Operation Kenova model negates the Government’s argument that investigations with full investigatory powers are not viable. Although there have not been any prosecutions, my understanding is that substantial files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service in relation to that. Again, what is in the Bill is nothing close to what was included in Operation Kenova.
The process around the Bill has been flawed. It is a top-down imposition that does not reflect co-design with the key stakeholders. Indeed, there was no meaningful engagement with Northern Ireland political parties or other stakeholders on the Bill. That includes the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
The Bill is driven by a narrative from the Government, and the Conservative party more widely, based on vexatious claims and investigations against veterans. That does not stack up. Ministers cannot, and will not, cite examples of what they mean by “vexatious”; they have had plenty of opportunity to do so but they have never taken that up. Indeed, the Northern Ireland criminal justice system is rigorous. It has a high bar for what is pursued through the courts and it self-polices any vexatious cases. Anyone who claims that there are vexatious claims in the system is attacking and undermining the existing criminal justice system.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Bill is opposed by virtually every victims’ group in Northern Ireland, which raises the question: on whose behalf is it being passed? The groups opposing the Bill include Amnesty International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Relatives for Justice, South East Fermanagh Foundation, the Pat Finucane Centre, WAVE and the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says that
“this Bill is substantially, in fact almost certainly fatally, flawed.”
The Irish Government are supposed to be a partner in the process and in managing the Good Friday agreement, but have not been part of this phase of the legacy deliberations. They, too, see the Bill as unworkable and as incompatible with article 2 of the convention.
Furthermore, much of the Bill relates to matters that are essentially in the devolved space of Northern Ireland. The original understanding behind Stormont House was that the UK Parliament would pass legislation covering both UK responsibilities and Northern Ireland responsibilities on a hybrid basis, with the active consent of the Assembly; that was the only tactical way of getting the comprehensive package through. As things stand, however, the Government are openly working outside the Sewel convention on this most sensitive area.
Contrary to the dominant narrative that veterans support the Bill, it is important that we recognise that views are at least mixed, particularly among former Army and police personnel based in Northern Ireland. The vast majority believe in the primacy of the rule of law; they believe that the very small minority of their colleagues who have potentially broken the law should be held accountable. The Bill risks drawing a false equivalence between them and the terrorists, with special measures having to be put in place when there is no need for any protection to be given that sullies anyone’s service. For someone who may have invested 30 or 40 years of their life in protecting the community, that twisting of the narrative behind the nature of their service will cut very deep.
The Bill will grant the Secretary of State direct control over the establishment and operation of all the proposed mechanisms, undermining the independence of actors. That is particularly problematic when the state is one of those actors. The powers to compel testimony are weak, suggesting that there will not be the capacity to conduct effective investigations. The functions are weighted towards reviews rather than investigations, the bar for re-examining previous investigations is high, and the conditional immunity approach amounts to a de facto amnesty.
A false equivalence has been drawn with what happened with the early release of prisoners, with decommissioning and with victims’ remains. I was deeply uncomfortable with the early release of prisoners, which was a part of the agreement that I did not find particularly tasteful, but it is important to recognise that anyone subject to early release was out on licence and could be recalled in the event of another offence. With victims’ remains and decommissioning, there was immunity only where evidence led to the discovery of remains or the handover of guns; there was no broad immunity for the people responsible. It is important to set out that context.
In the rare cases where immunity is not granted—I stress that it is a very subjective process—there is still only a technical risk of prosecution, because who else will do the investigation? All other routes are being shut down. There is a very real danger that people will simply choose to wait out the conclusion of the new body’s work, so there will be a blanket amnesty by default.
Amnesties are increasingly regarded as problematic in post-conflict situations around the world, so the Government are going against the trend. Amnesties are particularly problematic in the context of the ECHR framework; the Marguš v. Croatia case is especially relevant in that regard. The lessons are very clear: for any amnesty to be even remotely tenable, it would need either to be part of the peace agreement itself or to be agreed across the political parties. Neither of those tests has been met.
I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I make a couple more comments in conclusion. There are major concerns about shutting down civil cases and inquests, particularly as the last Lord Chief Justice and the present Lady Chief Justice have been working through a programme in which different inquests have been scheduled in a different order, so there is a risk that inquests will be completed for certain families but snuffed out for others.
The proposals relating to oral history, memorials and academic research are also centrally controlled, and are being used to give a reconciliation veneer to what is actually being done. Reconciliation is at the heart of the DNA of my party, but it cannot be done from the top down: people cannot be told to reconcile. It has to be done in an organic way, but that is not going to happen.
Let me make a final comment about process. I believe that the Bill is irredeemable and fatally flawed, which is why I will be opposing it. However, even if the Government offer to amend it, a Committee of the whole House over two days will not give us enough space for proper consideration of any amendments. That belies any genuine attempt to fix any of the problems.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Thank you for calling me for the graveyard shift, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There has been plenty of passion and emotion in this important debate, but I want to give my view, as a relatively new Member and, I hope, a pragmatist. Today is about the past, the present and the future, and it is about people, many of whom were terribly caught up in the troubles. It is already clear that the Bill will not be a panacea—far from it—but it does have defined outcomes that I believe to be broadly positive, for reasons that I shall explain. No one will pretend that this is at all easy, or that it is a formality.
Let me begin by commending the Secretary of State and his staff in the Northern Ireland Office for acting in good faith throughout. This process is very difficult legally, and very sensitive politically. It has required strategic patience and huge personal and professional resilience under pressure. Ultimately the Bill is a no-win statute, because it will not bring people back, and it will not bring solace to victims and their families, in that those whom we should be holding to account may now never be brought to justice. However, I believe that it will ultimately provide some solace and some closure, although not a lot. Despite all its imperfections, I believe that it will do what it says on the tin, as the least worst option.
This legislation has done the rounds. It has been through the Irish Government, veterans groups and victims groups, and it is probably the missing chapter of the Good Friday agreement of 24 years ago. It therefore comes as no surprise to anyone. It has, I believe, received due diligence. It has taken longer than expected, and yes, the Northern Ireland Office has received criticism—not least from Conservative Members—for the strategic pause that has been necessary, but it was a manifesto promise, it was in the Queen’s Speech, and it is finally being delivered. It is now deliverable as well, but it is also a heavy responsibility for the Government.
What I want to say about the Bill relates first to veterans, veterans groups and those who may still be serving. Do I think that the Bill is the right way to protect veterans from vexatious complaints? The simple answer is yes. Why? Because it breaks the cycle. It ends the misery, and it ends the knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. We owe it to these people, who served in good faith in Northern Ireland. I commend the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and the work of so many veterans groups. This has gone on for too long, and it needs to be killed now.
Of course, it is not possible to deliver legacy protection for veterans in isolation. It has to be able to withstand legal challenge. It has to be article 2 compliant. It has to get through Strasbourg and comply with the Human Rights Act. The principle of legal equivalence underpins that statute because it has to, and therefore the premise of conditional amnesty is rightly pivotal. It was right to move away from the original premise of what might be termed “new and compelling evidence”. Who decides that, and how does one draw the line in law? It is impossible: the bottom line is that one cannot. I therefore understand the logic of why a blanket statute of limitations has been introduced, and I think that is now the right thing to do.
What does the Bill actually do? We know that it establishes the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. In theory, it creates an environment of openness, which may give answers and some closure, but I appreciate the flaws in the argument. It will grant immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission. The important point is that legal equivalence does not mean moral equivalence, so it is absolutely right that conditional amnesty is dependent on engagement. The Bill will end troubles-based criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, which is the right thing to do, and it should mean the commissioning of a record of every troubles-related death from the ICRIR. The list goes on.
However, in the interests of balance, I should point out that the PSNI currently has a caseload of at least 900 unsolved cases. Op Kenova, which was mentioned earlier, has unfinished business for many, and victims and families will not get the resolution they seek. I am also acutely conscious of the concerns of those who believe that protagonists just will not engage. In my view, we have to give this a chance. It is important that we do that.
The Bill is divisive, as we have heard today, and we have to go forward as carefully as we can, mindful of the particular sensitivity of victims’ families. That is a given. But the time is now 24 years on from the Good Friday agreement, and we have no choice. We have to deliver on the promise that was made, not least to our veterans. Personally, I am bewildered and disappointed by Labour’s decision not to be in the Chamber today and to vote against the Bill. In addition to doing the right thing for our security services and our veterans, the Bill is ultimately about national politics, not party politics, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will do the right thing this afternoon.
Stuart Anderson
I certainly laboured that point, but it is a point that really needs labouring. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is not the party of veterans, and that its action tonight will be seen across the veteran community?
James Sunderland
My personal view is that we have to show the requisite support to our veterans, our armed forces and our security services. Today is ultimately about two things. It is about drawing a line under vexatious complaints and about hoping that Northern Ireland can emerge into a peaceful and prosperous future. I very much hope that that happens.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
We have heard a number of helpful and interesting contributions on what is a difficult subject. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important and interesting point when he identified that there should be significant amendments to the Bill. Those amendments, if carried in the way he suggested, would change what the Bill does, and we look forward to them in hope and in expectation, because change to this Bill is necessary. Many Members representing all types of constituencies in Northern Ireland and all parties across this House have rightly stated that they are opposed to it. It has failed the Northern Ireland test of getting any sense of consensus whatsoever, and it is important that that is placed on record.
It is disappointing that Labour Members have not contributed to this debate in the way that we would have expected them to do, given that it was in 1998 that the genie was let out of the bottle when all terrorist prisoners were released from jail. That set on course a series of events that has told us that justice in Northern Ireland will be served up very differently for everyone. It is important that people recognise that, since 1998, we have been served a catalogue of abuse to the justice process. Let us consider the letters of comfort that were secretly issued, and the on-the-runs processes, which were a total disgrace.
These events have even been characterised in the recent series “Derry Girls”. I watched with interest the other evening as two characters fell out with each other over the release of prisoners. They came from the same tradition and similar families but they fell out because, as one of them said, “Your brother committed murder and he shouldn’t be let out.” That is how it affected all families in Northern Ireland—Protestant and Catholic, across the divide. It was appalling. Even the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who supported the Belfast Agreement, has indicated today how that jarred with him. It is important that hon. Members recognise that the genie being let out of the bottle then is how we got here today with this legislation, which says, “If we can do it once, we can do it again. We can undermine the rule of law again, because we did it once.” Perhaps that is why the Labour Benches are empty today—because it is unsatisfactory for Labour Members to stand on their moral high horse and read a lecture about the morality or immorality of this. Maybe the finger is pointing back at them and what they did in 1998 has finally come home to roost. That is an important point.
I mentioned earlier the case of Rita O’Hare, who tried to kill a soldier called Frazer Paton in Belfast 51 years ago. She evaded justice when she was given bail. She fled to the Irish Republic and went on the run. She got a job in the United States of America, where she has been Sinn Féin’s director of publicity since the 1980s. She cannot come back to Northern Ireland because of an outstanding warrant, but under this Bill she gets off the hook. What is she going to do—read a little story to an inquiry tribunal and tell it what actually happened? She will never serve a day in jail for attempted murder, she will never serve a day in jail for possessing the murder weapon and she will never serve a day in jail for maliciously wounding a soldier, all because of this piece of legislation. We need to call it out for those reasons.
On Sunday I had the privilege of standing in Ballymena Memorial Park as we unveiled a memorial to the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. As we stood and listened to the names of the fallen from County Antrim, as tears fell on widows’ cheeks and as orphans and colleagues of the fallen stood around the memorial, it was obvious that this legislation is not a cri de coeur that no one will be left behind, as some hon. Members would have us believe. The RUC will be left behind and the victims will be left behind.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) rightly said that not a single victims group, not a single party—for different reasons—and not a single rights group in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, accepts that the Bill is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Some hon. Members go to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on behalf of the House to uphold the European convention on human rights, and we chide Russia for breaking it, yet we are putting legislation through the House that contravenes the convention because it is not article 2 compliant.
It is perverse when we hear hon. Members calling in this House for war crimes to be identified and for people to be brought to justice in another part of Europe, because there is an attempt to conceal and forget war crimes here in the United Kingdom. Veterans have been fed an unfair diet this afternoon with the idea that the Bill will be very good for them, but it will not be. They are getting a crumb off the table, and that crumb is blue-moulded and will not taste very good because, instead of veterans being able to hold their head high and walk tall and proud for the great service they gave to our nation in Northern Ireland, this legislation marks them out as getting some sort of dodgy special deal, like 1998 all over again. It does not do them the justice to which they are entitled, and it does not exonerate them in the way they should be.
For many years, hon. Members on both sides of the House campaigned for justice for the victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland. The next time I hear an hon. Member say they want to see justice for victims across the United Kingdom who suffered due to Libyan-sponsored explosives in the hands of the IRA, I will take a double look, because this Bill stops that in its tracks.
My constituent Billy O’Flaherty, a police officer, lost his limbs in Ballymena because of a Libyan-sponsored bomb in the hands of the IRA. I have to go and tell him tonight that, as a result of this Bill, he is never going to get justice. He is never going to see the people who tried to murder him and who murdered his colleague on the same day put behind bars. The Bill will not get us to a point of justice.
If anyone in this House honestly thinks that somehow terrorists are going to walk into a review process and ‘fess up to all the bad things they did and that it will all be forgotten, they are absolutely wrong. This is not about reconciliation. It was wrong to call this reconciliation because it will not reconcile the differences; it will drive a stake between people and leave communities—not a community—in Northern Ireland feeling let down once again.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for introducing the Bill. Governments and Secretaries of State of all colours in the past 20-plus years have grappled with the incredibly difficult question of how to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles. This has been fraught with political, legal and moral hurdles, many of which have often been considered insurmountable. So my right hon. Friend deserves immense credit for grasping the nettle and introducing the proposals when previous Governments have all concluded that the easiest thing to do was simply to do nothing. There has long been broad agreement across Northern Ireland that the current system for addressing the legacy of the troubles simply does not work. Victims, survivors and their families have waited far too long for answers and, in order to allow Northern Ireland and its people to look towards the future, the Government are right in bringing forward this Bill.
The years of the troubles were an awful period in the history of our United Kingdom, with tragic loss of life and severe injuries inflicted on thousands of people, but it should always be remembered at this point that 90% of the deaths in the troubles were deliberate killings by terrorists who set out to inflict untold misery in pursuit of their perverse political agenda. Being in my early 30s, I am of course not old enough to remember the worst of the troubles, but I do recall the signing of the Belfast agreement. The agreement has stood the test of time and laid the foundations for peace and security in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years. However, it came at a tremendous cost. In 1998 the prison gates were opened and terrorists guilty of horrific crimes were released without fully serving their sentences.
One can only imagine the tremendous anger, distress and upset that this must have caused, not just to the victims and their families but to those communities who were devastated by the barbaric actions of terrorist groups such as the IRA. This, alongside the on-the-run letters, was a complete corruption of justice. Some Members of the House opposed the Belfast agreement at the time, for this reason and many others, and it is easy to see why. However, we cannot look backwards; we must try to deal with the present and move Northern Ireland forward to protect the peace process and create prosperity, and we must do so while seeking to provide some form of closure to victims and families who are understandably still hurting.
Victims of wrongdoing should always have access to justice for the atrocities committed during the troubles, but the harsh reality is that these crimes occurred many decades ago and the likelihood of successful prosecutions diminishes with every passing day, as we have seen with the recent collapse of several trials. It is obvious that the current system is failing. It delivers neither truth nor justice for the vast majority of families. The emphasis that the Bill places on information recovery will help many families who have waited far too long for answers and may help to bring about some closure for the events of the past. The process will allow us to see more information than ever before on the circumstances of many crimes that resulted in horrific injuries and families losing loved ones.
The process will also provide certainty to those veterans who have for far too long faced the threat of reinvestigation, which has, in a number of cases, destroyed the final decades of their lives and inflicted great anguish and pain on their lives and those of their loved ones. It is absolutely appalling that veterans have been subjected to suspicion and have had to live their lives in fear of prosecution for so many years. By ending the cycle of vexatious criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, we will finally deliver on our manifesto commitment to protect veterans. That will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Blackpool.
I am pleased that the Government have listened to concerns about automatic access to immunity and that it will now be granted on the basis of an individual’s co-operation with the commission’s inquiries and acknowledgement of their role in troubles-related incidents. The Bill will give veterans the certainty and finality that they deserve but, of course, leaves the door open to the prosecution of those who do not co-operate or share information with the commission.
I welcome the proposal to include an oral history initiative, which would create opportunities for people to share their experiences of and perspectives on the troubles. Such an initiative needs to be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity. There can never, under any circumstances, be a moral equivalence between those who perpetrated violence and those who tried to bring it to an end. An oral history archive must never be used to rewrite history from the perspective of those republicans who inflicted so much misery on their innocent victims and on the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. We must never agree to a version of history that seeks to legitimise the indiscriminate and barbaric actions of terrorists such as the IRA.
Simon Hoare
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as important as such an initiative is, we must make sure that it is not twisted by either side to become a recruiting sergeant for future years?
Scott Benton
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It of course needs to be fair, balanced and proportionate and give an accurate account of events. It is important that it is not whitewashed by either community.
It is extremely disappointing that the Labour party will oppose this legislation this evening. The fact that I can see just one Labour Member in their place on the Opposition Benches—
Scott Benton
I beg the House’s pardon—there are two. But that says it all. In opposing this legislation, the Labour party will allow the continued harassment of our brave servicemen, seeing them dragged through the courts with unsubstantiated claims, causing pain and misery for their families. I suspect that the reason why very few Labour Members are in their place is that they see straight through the ridiculous reason given by Opposition Front Benchers for opposing Second Reading: a tenuous argument about their objection to the so-called conditional amnesty. I am afraid it was the Labour Government who opened the floodgates to release dozens of terrorists two decades ago.
I am pleased to support the Bill and wish to go on the record again as thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their brilliant work and for having the guts to bring this Bill to the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I rise, like many of my colleagues did, to explain my opposition to the Bill as it currently stands. As has been explained by several of them, the issue here is about justice and truth. This year, 2022, is the 50th anniversary of the worst year of the troubles in Northern Ireland. In 1972, almost 500 people died as a result of the troubles, as we euphemistically call the period.
Just before Christmas last year, I went to an innocent victims’ group and asked them to organise an event that would commemorate that 50th anniversary, and they gladly did so. I and some of my colleagues attended the event in St Columb’s cathedral in Londonderry just a couple of months ago. The reason that I did that, and many of the other things that have occurred, is that there has been a tendency throughout the troubles and since their ending—hopefully for good—to equate perpetrators with victims. Unfortunately, we can trace that back to what happened after 1994.
Very often in this House and outside, people talk about peace dropping slowly in 1998. In fact, what happened was that, in 1994, the main perpetrators, but by no means the only perpetrators, were the Provisional IRA. Riddled with informers, it decided to call a halt to activities, and the loyalist paramilitaries, who were also engaged in killing, followed suit.
There were then discussions and negotiations for a period of years, resulting in the Belfast agreement, which at that stage legitimised terror—I am glad that some Members have conceded that point. It brought terror into the heart of our political democracy. That is what happened in 1998. People might resile from that and may not like that being said, but that is what happened. We cannot turn the clock back; we are where we are now. I sympathise totally with the Government, as they are in a very difficult position, having to deal with the issue of legacy in a way that will bring comfort, succour and support to those on all sides. That will be almost impossible. Whatever they do, the job will be almost impossible.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my good and hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that, in 1994, the Provisional IRA was substantially defeated and that the reason why 1998 occurred is that the Provisional IRA realised that all was lost militarily?
Mr Campbell
I thank my right hon. Friend and colleague and say that there is a substantial degree of accuracy in his observation. We have seen the outworking of that over the past five or six years.
Let me come back to those on the Front Bench. They are in an invidious position. Many people in Northern Ireland accept the difficulties that the Government are faced with. I do not meet many innocent victims who realistically hold out the prospect for a successful prosecution and limited jail term for the people who carried out the atrocities against their loved ones. I meet very, very few who say that. Most of them say that there is a limited possibility—a minuscule possibility—that they will receive justice. But what they do say is, “Don’t extinguish it. Don’t put it out for ever and a day.” And that is what this Bill does—extinguishes that possibility for ever and a day. Justice is gone—finished—and never coming back.
That is why the Government must listen to reasoned amendments to make this Bill less unacceptable than it currently is, because I do not think that there will be an acceptable Bill that will command support across the victims’ divide, and across the political divide. None the less, we could, if the Government were open to reasoned amendments, retain the possibility of justice if new evidence emerges—if it does emerge. Victims want to know that their loved one did not die in vain.
Simon Hoare
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that the timetable envisaged in the programme motion is woefully inadequate to have a proper debate on those reasoned amendments and to try to address the concerns that he and his colleagues have raised in this debate?
Mr Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for that observation. We are in danger of agreeing too much today, but I do agree with what he has just said. Maybe the proposed Bill has done some good.
In all seriousness, however, the Secretary of State made the comment, which I see is now headlining on BBC News, that there is a diminishing possibility of prosecutions. We understand that, but a diminishing possibility is not the same as extinguishing the possibility. That is the difference we must maintain.
I agree and believe that truth recovery can contribute towards people’s moving on and accepting that what is done is done. While they would like to see justice, and still hold out the hope that they might, if they got more information and knowledge about what happened to their loved ones, it would at least bring them some comfort.
A number of people have alluded to the case of a person I knew very slightly, the late Patsy Gillespie. He was what was called a human bomb, strapped into his own van and instructed to drive into an Army camp in Londonderry. The van was exploded, with him and five innocent soldiers also paying the price for the depravity organised by the late Martin McGuinness, who was the second-in-command of the Provisional IRA at the time.
I have an affinity with Patsy Gillespie, because he was an MOD employee on one side of the river, and I was an MOD employee on the other side. Likewise, I have an affinity with two of the three former Members whose plaques are above the door of this Chamber. They died as the result of under-car booby-traps. My family—my wife and two young children, one of them only four months old—were victims of an under-car booby-trap device; thanks to almighty God, it fell off before exploding and killing a man, a woman and two innocent children.
Let us do work with this Bill and try to improve it considerably. As it currently stands, it is totally and utterly unacceptable.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
For far too long, for my life and beyond, Northern Ireland, the Republic and Great Britain have been scarred by the legacy of violence. History has been politicised and the truth has too often remained hidden.
The damage is not historical. It continues. For families desperate to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones, the current adversarial litigation system is an abject failure. We need only look at the success rates: despite decades of information gathering and hundreds of millions of pounds spent in legal aid, it has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful in bringing prosecutions and even less successful in securing convictions.
We have talked a lot this evening about justice—the hope of justice, access to justice, the rule of law—but justice is only a word unless it brings results. With the passage of time and the complexities of Northern Ireland, I am afraid that justice has become just that—a word. The only winners are the lawyers.
The system is failing communities, who are unable to have their experiences of the troubles properly heard and recorded. Feelings of isolation, disempowerment and conflict persist. And yes, the system is failing veterans, who, despite the near-universal failure of litigation, continue to live under its threatening shadow into their 70s and 80s. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that the process of litigation, not the result, has now become the punishment.
All those people have been and continue to be failed by the current system, so for my part I welcome the Government’s proposals to end adversarial legal proceedings as the route to truth finding. An independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery does have the potential to be more effective and will rightly focus on all deaths and serious injuries, not just those brought into the litigation process—too often as a mechanism for extending division rather than achieving resolution and reconciliation. We need to remember in this House that of the 3,500 people who have been killed in the troubles, 370 were killed by members of the security services. Overwhelmingly, it is the evidence of former terrorists—republican and Unionist—that the families and others so desperately need to hear.
For reconciliation to take place, the truth must be supplied by every actor in this tragedy. The UK Government will provide a statutory requirement for state bodies to provide full disclosure to the commission, and I welcome that, but that transparency and openness need to be the approach of all actors, not just of the United Kingdom Government.
Linking engagement and co-operation with the commission to the possibility of immunity from prosecution could create an important incentive to unlock some of the shameful untold stories of the troubles, each one of which has the potential to provide answers to a grieving family. However, I also recognise the suggestion, in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that there may be an opportunity to improve the Bill by making full prosecution the alternative to not co-operating. We should properly explore that as we seek to improve the Bill.
The same approach must also be adopted by the Irish Government. Last year they made a commitment to establishing their own information recovery scheme, but what has happened to that? Families deserve to know the truth about what happened south of the border just as much as north of it. Imperfect as the Bill may be, I still welcome it. I hope that the initial positioning in response to its publication quickly gives way to collaborative working towards a shared vision that inspires it. My greatest concern relates to the consultation process prior to the Bill’s publication. I hope that the ministerial team will engage fully with Members in this House across the divide and take on board their feedback during the legislative process.
As we have heard time and again today, the status quo is broken. I commend the Government for grasping this nettle. I hope that we work collectively to improve this Bill in Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I thought the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was going to get in ahead of me there. I would have been pleased if she had, by the way, but today it will be the other way around.
First, I declare an interest as a former member, for three years, of the Ulster Defence Regiment and of the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years—14 and a half years in total. I believe that this Bill is very important. I have a number of issues with its details, such as the fact that clause 37 appears to allow cases already in the pipeline, such as current cases against soldiers and others, to continue. That defeats the supposed purpose of the Bill. It means that any investigations being undertaken need only the Public Prosecution Service to signal an intent to charge and they will be exempt. I am anxious to understand how that would stop a repeat of what happened with Soldier F through a case that could already be in the system.
I have issues with the detail, such as the fact that general and specific immunity are not explained fully and would appear to lend themselves to other uses. I have problems with other details of the Bill; my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as we have come to expect, queried and posed the questions with a greater ability than mine.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is not here, referred to his friend Robert Nairac, who died; the right hon. Gentleman served with him and that has been on his heart.
Sir Mike Penning
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said earlier, we think that Captain Nairac died on 15 May. We do not know. There are people who know where his remains are; when I was a Northern Ireland Office Minister, people north and south of the border told me that they knew. Perhaps we might find the truth for my captain of C company, 1st Battalion the Grenadiers.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman clearly outlines that he was a friend of Captain Robert Nairac, and we all understand that; the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was too.
Sir Mike Penning
I do not want the House to be misled. I was a guardsman; Captain Nairac was a captain, and in the Guards you know your position in life. However, I did spar with him in the gym a few times and gave him a couple of good digs.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman and Captain Nairac served together, and that is the important thing to put on the record.
I want to put something from a different point of view and to speak about the victims. In the middle of all this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to it—it is important to focus on that. I do not want to speak as Jim Shannon the Member of Parliament for Strangford; I want to speak as the cousin of Kenneth Smyth.
Gavin Robinson
It is important for the House to recognise that sometimes politicians talk about how powerfully these things affect us, but it is fair to say that from my hon. Friend’s contributions throughout the years he has brought a great deal of personal empathy and emotion to these issues. I make that intervention, and I will talk perhaps longer than you would normally permit in an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will look for a nod from my hon. Friend whenever the time is appropriate—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would like me to come back to him after the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), I am happy to do that if at any point that is what he feels.
Jim Shannon
Thank you. My brother William and I used to go down to my cousin Kenneth’s back in the ’60s. My cousin Kenneth was the one who took us shooting. We were introduced to country sports at a very early age, and it is something that I love today. I have introduced my son and my grandchild to it, as well. It is something that he instilled in us. They were different days in the ’60s than they are today and they were in the troubles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East for intervening—I should have said that right away. I remember those days with a real fondness.
Kenneth Smyth and his Roman Catholic friend Daniel McCormick were murdered on 10 December 1971, some 50 and a half years ago. I remember that day like it was yesterday, and probably always will. I know it affected all our family up in Clady and Strabane, where we lived. Clady is a wee village outside Strabane. We have absolutely no doubt that the people who were involved in the murder of Kenneth and Daniel McCormick came from or were associated with that village. I could name the names, but I am not going to do so here. I do not think that it is important to do so, but I do feel that hurt.
Daniel McCormick left a wife and three young children. She got £3,500 from the Northern Ireland Office as compensation for the loss of her husband and the father to her children. How does that give us justice? It does not give me justice, and I do not think it gives anyone in this House justice. What I see unfortunately is legislation that does not take into consideration my position as a victim or that of Daniel McCormick’s wife and family.
The family dispersed almost immediately within months. My cousin Joseph went to America, where he has been all his life, with Mariam his wife and the children they have had. My aunt Isobel sold the farm. My grandmother grieved, as did my grandfather. My grandfather died of a broken heart. That is the story of the victims, whom we do not hear much about—but we should, because that is what is really important and that is what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about the four from the Ulster Defence Regiment killed in Ballyduggan. I speak as a man who loved a chat with John Birch, who was born in Ballywalter and was one of the Ballyduggan Four. I was not there, but I was aware and was around at the time he was born. I remember Steven Smart from Newtownards very well. His dad Sammy and I were best mates and good friends. There was also Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop while I had the business and I knew him from there. He always knew that he was going to be a soldier and he joined the Territorials, which I was in at that time. I remember that well. Again, I had to fight back the tears when I learned that a 1,000-lb bomb at Ballydugan took his life and the life of Lance Corporal John Bradley, whose widow I spoke to recently. No one was ever held accountable for those victims. The IRA did that and got away. Members will understand what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said—if there is even a smidgen of possibility of holding them accountable, I want that for my constituents and for the victims I am speaking about.
I am the MP for the son of young John Birch, who came to see me and told me about the grandchildren who his dad would meet only in the next world. He asked me whether he could ever expect to learn who carried out the atrocity that robbed him of his childhood and his role model on that fateful day, 9 April some 32 years ago. This Bill does not give those four victims or their families and children justice, and it does not deliver for them, and I feel incredibly annoyed.
Stuart Montgomery—I knew his dad, Billy, very well; we were friends for many years—was two weeks out of the police training college and was killed by a bomb at Pomeroy along with another police constable. Nobody was ever held accountable. Justice? Not in this Bill. Not for Stuart Montgomery, and not for the others.
I mentioned Lexie Cummings earlier, who was shot by an IRA man when he was having lunch in his wee Mini car in Strabane. He was a member of the UDR. They got the fella, by the way, but the boys made a slight mistake in the summons that meant that when he came to court in Omagh it had to be rewritten. In that time, he got out of the court and on a bike and cleared off across the border. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry knows the story only too well. That guy is now a prominent politician with a Republican party in Donegal, so Members will understand why I feel sore and aggrieved.
Johnny Mercer
I have huge affection for the hon. Gentleman. I can see the emotion and the anguish written all over his face as he talks of his friends who have been victims in the conflict. He wants that 1% or 2% chance of justice, but I ask him with all humility, at what cost? I know that he also feels that aspects of the process are deeply unfair, so at what cost do we keep going down that rabbit hole to get the answers that I know he authentically, genuinely wants to find, but that some Conservative Members feel cannot be found?
Jim Shannon
There is no price on justice. I am trying, perhaps haphazardly and not with the focus that I should, to put forward the case on behalf of the victims and to explain why the Bill does not deliver that. The seven people I have mentioned—the four UDR men, my cousin Kenneth, Daniel McCormick and Stuart Montgomery—served this country and wore the uniform that the hon. Gentleman wore. They do not have justice, and I feel annoyed.
I will mention some other examples. Abercorn was an IRA atrocity against innocents who were brutalised, murdered or maimed forever. In the Darkley Hall massacre, people who were worshipping God were murdered. Lastly, I think of La Mon because it is in my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken well and encapsulated what I am trying to say in my raw broken form. People were burned alive in La Mon. They were members of the collie kennel club—they were not soldiers—but they were murdered, brutalised, destroyed. Their lives were changed forever. I remember that day well. Where is the justice for those victims in this legislation? I do not see it and it grieves me to think about it. The IRA commander who was in charge and responsible for the bomb at La Mon was a prominent member of Sinn Féin. He happens to be semi-retired, but he is still there.
I speak as someone who has watched investigation after investigation seem to focus on one narrative or one viewpoint—focused on 10% of the atrocities, and leaving the 90% wondering why their pain and sorrow meant less. I tell you what: the pain for my constituents is no less than anybody else’s pain, nor is mine either. Who has heard the cry of the ex-RUC, the ex-UDR or the ex-prison officer who has been retraumatised by investigations designed specifically to pursue them by republicans to justify the atrocities that were carried out? I speak as someone who understands very well the frustration of the ex-soldiers being called to discuss an event of 50 years ago, when they cannot remember their shopping list for last week. I understand that—I understand it very well.
I speak as someone in this Chamber who has lived through the troubles, and who has intimate knowledge of the pain and despair caused to so many in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or political affiliation. My cousin Kenneth served alongside his Roman Catholic friend—they were best friends; one was in the UDR and one had left—and the IRA killed more Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland than anybody else. So we understand the victims, given the way we feel, the pain and soreness we have, and how we are with the things in front of us. I believe this gives me the right to speak in the Chamber with some authority when I say that this Bill does not achieve its aims.
This Bill does not deliver justice, and it does not answer the anguish or grief of the families I speak for or whom I want to speak about. It does not draw a line under current cases. It does not offer justice to my cousin Shelley Gilfillan, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) knows extremely well. She is involved with a victims group up in West Tyrone. She has mourned her brother for 50 and a half years, as have so many others because their cases do not have a live investigation or a firm suspect who can be asked to give information in lieu of immunity. Those murderers are well covered with their on-the-run letters. The gunman who killed Lexie Cummings had an on-the-run letter, and he got across the border and had a new life. Lexie never had a life after he was murdered in Strabane all those years ago. So the House can understand why I just feel a wee bit angry and a wee bit annoyed on behalf of my constituents, and it is because of how they feel that this legislation, for them, does not deliver what it should.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sick in the stomach that murderers are apparently going to get away with it as a result of this Bill. It really is the fly in the ointment of this Bill. It is an imperfect Bill—I fundamentally feel it is wrong that murderers get away with it—but I honestly now feel that we have little choice, much as it makes me puke.
Jim Shannon
I think we all like the hon. Gentleman—I probably love him; it is not a secret. I think he is a great gentleman, and I understand and respect his honesty. I have to say that we have to disagree on this. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, understand my point of view.
I want to conclude, and I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have gone on a wee bit. I apologise for going over the time. I thank Ministers for seeking to give a platform for us to move forward, which I think they have, but they have not done it right. I know that in life things are not perfect all the time and we do not always get things the way we want them, but I think in this Bill we get imperfection, and imperfection rules. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, who still grieve, I urge greater engagement with individual victims, and I urge that better legislation—not this legislation before us, but better legislation—be put forward that puts the victim at its heart and addresses the aim to prevent the current attempts to rewrite history by painting the guilty as warriors for justice against an oppressive state.
That is my opinion of the Bill, and I believe it is the opinion of many on this side of the Chamber. There are many on this side of the Chamber—I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in his place—who have served in uniform, and we should not decry people, and there are such people here, who do the same.
In my opinion, this Bill achieves neither of those goals, and with that in mind, I will always speak up, as I always have, for the victims. Raymond McCord is no longer here, but I will always speak up for Raymond McCord as well. I will speak up for all those people who have lost loved ones and who grieve—grievously—for those who have passed away, even though it may be 50 years ago, 32 years ago, 20 years ago or longer, because that is what this is about. This legislation does not satisfy my constituents and it does not satisfy my family, and we want justice. I want that wee light of justice. I know that when I burn the rubbish at home, there is a wee light when I light the match and it does not seem to be doing very much, but all of a sudden that wee light can burn the fire. I think I want to see that wee light becoming a fire, but I do not see this legislation being the way to do it.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The legacy of the conflict is like a fog all around us. It affects politics in the everyday, and throughout this afternoon we have had a few glimpses of stories. Hon. Members will know that every time we meet a group or read a book, we hear a heartbreaking story that we have not heard before. Each one was a senseless loss that changed the futures and the lives of the families involved. Each of them is deserving of justice.
It is understandable that people say that we need to move on. Nobody wants to move on more than victims and survivors, but the Bill and the approach to legacy over recent years will not let them do so. It is blandly declared to be about reconciliation, but it will be a barrier to truth and reconciliation. It pretends to be about truth and reconciliation, but it will be difficult for people to shake the belief that—as with other major challenges facing us in Northern Ireland—it owes a lot more to placating parts of the Conservative party than it does to a good-faith attempt to get information for victims and survivors, and to aid societal healing.
In the face of opposition from every victims group, academics, legal experts and international commentators, and without the express consent of any political party in Northern Ireland, it is an act of institutional hostility for the Government to present the legislation as a fait accompli without the normal engagement. It is unwanted and unworkable. Ensuring the success of any legacy initiative requires independence—it is crucial to credibility —but unfortunately the Government are not independent on legacy. State actors and agencies were party to the conflict, and many of their personnel were perpetrators. While many served faithfully and to the best of their ability, some colluded with paramilitaries.
In direct conflict with the Stormont House agreement, the Bill places expansive and extravagant powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and a Government who are not trusted by a large number of the peoples in Northern Ireland. The Bill explicitly overrides devolution: senior personnel will be appointed to the new body by the NIO and the Secretary of State; rules on immunity will be made by the Secretary of State; national security and other vetoes, which for many years have been used as thwarting mechanisms, will be in the hands and at the whim of the Secretary of State; and those responsible for oral history will be in the hands of the Secretary of State, as will the budget. The purpose is to embed the control of the Secretary of State over the narrative and the outcomes.
The Command Paper in 2020 was an explicit amnesty, and this is the same thing, but in a less explicit way. It is clear to everybody what it is. The approach is structured to make it routine and fool-proof for perpetrators to get amnesty, which must be granted where a person has provided an account that is true to the best of their knowledge. That is a subjective test, and there is no test proposed of the actual truth of a perpetrator’s account. The perpetrator knows that the amnesty is available and must be granted if they assert that what they say is true. There need never be any word about those who called the shots.
The claim that prosecutions may follow for those who do not take part rings hollow when no new investigative body or pathway for prosecution will be created. The ability of the DPP to pursue prosecutions is theoretical, because if the Bill is passed the DPP will not be able to pursue prosecutions. Members have glibly referenced accusations not being proven in court, but it will not be possible to prove them in court if the Bill becomes law. Members also mentioned South Africa, but this is so far removed from what happened in South Africa, where victims provided impact statements and could be present, along with their lawyers who could cross-examine applicants. It is not even clear in the Bill that victims’ families will be notified if an amnesty is granted.
However much Members do not want certain offences to be in the Bill, it is clear that sexual violence will be covered by the amnesty. We know that people conducted and covered up systematic sexual abuse in paramilitary organisations, and they too will be eligible for immunity under the Bill. It is clear to everybody who the Bill is for. It is not for the people who have carried the weight of the conflict for decades: it is for the people who have the most to hide.
In the autumn just passed, I was part of a delegation of TDs, Senators and MPs who, under the Oireachtas’s Good Friday Committee, met a variety of different victims and survivors one afternoon. We discussed a range of issues, and one thing that came out organically in a number of conversations was a pattern in how the trauma of bereaved people is compounded through the denigration of the victims by those who killed them. The daughters and sons of people murdered by the British Army in Ballymurphy in 1971 told us about the marginalisation and shame that they faced for many years as allegedly the daughters and sons of IRA men and women. Paul Gallagher, who was paralysed aged 21 when the Ulster Freedom Fighters took over his home to murder his neighbour, suffered the further indignity of the man believed to be responsible for that shooting saying that he shot him because he was a provo. He said that those words hurt more than the six bullets that entered his body in 1994.
Columba McVeigh was a teenage boy who was disappeared by the IRA, and his family still have not been allowed the basic dignity of a body to bury. He was made a non-person by allegations that he was a collaborator—allegations by an organisation that we now know was riddled with informants and which thought that that was an acceptable thing to do to a teenage boy. The Bill waves through immunity for each of those killers, and people really need to give their heads a wobble if they think that those perpetrators will just go quietly and not use their new get-out-of-jail-free passes to firm up their self-serving versions of the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) explained clearly, we have an example from the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which was established in 1999 to give some comfort to families left without a body to bury. Despite immunity and the process being risk-free, only half of such cases have been solved.
Alongside the amnesty, the Bill pulls down the shutters on the alternative pathways to justice and the existing patchwork of mechanisms for dealing with the past. As I said, the architecture has not been put in place to do it properly, and it has been weakened by a refusal to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and by delays in provision, but it seems that even those piecemeal provisions have brought forward too much truth for some people.
The Secretary of State’s arbitrary diktat on claims last Tuesday forced dozens of families to try to race to issue proceedings and washed away years of good law and practice. That casual statement, not even made to the House—it was a written statement—drove yet another coach and horses through the process, and families who had been given promises by the legal system are now thwarted because they are placed in a queue over which they have no control. Inquiries and inquests are far from an ideal method of dealing with these issues, but they have been delivering some outcomes for families and wider society. Government Members have used Operation Kenova and Jon Boutcher as some sort of an amulet in defence of the Bill, but those inquiries and inquests have advanced huge amounts of information to families about the IRA cover-up machine.
Members have mentioned inquests. In my constituency, we had the Sean Graham bookmakers killing, when loyalist paramilitaries killed five Catholic civilians. It later emerged that one of the weapons used was part of a shipment organised by a military intelligence agent, and another weapon handed into a barracks elsewhere in the constituency was ultimately handed back to those paramilitaries. That information had not been disclosed before. There is the issue of a cycle of reinvestigations, but this had not been investigated properly in the first place—many victims never spoke to a police officer—so that is why issues come back up.
Oral history and the exploration of themes and patterns will also be mangled if the Bill becomes law. We are clear that there is not a pathway to justice for absolutely every family, but oral history has been a way of giving voice to victims and survivors, capturing some of the complexities of the conflict and understanding its deep and tangled roots. However, the Bill denigrates that approach and uses it as window dressing for what is actually impunity. Will those who have waited for decades and had the shutters pulled down now be sent to the library to read about people who have been hand-picked by the Secretary of State to tell their stories?
Members have cynically used the failure of successive Governments over decades to address this issue as an excuse to now “get Northern Ireland done”, but it is a consistent and recorded frustration of the SDLP that the needs of those who suffered the most have not been addressed, while perpetrators and politicians have gone on to a very bright future. In every single negotiation, absolutely every time—there have been five or six over the last 20 years—the offering and the outcomes for victims and survivors have been watered down. Everybody knows the Stormont House agreement was not perfect, but it was an international bilateral arrangement and it had the support of most of the parties—I think all the parties—in this House. That is no mean feat, but it has not been delivered because it has not been actioned and has not been allowed to be delivered.
Instead, the Bill and this interference in the justice system undermine the rule of law and block all pathways to truth and reconciliation. Deliberate fiction is being created today that this is about reconciliation. It is clear that that is hollow. The message is going out today not that anybody who has used violence for their political ends will ever have to be held to account, but that after a number of decades, if they did that in a uniform or in a paramilitary organisation the record will be wiped clean in a few years. That is an awful message to send to families and an awful message to send into the future in our turbulent part of the world.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referenced “Derry Girls”, which is not a sentence I ever thought I would say. That very moving episode did show how living and breathing the values of the Good Friday agreement are for all of us. As Erin and Michelle said, none of this stuff is easy, but just because it is not easy is not a reason. We cannot keep closing the door to truth. Every conflict around the world will show that the truth will out. People need to understand that it is not going to go away. The Bill will not let victims and survivors to move on. I urge the House to change it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is an honour to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I want to make clear that we are not opposing the Bill for opposition’s sake. This is a flawed and damaging piece of legislation that does not serve victims and survivors. It does not heal the wounds of communities. It does not allow Northern Ireland to move on.
We know and understand how challenging this is for so many. To hear the emotion in the voice of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) really hits home. It is important that his voice as a victim and the voices of all victims are heard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, the Bill does not deliver justice for victims or veterans—many veterans are also victims. The Bill as it is, as we have heard throughout the debate, demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of the situation faced by families and communities affected by the troubles, and an off-handedness towards groups in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has not even been consulted on the proposals.
Victims and survivors often do not speak with one voice on these issues, but in this situation the Government have miscalculated. All the victims and survivor groups we have heard from are singing from the same songsheet: the Government have misjudged the mood. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said, he cannot find anyone, apart from those on the Conservative Benches, who wants the Bill to pass. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) spoke about those elected in Northern Ireland. They do not represent one single view on legacy. So when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) attacked the Labour party for not standing up for veterans, it was hurtful and, frankly, deplorable.
Stuart Anderson
The point I made is that, throughout the whole debate in the many hours we have been here, only one Labour Member spoke from the Back Benches. I think that is offensive. It will resonate throughout the veteran community that Labour has not put its views across in this debate and has not argued the point for veterans
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member needs to reflect on the fact that this is not about us today; it is about the people in Northern Ireland, and this is the start of a legislative process where we will all be represented. [Interruption.] It is not appropriate, and very hurtful, for hon. Members to continue to make sedentary remarks and chunter on. I would rather be able to make progress.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who spoke from the Government Benches, displayed the integrity and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland, which is precisely why the Government need to reframe the Bill. The Government say that they have learned lessons from South Africa, but there are significant differences between the two processes that will, in our opinion, not solve problems, but cause them in future.
First, on the independence of the entire process, the Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including to appoint people to the commission and over the process of the commission. Let us consider the following paragraph from clause 20, which is titled “Determining a request for immunity”. Subsection (8) states:
“The immunity requests panel must take account of any guidance given by the Secretary of State—
(a) when deciding in accordance with section 18(7) whether P should be granted—
(i) specific immunity from prosecution,
(ii) general immunity from prosecution, or
(iii) specific and general immunity from prosecution;”
The word “must” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. It is saying that the Secretary of State can make a judgment on whether a person can be granted immunity in specific cases or even in general. That comes on top of the guidance that the Secretary of State can give about whether conduct is “possible criminal conduct”. Those are not judgments that any Secretary of State should be making. The Government are leaving themselves wide open to legal challenges.
The Government will probably also be subject to legal challenges on the second difference between this model and the South African model—namely, the lack of conditionality on the amnesty. Whereas in South Africa the process was public and transparent, the system that the Government are trying to bring in is, as one commentator put it, “impunity repackaged”. Conditions on an amnesty are so low that they may as well not even exist.
The last difference between the South African system and what the Government are proposing is the running of the inquest system. Clause 33, which is called “No criminal investigations except through ICRIR reviews”, states:
“On and after the day on which this section comes into force, no criminal investigation of any Troubles-related offence may be continued or begun.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out, any future investigations will not be allowed to take place. That is a significant difference and, frankly, it is not a solution that builds trust or delivers for victims or survivors.
We have also heard from the Government and Government Members about the process being the punishment, but they failed to mention that the Bill removes any reference to investigation of crimes and that that has now been replaced with the word “review”. For victims and survivors, that is not good enough. We cannot keep retraumatising victims and survivors of the troubles.
In Belfast less than two weeks ago, I heard at first hand from numerous organisations, when discussing legacy, how frustrated they were that they had better working relationships with the former Secretary of State and architect of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset, than they do with the incumbent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is not good enough. The manner in which the Government have behaved at every stage of the process in bringing the Bill before the House has been the antithesis of the values that underpin our system of governance.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State enormous powers, but there has been no prelegislative work and no scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for North Dorset has eloquently made the point that the Bill addresses such a contentious and emotive subject that it deserves more time for debate and consideration. The Opposition would support an extension of time to discuss the Bill.
We would also welcome a full consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. A consultation on the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill received 17,000 responses, with a clear message that there should be no amnesty for troubles-related abuses. Why are those voices now being ignored? Despite the clear support of the people of Northern Ireland for the Stormont House agreement, the UK Government released a written ministerial statement in March 2020 that signified a unilateral move away from it. That ran contrary to the Government’s commitments in the agreement and the expressed will of the Northern Irish people.
The Secretary of State says that he has consulted. Will he tell the House exactly whom he has consulted and what they have told him? There is such a lack of support for the Bill from organisations such as Amnesty International, which he refuses to meet, and from the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, so we need to know. Demands for meetings with, in some cases, less than 24 hours’ notice is not the way to show organisations respect.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State will know from seeing the visitors in the Gallery that victims of the troubles have made the journey to London today because they are so upset and angry that their voices have not been heard. Is it not one of the Secretary of State’s principal roles to listen to victims and their families, sit down and take note, consult fully, undertake due diligence and, above all, pay them the respect that they deserve?
No matter how the Bill is dressed up, it equates to a blanket amnesty. It undermines fundamental human rights enshrined in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and undermines the institutions established to uphold that monumental and historic agreement, which underpins peace in Northern Ireland. The Bill is solely a product of the UK Government. It does not arise from an agreement with the political parties of Northern Ireland or with the Government of Ireland; it does not have the democratic legitimacy that previous legislative change has had. Even though it purports to be about reconciliation in Northern Ireland, it does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Labour party is an honest broker. Having listened to the victims’ groups, the organisations and the political parties that want justice and truth, we cannot support the Bill today. It delivers for no one and does not address the issues in Northern Ireland that need to be resolved.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. It has been a varied, informed and intensely emotional debate, which is only to be expected, given the subject of the Bill. Words matter—they matter more in Northern Ireland than in perhaps any other part of our United Kingdom. Across the House, we all have an obligation to use our words in a measured way when we deal with these very sensitive issues.
I pay tribute to the victims who have been with us in the Chamber today and to the countless others who are not with us today, or not with us any more at all. I also pay tribute to those who served with such courage and bravery in Her Majesty’s armed forces throughout the years of the troubles, during the sectarian violence that came from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. Above all, let me pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland—to all the people of Northern Ireland, who always demonstrate such stoicism, generosity, hospitality and warmth, even in the most trying circumstances.
There is no doubt that the proposals that the Government are bringing forward today are controversial. I accept—as I accepted within my first week of returning to the Government when I was asked to go to the Northern Ireland Office—that there is widespread opposition to the proposals in the Bill. I noted at the time, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged, that while there was considerable opposition to these proposals, there was not, conversely, a consensus on what the parties in Northern Ireland would like us to do instead. I say to my friends in all parties—and to members of the parties that are not represented physically in this place, either because those people do not take their seats or because they did not gain election—that it would be within the ability of the devolved Government, the Assembly in Northern Ireland, to take these matters forward if that consensus emerged on the ground and if they wished to do it.
Simon Hoare
I am encouraged by the consensual tone that my right hon. Friend is striking, and by his search for ways in which to widen the debate. In that spirit—given that he has heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and from the Democratic Unionist party of their strong desire for an extension of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House to allow that wider debate to be had and a wider range of amendments to be tabled—may I advise him to undertake to talk to the business managers about whether we can secure some extra time?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, and I shall be saying something about his speech in a moment. We have heard concern expressed on both sides of the House about the amount of time that will be available in Committee. Both the Secretary of State and I are very open to the idea of expanding that, and conversations have already begun with business managers. Subject to their agreement, we would look to provide a little more time—
Conor Burns
Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me while I give this commitment?
We would look to try and find more parliamentary time for consideration in Committee, in a spirit of being open to input from Members on both sides of the House. Now I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Tony Lloyd
I am grateful to the Minister.
Given that the period between First Reading and Second Reading was so short, and given that consultation was virtually non-existent, would Ministers be prepared to refer the Bill to the Select Committee, or some other forum, for prelegislative scrutiny? I think that that would move us on a little bit.
Conor Burns
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the timetabling of today’s Second Reading debate was agreed through the usual channels. I must say to him candidly that I do not agree with his points about a lack of engagement. There has been considerable engagement, much of which has been undertaken directly by the Secretary of State and me, often with groups who did not welcome that engagement being publicised. Much of it, of necessity, took place in private, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in some of the meetings that I attended, the emotion was heard, and heard very clearly, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me.
We are tackling this, and I think that my right hon. Friend deserves a measure of credit, because it is an intensely difficult and controversial area for any Government to get involved in. That is why successive Governments have left it alone. The fact that my right hon. Friend worked so diligently on these proposals—and, indeed, the flak that has been taken when we have missed deadlines in order to take the time to try to refine and improve the Bill that we were going to bring to the House today—show, I think, that we were listening. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: the Government he leads will deliver shortly on the language and cultural commitments that they have undertaken.
Stephen Farry
I noted the Minister’s claim that the Government had engaged with various victims groups on a private basis. Indeed, there have been media reports that some, allegedly, said something privately that was different from what they have said in public. We all know the main victims groups in Northern Ireland, as do the Government. All of them have made their opposition to these proposals clear in public. Furthermore, they have made it very clear that what they say in public is exactly the same as what they say in private. How does the Minister explain this clear disjoint?
Conor Burns
I would describe the “clear disjoint” as not being a clear disjoint, because that was a journalist’s quote which does not reflect what was actually said. Let me also correct a little nuance. I did not say that we were engaging privately; I said that we were engaging in private. We were meeting people who had been victims of terrorism. I myself met victims from republican families in West Belfast—I do not think many Ministers have done this over the years—hosted by the Sinn Féin Member, the hon. Member for Belfast West (Paul Maskey), so it is not true to say that the Secretary of State and I and the member of our ministerial team in the other place—and, indeed, our officials, who have worked so hard on developing these proposals and to whom I pay tribute—have not been listening.
I just want to correct a few points of fact as we begin the closure of this debate. I say gently to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), on his point about sexual offences that we are very clear that any offences from 1 January 1966 to 10 April 1998 that are not troubles-related can still be investigated by the PSNI and police forces in Great Britain. Troubles-related offences that are not linked to a death or serious injury will not be investigated by this body and will not be subject to the immunity provisions. Only serious and connected troubles-related offences that took place between those dates and that are related to a death or serious injury will be eligible for immunity.
Peter Kyle
This is a very serious issue and it would be great to clarify this. The model bill team on Queen’s University Belfast’s committee on the administration of justice, who are experts in this area, have said:
“Unusually for such an immunity scheme, there is no specific prohibition on certain kinds of crime, such as crimes of sexual violence. It would therefore appear that applicants who had been involved in rape and other crimes of sexual violence related to the Troubles, or indeed the covering up of such crimes within paramilitary or state organisations, would be entitled to apply for immunity under this bill.”
So this is not just about serious violence. If people who had committed serious violence and rape applied for immunity, would it apply in these circumstances? Let’s just clear this up.
Conor Burns
The direct answer to that is no. The proper place for us to test some of these questions will be in Committee, rather than on Second Reading, but I am absolutely clear, as is the Secretary of State, that that is not the intention of the Bill and it will not be a consequence of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made a powerful speech. I can tell him that the commissioner for investigations and designated officers will have the full sweep of police powers in pursuing their investigations and reviews. These are much greater than we have perhaps so far successfully explained. On the independence of the body, which my right hon. Friend also mentioned, the Secretary of State was clear in his opening speech that Her Majesty’s Government will have no role in the operational work of the body. I would welcome working with my right hon. Friend to find ways to make that clearer as we proceed to the Committee stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised a point about consideration of other information when considering whether to grant immunity. The judge-led immunity panel is under a duty to take into account other information in possession, and will therefore have to carefully assess conflicting evidence before deciding whether to apply immunity and whether the person applying for that immunity was in fact telling the truth.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) referred to engagement. What is clear is that there is no widespread consensus on this. Even within families there are differences in how people want this to be treated. That is why the role of the families in engaging with this body will be incredibly important to the body exercising its discretion after its formation. The hon. Member was right to say that honest and effective information recovery would be better with the full co-operation of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Republic. I have to say without being misunderstood that I do not think we will be requiring information from the Government of the Irish Republic for veterans.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chairman of the Select Committee, talked about the appointment of commissioners. Other than the chief commissioner, the Government have been deliberately opaque in setting out who else should serve on that, and we are very open to ideas and would welcome them.
Simon Hoare
Will my right hon. Friend assure me and the House that there is nothing in the Bill that precludes somebody with international status, but who is not a UK citizen, from serving as a commissioner? That would add extra independence, rigour and experience, which would add value to the whole process.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Bill that precludes an international person from serving on the body. In fact, it could well be warmly welcomed and add rigour to the body’s credibility, impartiality and independence.
Over the decades, a number of politicians in this House have taken courageous steps to build the peace and stability we enjoy in Northern Ireland today. It was started by Margaret Thatcher with the Anglo-Irish agreement, and John Major built it up. Tony Blair signed the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and David Cameron gave an incredible speech on the publication of the Saville report, which I was privileged to hear in the Chamber. That peace has been hard-fought and hard-won.
Since I rejoined Government in this role, I have visited multiple schools in Northern Ireland in Castlederg, Hillsborough, Armagh, Belfast, Bangor, Craigavon, Saintfield and Newtownards. People questioned why, when education is devolved, I was bothering with schools as a UK Government Minister. I pointed out that kids are not devolved, parents are not devolved and teachers are not devolved. The future of Northern Ireland is in those schools.
Two schools, in particular, stand out in my memory: St Brigid’s College in Derry, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle, and Antrim Grammar School. I visited Antrim Grammar having met a young man at a charity play for the centenary “Our Story in the Making: NI Beyond 100,” which the Northern Ireland Office had the privilege to fund partially. This young man, Chris Campbell, was going into his A-levels, and he was playing Mr Northern Ireland almost 25 years on from the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—this young man was not even born when Northern Ireland knew the troubles. One line from the play stuck in my mind: “Being divided keeps us united.” When I returned to my primary school in north Belfast, Park Lodge, I was asked—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I hesitate to distract the Minister from his theatrical memories—he is doing very well—but I would like to take him back to the Bill for a split second. I mean no offence, of course.
If people do not choose to be in the reconciliation process, whatever one feels about tightening up how it works, is it feasible to adjust it so that, if they choose the courts or if the courts choose them, they go back to a full-life tariff for committing murder most foul, whoever they are?
Conor Burns
It is always a delight to be silenced by the quiet man. We will have to come back to those matters in Committee, but I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Labour Front Bench are hearing, not least in our determination potentially to find more time to consider these matters in Committee, our openness to good ideas from both sides of the House that could improve the Bill.
Julian Smith
Will the Minister commit to having another look at the five-year pipeline of inquests so that the Government can assure anybody who has been promised an inquest that those inquests will actually go ahead?
Conor Burns
That is certainly something that we will happily take a look at. There is no proposal even in the Bill to bring down the curtain immediately on inquests that are under way. For the sake of finding consensus, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be more than happy to look at reasonable suggestions.
Johnny Mercer
I of course welcome the Minister saying from the Dispatch Box that he will look at x, y and z. Does he understand and does the Northern Ireland Office understand that we have to go further and over-compensate for a past that has failed victims? Families do not have confidence and we must commit to a level of transparency and openness. I know that my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and Secretary of State want to do that, but we need to make that commitment from the Dispatch Box, because we have to bring these families with us.
Conor Burns
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to build on the bits of the current framework that are working, but I accept as I know my hon. Friend will concede, that much of it is not working or delivering for victims.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
A moment ago the Minister mentioned the word “consensus”. If in the Committee stage there is cross-party support from Northern Ireland on key changes to the Bill, will the Government commit to taking heed of the voices of those of us who represent the people of Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
Given that we are not at this moment negotiating another confidence and supply arrangement, I do not intend to write the right hon. Gentleman a blank cheque from this Dispatch Box, but I will say in the spirit of co-operation and consensus that, if agreement can be reached on ways in which the proposals can be improved, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I and the Government more widely will absolutely look at them.
Conor Burns
No, I am going to conclude.
The Northern Ireland that I was born into 50 years ago this year was a place with an atmosphere of violence and conflict that was powerful and overwhelming. Such was that society that when I moved to England to a little village in Hertfordshire called Wheathampstead I told my mother as an eight-year-old boy that I did not feel safe. When she asked me why, I said that the police did not have guns and the Army were not on the streets. That was the normalised Northern Ireland of those days. Thank God those days are behind us.
On the formation of the Northern Ireland Office, Willie Whitelaw was appointed Secretary of State. He went on his first evening in post to speak to a Conservative gathering in Harrow. It is recorded in his memoirs that he said to them:
“I am undertaking the most terrifying, difficult and awesome task. The solution…will only be found in the hearts and minds of men and women.”
Northern Ireland remains a society where facts are contested and divisions are entrenched. We cannot draw a line and we cannot move on. You cannot heal the hurt of human hearts, or the grief of bereaved parents and siblings, but we have a duty to try to find a way not to bequeath this entrenched division to future generations.
In a spirit of partnership, co-operation and compromise, let us head to the Bill Committee and use our collective judgment, knowledge and wisdom to improve the proposition that is before the House today. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Clause 1; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 42 to 50; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4 | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first day. |
Clause 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 6; Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 9; Schedule 3; Clauses 10 to 14; Schedule 4; Clauses 15 to 25; Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 26 and 27; Schedule 7; Clauses 28 to 32; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 33 to 38; Schedules 8 and 9; Clause 39; Schedule 10; Clauses 40 and 41; Schedule 11; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 51; Schedule 12; Clauses 52 to 57; new Clauses relating to Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; remaining proceedings on the Bill | Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the second day. |
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 29th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2022 - (29 Jun 2022)
19:01 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:26 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 2, page 3, line 11, leave out “one, two or”.
This amendment would require the ICRIR to comprise three other Commissioners, in addition to the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioner for Investigations. It is linked to an amendment to leave out paragraph 6 of Schedule 1.
Amendment 75, page 3, line 22, after “Troubles” insert
“sexual offences linked to conduct forming part of the Troubles”.
Amendment 74, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) At least one Commissioner should have significant international experience or expertise.”
This amendment would include in the ICRIR’s functions referring Troubles-related sexual offences to prosecutors.
Amendment 76, page 3, line 41, at end insert
“and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and each House of Parliament”.
This amendment would require the ICRIR to provide a copy of its annual reports to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 91, in schedule 1, page 48, line 34, leave out paragraph 6.
This amendment would require the ICRIR to comprise three other Commissioners, in addition to the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioner for Investigations. It is linked to an amendment to Clause 2(3).
Amendment 113, page 48, line 37, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State must convene the appointments panel before appointing the Commissioners.
(1B) In this Schedule “appointments panel” means—
(a) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland,
(b) a member of the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland,
(c) the person who is the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and
(d) a person with experience of managing major criminal investigations, appointed to the panel by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister.
(1C) The appointments panel must make a recommendation in relation to the appointment of a Commissioner.
(1D) Any such recommendation must be made with the agreement of all the members of the appointments panel.
(1E) The Secretary of State must act in accordance with the recommendation of the appointments panel in appointing a person to be a Commissioner.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gain the approval of an appointments panel before appointing a commissioner.
Amendment 92, page 49, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4A) The term of office of a person appointed as a Commissioner under paragraph 7(1) must not begin before—
(a) the person has, in connection with the appointment, appeared before the relevant select committee of the House of Commons, and
(b) the House of Commons has approved the appointment by resolution no earlier than 10 sitting days after the person appeared before the relevant select committee of the House of Commons.
(4B) Sub-paragraph (4A) does not apply if the person is appointed as a Commissioner on an acting basis, pending a further appointment being made.
(4C) The reference to the relevant select committee of the House of Commons—
(a) includes the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee,
(b) if the name of a Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(c) if the functions of those Committees (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee or Committees of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee or Committees by which the functions are exercisable.
(4D) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (4C) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.’
This amendment would require the appointment of Commissioners to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 77, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “would” insert “reasonably”.
Amendment 78, page 4, line 21, after “would” insert “reasonably”.
Amendment 79, page 4, line 23, after “would” insert “reasonably”.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 80, in clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out “reasonably”.
This amendment would remove a limitation on the material which the Commissioner of Investigations may require a relevant authority to make available to the ICRIR.
Amendment 81, page 4, line 38, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 82, page 5, line 1, leave out “, in the view of that authority, may” and insert “are”.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 stand part.
Amendment 83, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, leave out from “subsection (1)” to end of line 44.
This amendment would remove the condition of appropriateness for another family member to make a request for a review where there are no close family members of the deceased.
Clause 9 stand part.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 10 stand part.
Amendment 84, in clause 11, page 9, line 35, at end insert—
‘(3A) A request for a review may be re-submitted to accord with the form or manner required by the Commissioner for Investigations.’
Clauses 11 and 12 stand part.
Amendment 111, in clause 13, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review—
(a) has access to all information, documents and other material held by Government Agencies that may be reasonably required for the exercise of the review,
(b) establishes whether any forensic opportunities exist to identify those responsible for a potential Troubles-related offence,
(c) identifies and engages any potential witnesses, members of the security forces or other persons who may be able to assist in identifying who is responsible for the Troubles-related offence,
(d) is conducted with integrity and objectivity, conforming to nationally recognised standards,
(e) does not overlook any investigative opportunities, and
(f) identifies and shares investigative and organisational best practice.’
This amendment would ensure that any review conducted by the ICRIR is carried out in line with the standards for Operation Kenova, the investigation into activities linked to an alleged British Army agent, known as Stakeknife.
Amendment 112, page 11, line 15, at end insert—
‘(4A) When exercising the powers conferred by subsection (4), the Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review is carried out in a timely manner.’
See explanatory statement for Amendment 111.
Clauses 13 and 14 stand part.
Amendment 95, in schedule 4, page 62, line 39, leave out “£1,000” and insert “£5,000”.
This amendment would increase the penalty for failure to comply with a notice under section 14 requiring the supply of information to the Commissioner for Investigations.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 17 stand part.
Amendment 96, in clause 18, page 16, line 10, leave out “A to C” and insert “A to D”.
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 98.
Amendment 97, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
‘(6) If Condition C is not met because P’s account is found by the panel to be not true to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, the Chief Commissioner must direct the Commissioner for Investigations to submit a prosecution file to the Public Prosecution Service for consideration and direction.’
This amendment is intended to reduce the risk of claimants deliberately misleading the panel.
Amendment 98, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
‘(6A) Condition D: P has not fled the jurisdiction of any court in the United Kingdom [or Ireland] after being arrested or charged or being the subject of a warrant issued in connection with any Troubles-related offence.’
This amendment is intended to prevent the grant of immunity to any person subject to active proceedings who has moved abroad to escape prosecution.
Amendment 99, page 16, line 31, leave out “A to C” and insert “A to D”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 98.
Amendment 85, page 16, line 37, after “offences” insert “excluding rape and other serious sexual offences”.
This amendment would exclude rape and other serious sexual offences from immunity from prosecution.
Amendment 100, page 16, line 38, leave out subsections (9) to (12).
This probing amendment is one of a series removing general immunity from the Bill.
Amendment 115, page 17, line 7, at end insert—
‘(12A) But certain offences of sexual violence listed in Schedule (Exempt offences) must not be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution.’
This amendment is linked to NS1.
Amendment 101, page 17, leave out lines 13 and 14.
This probing amendment is one of a series removing general immunity from the Bill.
Amendment 102, page 17, leave out lines 21 and 22.
This probing amendment is one of a series removing general immunity from the Bill.
Amendment 119, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
‘(16A) Nothing in this Act confers any immunity from prosecution (after immunity has been granted to P) if P commits an offence under section 1 (encouragement of terrorism) of the Terrorism Act 2006 or section (Offence of glorifying terrorism: Northern Ireland) of this Act.’
Clauses 18 and 19 stand part.
Amendment 86, in clause 20, page 19, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment is intended to remove the possibility of immunity being granted solely on the basis of a perpetrator’s claims made with no corroboration.
Amendment 105, page 19, leave out lines 23 and 24.
This probing amendment is one a series removing general immunity from the Bill.
Amendment 106, page 19, leave out lines 26 and 27.
This probing amendment is one a series removing general immunity from the Bill.
Clause 20 stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 21, page 19, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2A) The same panel membership must hear the whole of an immunity request.’
Amendment 88, page 20, line 3, at end insert—
‘(3A) Where a panel has been reconstituted in accordance with subsection (3), the reconstituted panel must hear the whole immunity request afresh.’
Clauses 21 and 22 stand part.
Amendment 89, in clause 23, page 21, line 6, leave out “reasonable”.
Amendment 90, page 21, line 16, leave out paragraphs (4) and (5).
Clauses 23 to 25 stand part.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 26 and 27 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 28 to 32 stand part.
New schedule 1—Exempt Offences—
‘1 The following offences are not to be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution (see section 18 (12A)).
2 An offence under any provision of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
3 An offence under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards child under 14).
4 An offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting child under 16 to commit incest).
5 An offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children).
6 An offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of a child).
7 An offence under any provision of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
8 An offence under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession of extreme pornographic images).
9 An offence under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (possession of prohibited images of children).
10 An offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress).
11 An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (human trafficking) committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3) of that Act (sexual exploitation).
12 An offence at common law of outraging public decency.
13 A reference in paragraphs 2 to 14 to an offence (“offence A”) includes—
(a) a reference to an attempt to commit offence A,
(b) a reference to a conspiracy to commit offence A,
(c) a reference to incitement to commit offence A,
(d) a reference to an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which offence A is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed, and
(e) a reference to aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of offence A.’
This new schedule would exclude sexual offences from being granted immunity, and is linked to Amendment 115.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
It is a humbling experience to come before the Committee to deal with the first of the two days in Committee of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.
On Monday evening, I attended an event at Queen’s University Belfast hosted by the vice-chancellor Professor Ian Greer, where we heard video messages from President Clinton, Sir Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and we heard speeches from me and the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. We gathered to pay tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Trimble, to thank him for his career of service in Northern Ireland and to thank his wife Daphne for her support of him over all those years. In my remarks, I said that we thanked him for his courage to compromise, his conviction to lead and his audacity to dream. I reflected on how much Northern Ireland has changed over the years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, of which he was such a key part.
The measure before the Committee is an attempt to try to continue the process of moving Northern Ireland on. I begin by genuinely and humbly saying that these measures are difficult, are a compromise and are contested. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has had the courage to grapple with this issue when many others in the years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement simply decided that it was too difficult.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister quite rightly says that the proposals are contested, and he is accurate in that. Does he agree that the most important people in this equation—the innocent victims of many, many terrorist activities—are the ones who find the proposals most contestable, and they are totally and utterly opposed to them?
Conor Burns
Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is on the fact that the victim must be absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to do. It is our contention that the measures are victim-centric, but they also acknowledge that the current system has not been delivering for victims as we think they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister of State mentioned that he was at Queen’s University. He will know that Edgar Graham was murdered just outside the university, and no one was ever held accountable for that crime. When it comes to settling things, my colleagues, my constituents and I want total accountability in the process. We want accountability for those who murdered Edgar Graham, who murdered the four Ulster Defence Regiment men—my constituents—at Ballydugan, who murdered my cousin Kenneth, who murdered Daniel McCormick and who murdered Lexie Cummings. Will the Minister of State tell me, the Committee and my constituents how there will be any accountability in the process when the people who did that are getting off scot-free and will never be held accountable? That is exactly what the legislation will do.
Conor Burns
I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point. It is our responsibility to explain in greater detail how the legislation will help to recover information and get knowledge to families and those who are still grieving for profound and unimaginable losses. At the event on Monday, we heard from Professor Lord Bew, who spoke of many memories of hearing bombs and of people being murdered in the vicinity of Queen’s University. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained on multiple occasions, however, we are starting from a position where the current mechanisms are not delivering for victims. There was never going to be a perfect way to do that, but this is an attempt to try to get better processes in place.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Is that not precisely the point of what the Government are trying to do—to act in the art of the possible? Everybody would like every single crime to be punished and all perpetrators to be held to account, but that process has been done to death over 25 years and it has not produced results for the victims.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the mechanisms currently in place were working and delivering, we would not be bringing this legislation before the House. As my right hon. Friend, who has joined me on the Front Bench, and I have acknowledged on multiple occasions, this is not a piece of legislation that we are heralding; it is an attempt to try to make things better in Northern Ireland by trying to bring a degree of information to those who simply want to know what happened to their loved ones.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I will take a few more interventions and then explain, in the context of the Bill, what we are trying to do. I want to make as much time as possible available to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. I give way first to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister says that he wants to put victims at the centre, that he wants to provide information and transparency, and all that. There were a number of victims on the estate last night. They were families of people—of children, actually—who were murdered during the conflict. One of those children was Julie Livingstone. She was 14 years old in Lenadoon in west Belfast in 1981, and she was shot by the British Army and killed. Her file has been closed until 2064. How can Julie Livingstone’s family believe this Government when they say they want to give accountability, truth and transparency?
Conor Burns
The unimaginable tragedy and grief that people in Northern Ireland experienced is understood, as much as it is humanly capable of being understood by those who did not go through it. I am sorry that I could not attend the hon. Gentleman’s meeting last night. I received the email to my parliamentary email address; I was travelling back from Northern Ireland and did not return to Westminster in time to come. I would have been delighted and humbled to come and meet those people who came to Westminster, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met victims’ families and victims groups across Northern Ireland in the process of getting the Bill to where it is.
One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I have taken the time that we have taken, as we have both said, is to get the Bill right, and to make sure that what we are proposing will work. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) is absolutely right that the test of the Bill will be when the information recovery body is up and running and functioning—when people can refer cases to it and when the British state transfers to it the documents that we have at our disposal. The test will be in the delivery of that body for victims and families.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister is outlining to the Committee that he wants to get this right. It is a fundamental part of scrutiny in this House that the Committee is meeting on the Floor of the House today and will meet again on Monday, and that scores of amendments have been tabled to get this right. I had a meeting with the Secretary of State on Monday, and we discussed amendments. He knows from Second Reading that there is no consequence should somebody choose not to engage in this process, and for those who do engage, there is no consequence for lying. Those amendments are before the Committee today, and the Government can engage with them. Will they accept some of them? Is there any update from the meeting on Monday?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valid point. I will build, if I may, on the points that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Foyle. We have deliberately taken time to get this right. The Bill has evolved from the Command Paper that was published in July 2021. We are determined to get this as right as we can and make sure that it delivers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, and as I have said repeatedly, where we think amendments could improve the objectives of delivering for victims and increasing the attractiveness of engaging with the independent commission—and potentially making the sanction for not engaging stronger—we are absolutely up for that.
As the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) knows, the other day I was in the primary school that his son goes to. We were unveiling the shortlist for our platinum jubilee rug competition in alliance with Ulster Carpets. Our motivation is to make absolutely sure—as much as we can—that those young people grow up in a society that acknowledges a past but is no longer defined by something called “the past”. We believe that these proposals will edge Northern Ireland society further in that, I hope, noble ambition.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Minister will know that I have expressed my support for the Bill, caveated by the fact that it is by no means perfect. It is far from perfect; it has lots of flaws, and we ought to iron some of them out. However, on Second Reading, I said quite categorically to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that one of the key issues that victims need to see settled is what happens to those who do not take part and those who are demonstrated to have lied to the commission. At present, they will get a two-year tariff even if they have committed the most heinous murders. Will we move to a position whereby those who play no part in the process, and those who are proven to have lied deliberately, lay themselves open to the normal criminal justice process and a full-life tariff for heinous crimes?
Conor Burns
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend. His contribution on Second Reading impacted powerfully on me and on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we have been having discussions and deliberations internally about how, as we progress the Bill, we can address to his satisfaction some of the points that he makes, which are made sincerely and with conviction and are solid. We believe that his motivation, if carefully enacted, could improve the proposals that are before the Committee today.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has just taken the words out of my mouth; I wanted to ask the question that he asked. As I understand it, if those who we want brought to book—terrorists, in particular—do not come and give evidence when asked to do so, they will still be subject to the full force of the law. However, at the moment, the most that anyone could be jailed for is two years. I, as well as many who served out there, the victims and those who have suffered, want those who are found guilty to go to jail for a very long time indeed.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend echoes the powerful words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This is exactly what Parliament is for, and this is what Committee stage is for. We do not claim to have a monopoly on wisdom or righteousness in the Northern Ireland Office. We have some incredibly bright officials, who have supported my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the development of these proposals, but we also want to draw on the collective wisdom and insight of this House as we progress the legislation. I just say to my hon. Friend that I have no doubt that we will return to this and the Government will have more to say on it as the Bill progresses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I am conscious that I have not read a word of what I stood up to say, but I give way to the former Secretary of State.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
As the Minister is aware, victims are incredibly upset and retraumatised by the Bill. Often, they feel uninvolved in the process. As well as consulting the House, what thought have the Government given to reigniting a discussion with victims during proceedings on the Bill?
Conor Burns
There has been a significant amount of engagement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me, and our officials, with victims groups, families and others, not just in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) will understand from his previous incarnation, a lot of that is not very visible. A lot of it is in private, at the request of some of the organisations and families. That consultation—that listening—is not an event; it is a process, and it is ongoing. In addition to listening to this House, we will listen to those who need to be our motivation for the Bill—the victim is at the heart of this legislation. I cannot pretend for a moment to my right hon. Friend that we would expect an outbreak of consensus among victims and families, because we are seeking to legislate in a contested space, on which there are very strongly held and deeply emotional sentiments. I have consistently been struck by the range of views on what victims and families want to happen. This is not a tax Bill where there is a right or wrong answer. It will be contested, but the Secretary of State and I and officials in the Northern Ireland Office will continue to engage as the Bill progresses through the House.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let us be blunt about what the Minister has summarised so far. The best that anyone can hope for is to get, from the lips of the people who carried out the crimes, information about what they did—and that is it. The worst scenario could be that the individual who carried out the crime lies through their teeth and has no sanction placed on them. The Bill does not even give people an incentive to tell the truth. Is that not the reason why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) should be accepted—voted on and approved by the Government? At least that would stop people lying or give them a disincentive to lie about their crimes.
Conor Burns
The Government welcome the motivation behind the amendments from the hon. Member for Belfast East. We are looking at how that motive could best be translated into the Bill. I do not agree with what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said about the information recovery body. We talk about reviews and so on, but the body will have full police powers. We are not setting up some sort of seminar. If people do not engage with the body, it will be able to pass information to the prosecutorial services in Northern Ireland and people could go before the courts. This is about trying to find a mechanism to get information to victims and families about what went on.
By the way, another assumption that lies behind a lot of the debate about the Bill is that somehow just agents of the state will be looked at. It is worth remembering that the state holds much intelligence about other actors who were not acting on behalf of the state. That information will also be furnished to the body, which can make inquiries into that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), because he has not had a go yet.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is so generous; his days in Ballycastle served him well. He says that he wishes to improve the Bill, and we have to take that at face value. Many cross-party and cross-community amendments have been tabled from across the House and we want to test his sincerity. Will the Government accept amendment 115, for example? It states that
“certain offences of sexual violence listed in Schedule (Exempt offences) must not be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution.”
What is the argument against including that in the Bill?
Conor Burns
I expect that we will turn to amendment 115 in greater detail throughout the afternoon and into the evening. It is our view, given the scope of the Bill, that sexual offences would not be within the scope of the panel. We do not believe that sexual offences can be defined as being troubles-related. A rape is a rape. It is not a republican rape or a loyalist rape; it is a crime—a hateful, heinous crime. It will absolutely be the right of the House to test that—
Conor Burns
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me a second. It will absolutely be the right of this House and another place to test that. If the House comes to a conclusion that there needs to be greater clarification, the Government, the Secretary of State and I will listen incredibly closely, because that concern is clearly being expressed. We do not believe, however, that the Bill, as drafted, would see sexual offences fall under the competence or purview of the information recovery body to grant immunity in that space.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is right to point to the cross-party nature of proposals. Amendment 85, in my name, addresses this issue, but amendment 115 really should be unarguable. I hear precisely what the Minister says—that the Government believe something—but he recognises the seriousness of the crime and there is a firm belief that sexual intimidation, sexual violence and rape were used as a tool of intimidation and criminality during the troubles. For the sake of clarity and the peace of mind of those who are concerned about this issue, I hope that the Government could move on it. That would provide peace of mind on a point of argument which, frankly, should not be an argument.
Conor Burns
I listen very carefully to what my hon. Friend the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee says. The Secretary of State and I were again discussing this issue in detail yesterday, this morning and just now, as we have done many times in recent months. The Government’s view is that sexual offences would be outside the scope of the Bill. If we need to bring greater clarity to that, we are listening and we will find a way to do that, but we believe passionately and sincerely that that is not within the scope of the Bill before the Committee today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I am almost tempted to let you decide who should intervene, Dame Rosie, but I will let my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) come back in.
Simon Hoare
I am very grateful. Let us be absolutely clear: nobody is doubting the sincerity on this issue of either the Minister or the Secretary of State—both are on the Front Bench today. However, belief and certainty are two entirely different things. Would it not be much better to have the provision in the Bill so that belief, certainty or whatever is immaterial? It would be in the Bill and be very clear for everybody to see. This is a very simple ask. I am not asking the Minister to do this today; I am asking for due consideration of the issue in the other place in order to provide certainty and peace of mind, which would not rely on belief or understanding of any Minister at any time. The face of the Bill is the place for the provision.
Conor Burns
I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says. We will need to find a way to bring greater clarity to this issue. However, I restate our view that someone coming to the information recovery body and saying that they had committed rape would not be eligible for immunity from the body for that offence. If we need to find greater clarity on that, we will find a way to do that.
Julian Smith
I have letters in front of me to rape victims declaring that they are victims of troubles-related activity. Where do the Minister’s words leave victims who have received letters stating clearly that they are troubles-related victims, and how do they avoid their perpetrators being able to seek an amnesty?
Conor Burns
I entirely understand my right hon. Friend’s point. This hinges on the definition of “troubles-related” in the Bill. It is our belief that it would not be in the scope of what we are proposing to the Committee.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Perhaps it would be helpful for me to put a case to the Minister. Let us say, for example, that somebody committed a terrorist offence, in the course of which they committed a sexual offence such as rape. They put themselves forward on the basis that they committed a terrorist attack, but the sexual offence is a criminal offence—it should be a criminal offence, not a terrorist offence. My point is that they would get cleared due to the fact that it was locked into the troubles, because it was committed at the same time. The individual who suffered rape would then have no recourse to the courts. Will my right hon. Friend take away a commitment to review the matter and come back categorically, if necessary on Report, with a way in which this issue can be specific, clear and obvious in the Bill?
Conor Burns
I am absolutely happy to give that explicit undertaking to my right hon. Friend and the Committee today. The fact of an offence having been committed during the period of the troubles does not make that offence troubles-related. That is key.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I respect the tone that my right hon. Friend is taking on this very sensitive subject, but we know that rape is often used as a weapon of war; it is a subject that we speak about more and more in this place. The Prime Minister recently endorsed from the Dispatch Box the view that rape as a weapon of war is equivalent to the use of chemical weapons in war—it is as serious as that. I understand that there is not a large number of legacy rape claims. Given the Minister’s very strong sentiments about the issue, is there anything to prohibit him from putting the provision in the Bill, just as a matter of simplicity, ease and clarity?
Conor Burns
We think that the position is clear in the Bill. However, it is clear that the Committee does not totally think so, so I give the Committee the undertaking that I have given my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): that we will return explicitly to this specific measure as the Bill progresses.
I would also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) that Northern Ireland was not at war; Northern Ireland suffered a grievous period of barbarism by terrorist groups. In that sense, the analogy of rape in war does not translate easily across.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving that commitment, but I think he understands very well what we are talking about. We do not need to theorise. We know of individual cases in which members of paramilitary organisations raped members of our community; the rape was investigated by paramilitary organisations and covered up; the victim was victimised further, abused and hounded out of their own community—and what happened then? The perpetrators were moved to other parts of Ireland to work within the community.
These are high-profile cases, which the Minister knows about and which would not have happened in the same way in Liverpool or Manchester. Paramilitary organisations exist in our communities and they coerce and control communities. People have been shifted around our country to rape whoever they want under the protection of the IRA and other organisations.
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. I think that I am acknowledging the strength of feeling on the issue. I can keep saying the same thing over and over: we will take it away and return to it. We have two days to get the Bill through Committee, and then the other place will take a look at it.
The Secretary of State and I were discussing the issue as the hon. Gentleman was speaking. There is a very clear definition and understanding in the Bill of what “troubles-related” means. The panel will clearly be able to bring a degree of interpretation and flexibility to its approach to the individual circumstances, many of which are very complicated indeed. However, we will return to the issue and seek to give the House the greater assurance that the Committee clearly seeks.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As one of several Members across the House who served during the troubles and saw the losses incurred by both sides, I believe—as I think the Committee does—that the Minister is dealing with the issue sensitively at the Dispatch Box. I thank him for that.
I suggest to the Minister that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. I am very sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and indeed to amendment 115, but I remind the Committee that since the Good Friday agreement there have been hardly any successful prosecutions on behalf of victims during the troubles. If the Bill can help us to move forward, as I think for a good number of families it will, that has to be a good thing even though we accept that it is not necessarily perfect.
Conor Burns
First, may I thank my hon. Friend at this Dispatch Box for his service in the forces? We acknowledge and thank all those who served in Northern Ireland, and we thank the families of those who gave their lives to uphold law and order and fight against the barbaric, evil terrorist campaign that Northern Ireland, and indeed Great Britain, endured over so many years.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister’s sincerity in trying to deal with the issue shines through. I did his job in 2014; we came up with something, and it clearly has not worked. I have to tell him that I do not like this approach, because none of us likes bending justice—we once thought that that was an absolute, but that ship sailed in 1998. However, it is being underwritten by victims, as I think we need to acknowledge.
On the subject of serious sexual offences, I agree with the comments that have been made. I really appreciate the Minister’s statement that he will go away and look at the issue. Just to add to the ambiguity, may I draw his attention to the definition of “serious physical or mental harm” in clause 1(6), which lists “severe psychiatric damage” in paragraph (d)? Many of those who have been sexually abused will be suffering severe psychiatric damage. I think the Minister will have to consider that point and the ambiguity that it introduces in dealing with this subset of heinous crime.
Conor Burns
My right hon. Friend knows the subject incredibly well; he did the job with distinction and was widely liked and admired in Northern Ireland. He will understand the difficulty of grappling with some of this. As I said earlier, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for having the courage to pick this up and have a go—there is a reason why Governments have not done a lot.
My right hon. Friend talks about bending justice. Seriously courageous decisions were taken to bring that dreadful period in the history of Northern Ireland and our United Kingdom to an end. People who had been convicted of the most appalling offences were released early. We are operating in a very contested space, but we are absolutely determined to do the right thing by those who need to be at the heart of the matter—those who suffered and those who lost their lives.
The Bill very clearly defines what a troubles-related offence is. It specifies that such an offence
“is ‘serious’ if the offence…is murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide…another offence that was committed by causing the death of a person, or”,
as my right hon. Friend says, if it
“was committed by causing a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm”.
Those are the definitions with which the information recovery body will have to engage to make very finely balanced judgments.
Julian Smith
On amendment 115, may I refer to a role that I had in a previous life? My understanding is that the Opposition and the DUP are planning to press the amendment to a vote this evening. I am concerned for my hon. Friends, because voting against the exclusion of rape from the scope of immunity is not a place where they want to be. May I urge the Minister and the Whips Office to look before 7 o’clock at how the amendment can be accepted, even if it needs to be slightly amended later, so that no one in the Conservative party has to vote against the exclusion of rape?
Conor Burns
I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend, as he knows. He and I maintained a very warm dialogue when he was Chief Whip in extremely trying political circumstances. He was sitting alongside me when I gave the Committee the commitment that we will take this away and look at it, and will seek to give reassurance and comfort to Members that what we are saying about the provisions and definitions in the Bill is soundly based, and that if we need to consider mechanisms before the House gives final assent to the Bill, we will do that.
I can say to my right hon. Friend that I am confident that we can vote for this measure this evening before it leaves this place for scrutiny in the other place, and I am confident that his fears are not grounded. I will be listening for the rest of the afternoon, and we may want to say something later on, but I am paying very careful attention to the mood of the Committee on this issue.
Simon Hoare
May I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said? No one doubts the sincerity of the Minister. I would say to the shadow Secretary of State that we all know the processes whereby a write-round will have to take place. The Minister is in an invidious position, in that he cannot meet at the Dispatch Box the perfectly legitimate request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). There is, I think, unity in the Committee on this issue.
It may be sensible for the shadow Secretary of State—who, I know, is an honourable and good man—not to press amendment 115 to a vote this evening, but with the absolute caveat that if the Government move away from, effectively, what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box, an amendment will be tabled on Report, there will be a free-for-all, and the Government will be defeated.
Conor Burns
I have listened carefully to what the Chairman of the Select Committee has said. Ultimately, it will be up to the shadow Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team to decide what to do. I share my hon. Friend’s affection—
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. For the sake of clarity and for the benefit of all Members, may I ask you to confirm that there will be a Report stage? I have listened to these exchanges, but given the timescale that we have for the Bill’s remaining stages on Monday—given that the second day of the Committee stage will end an hour before the moment of interruption—and given the likelihood of many Divisions, I expect that there will not even be time for a substantive Third Reading, let alone a Report stage.
Just in case people fall into the view that there will be enough time for a Report stage and the opportunity to table further amendments, I must express my view that that will not be the case on Monday. But I ask you, Dame Rosie, for clarification.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Report stage is currently scheduled for Monday. As I understand it, amendments would need to be tabled at the close of Committee stage on Monday, as manuscript amendments. I hope that is helpful.
Gavin Robinson
Further to that point of order, Dame Rosie. In principle there can be a Report stage, but in practice, if the Committee stage runs until an hour before the end of proceedings and there are Divisions—four, potentially—there will be no time whatever for a Report stage or a Third Reading. We cannot predict what will happen with Divisions, but I am asking for confirmation that a set of circumstances could arise whereby no effective Report stage would occur.
The First Deputy Chairman
Obviously it is difficult to predict what would happen on the day. In such circumstances, Members can all agree that they wish to allow enough time for Report stage by means of shorter speeches or fewer votes. On the other hand, I understand that it is also possible for the business managers and the Government to table a Business of the House motion that could perhaps give specific protected time to a Report stage, but that would be a decision for the Government. Again, I hope that that is helpful.
The First Deputy Chairman
I am slightly anxious that we will use the whole debate for points of order, but I will take this one from the hon. Gentleman.
Simon Hoare
It was my understanding, Dame Rosie, that the usual channels could alter the programme motion, but could you also confirm that when we reached the stage of what we normally describe as ping-pong, were such an amendment to be passed in the other place, we would debate it here in the context of the Government’s response to the amendment? That would also afford an opportunity for this place to accept an amendment from their lordships that the Government might still be trying to resist, although I doubt that they would. Is that not still open to us as Members of the House of Commons?
The First Deputy Chairman
This is something that I suggest would lead to ping-pong, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, but, again, the scheduling is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the business managers and the Government.
I have a feeling that the Minister has heard all the points that have been made, and I think we should probably return to the debate.
Conor Burns
I am conscious that I have taken a significant number of interventions so far this afternoon, so, if I may, I will make some progress and talk briefly about the actual content of the Bill—
Conor Burns
However, I did promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Go on.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister. I did indicate my wish to intervene earlier.
The Minister will be aware of the victims involved in three cases: the Old Bailey bombing of 1973, the docklands bombing of 1996, and the Manchester bombing of 1996. Victims of those bombings are taking out an action against Gerry Adams—the man who said he was never a member of the IRA, although he clearly was. It is a civilian case and I know that the victims are seeking damages amounting to a nominal £1.
If it is proved that Gerry Adams was responsible for those cases as a commander of the IRA, will the Government make legal aid available to people who take action primarily against him, and also against the IRA and those who were responsible at that time? If the information is there and it is proven, can the Bill make that happen? Will legal aid be available to those people?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman probably anticipated my reply before he asked the question. It would be inappropriate for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on something that is, or may be, before the courts. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point powerfully, and he should address it to a Law Officer.
Jim Shannon
The reason for my question is quite simple. I understand that the Bill debars that from happening. If that is so, can the Minister indicate to us on these Benches whether those people have any chance of justice in relation to those three events?
Conor Burns
What we are talking about today is what is in the Bill, what the Bill will establish and how the body will work, and about the definitions, the powers, the functions, the independence, the appointment process and who will be on it. Those are the things we are discussing today and it will then be for that body to make determinations on cases, on individuals and on evidence that is presented to it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle is shouting at me from a sedentary position, but this is exactly what the Committee stage is for. It is an opportunity for us to explore these things and to take them on board.
Conor Burns
No. I heard the hon. Gentleman clearly when he was sitting down; there is no need for him to stand up to say it again. I want to make a little progress. I am conscious that I have already been on my feet for nearly 45 minutes, and I want to give some time to the Committee.
Clauses 2 to 4, clause 6 and schedules 1 and 2 provide for the formation of the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery as a body corporate consisting of a chief commissioner, a commissioner of investigations and up to three additional commissioners. We very much agree with the sentiment behind amendment 74, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, that it would be beneficial for one of the commissioners to have significant international experience or expertise. There is nothing in this legislation that would preclude that; indeed, that would be an ambition of the Government.
The functions of the commission will be, when requested, to carry out reviews into the deaths that resulted from conduct forming part of the troubles and, when requested, to carry out reviews of other harmful conduct, as defined in the Bill, forming part of the troubles. The term review in the Bill provides the commission with the scope to conduct the investigative process as it determines to be appropriate in each case, including the use of police powers where appropriate. Where there is an outstanding article 2 obligation, the body will be able to conduct a review to that standard. The body will produce reports on the findings of each of these reviews, determine whether to grant immunity from prosecution for serious or connected troubles-related offences, refer deaths that were caused by conduct forming part of the troubles and other harmful conduct forming part of the troubles to prosecutors, and produce an historical record of all other deaths that resulted from conduct forming part of the troubles.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
May I just check something? I am hoping that the Minister will be able to provide a positive confirmation. I have a constituent, a former serviceman, who was involved in an incident in 1980. He gave evidence then, and he gave evidence later in the decade. The matter was then closed. The Police Service of Northern Ireland’s historical investigations team then got back in contact with him in 2013 and 2018. My constituent feels that he has been hounded, despite the fact that he has been positively involved and engaged in any investigations process. So, for the many UK servicemen who are finding themselves unjustly, repeatedly and legally hounded—as they feel—which makes a parody of natural justice, what reassurance can the Minister give to my constituent and many others who are in the same boat?
Conor Burns
I refer my hon. Friend to what I have said about the gratitude that this Government and the whole country feel towards those who served in Northern Ireland. There is no parity of esteem between what those who were upholding law and order and the Queen’s peace, or seeking to, in Northern Ireland did, and those who were waging a barbaric, evil, terrorist campaign against this country. Many of us on the Government Benches know colleagues who suffered grievously at the hands of those murderous thugs. I would say to my hon. Friend that if someone comes forward and engages in good faith with this body and gives an account of something that happened, and if the body accepts that, the person will be eligible for the immunity that this body can grant. The other thing I would say to him is that previous interactions with other bodies will transfer into this body, so someone who has already had a dialogue with different agencies will not be starting all over again.
Bob Seely
My constituent has already had a dialogue and was told that the matter was closed, but the matter was then reopened even though he had already had that original dialogue. Does he then have to engage again, as an article of good faith, having already done so for many years, for something that happened 42 years ago?
Conor Burns
If my hon. Friend’s constituent has previously engaged in those mechanisms and there is no live inquiry or investigation into him, he has no obligation. If he is not being investigated for anything and there is no threat of prosecution to him, he would not have to come forward to this body. He is living his life without blemish and hopefully enjoying a happy retirement, reflecting on his life of service to our United Kingdom.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend is putting victims at the centre of this process. Robert, the brother of my constituent Mr Vaughan-Jones, was killed at Warrenpoint some 40 years ago. My constituent has had 40 years of unanswered questions, and he and his family now just want to move on. They want closure. How will this process help Mr Vaughan-Jones and his family eventually receive that closure?
Conor Burns
The central ambition of this legislation is to provide that closure.
Conor Burns
Bear with me.
We have to be humble in acknowledging that the current mechanisms are not delivering. In many of these cases, after so many years, the chance of a successful conviction in a court of law—beyond reasonable doubt—is vanishingly unlikely. That is why, with this Bill, we are moving towards the principle of information recovery.
There are contested views on the right way to do this. Some people still want prosecution, some want information and some want an acknowledgement of what actually happened. We believe the bodies created by this Bill will help people in that ambition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
I have not yet given way to an Alliance Member, but I will do so now.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
On people coming before the panel and not acting in good faith, will the Minister explain how the prospect of investigation or prosecution is anything more than purely theoretical? Given that anyone giving an account before the panel would not be under police caution, and therefore their statement could not be used in evidence, who exactly would start an investigation from first principles to take forward any prosecution by giving a file to the Public Prosecution Service?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the Bill covers how the body will begin work and who can refer a case to it for review—the Secretary of State, a close relative of a victim or the victim themselves may all refer to the body.
On disclosure and how the commission is compelled to interact, we are empowering it to deliver its functions through full disclosure. As detailed in clause 5, the commission will have full access to relevant material by placing an obligation on authorities to provide information that the commission may reasonably require. The commissioner for investigations will be designated as having the powers and privileges of a constable, and they will be able to designate other ICRIR officers with the same powers and privileges when certain conditions are met, which will ensure that officers of the commission, where required, have access to the powers they need to carry out robust article 2-compliant investigations. The commission must ensure that, as far as practicable, its officers include individuals with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Conor Burns
I need to make a little more progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend towards the end. The Committee will then want to hear from other Members.
The Bill also places a duty on the commission not to do anything that would risk prejudicing or would prejudice the national security interests of the United Kingdom, that would risk putting or would put the life and safety of any person at risk, or that would risk having or would have a prejudicial impact on any active or prospective criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. Members will recognise that these are standard but important protections. Reports will be produced and issued as soon as possible after a review has been carried out, unless the commissioner for investigations refers any conduct of individuals in the final report to a prosecutor.
Clauses 18 to 21 address immunity from prosecution. After we published our Command Paper in July 2021, many individuals and organisations told us that the unconditional statute of limitations for all troubles-related offences is too painful to accept and is not right. We also heard from those in the veterans community who feel uncomfortable with any perceived moral equivalence between those who went out to protect life and uphold the rule of law and the terrorists who were intent on causing harm. Based on what we heard, we adjusted the proposals in the Bill.
Clause 18 establishes that for someone to get immunity from prosecution for a troubles-related offence, that person must request immunity from the commission, provide an account that is true to the best of their “knowledge and belief” and in doing so disclose conduct that would be capable of exposing them to criminal investigation or prosecution. It makes it clear that it is possible for people to rely on previous statements and sets out how the commission can formulate an offer of immunity, and how an individual must be notified about the outcome of an application for immunity. In response to amendments 101 to 105, in making a decision on whether or not to grant immunity the panel must take into account any relevant information that holds or obtains as part of the investigation. That might include information that the commission has obtained as part of the investigation, either from disclosure from relevant authorities, or from biometrics or witness testimony from individuals who engage with the commission.
Ian Paisley
On this test of the veracity of the witness, will the material that the Minister referred to in his earlier comments—the intelligence material—be made available, completely and totally? Will it be retained afterwards, in case there is a civil trial, or will it be shredded and destroyed? What is going to happen to that great bank of material that he referred to, which could confirm whether a person is telling lies through their teeth or whether they are telling the truth?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman asks about an important point. Central within this legislation will be the passing over of the state’s information—the intelligence gathered in the course of the period of the troubles and held by the authorities. That will include information on members of the security forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others. It will also include intelligence that has been gained and retained about terrorist organisations and individual actors within that. The panel will be able to see and make judgement on that. As I explained, there are protections, as there rightly are all the time for those of us who have to deal with this source material, for named individuals who might be at risk by that information coming into the public domain. However, we are of the view here that the widest possible disclosure is the way in which this body can gain credibility, acceptance and authority. It is only on the basis of that credibility, acceptance and authority that the body will have the ability—[Interruption.] There will be no destruction of evidence.
Colum Eastwood
I just ask the Minister to guarantee that. Many people are very concerned that this Bill may pass through these Houses of Parliament but will not stand the test of time when it comes to the courts, because some of us believe it is fundamentally illegal, never mind unjust. Will he give a guarantee that whatever happens in terms of disclosure—we can debate that all day—evidence will not be destroyed after that process is over? Will he guarantee that evidence will be maintained and retained?
Conor Burns
The credibility of the body will be determined by its effectiveness and how quickly it can gain the trust of those who engage with it. People engaging with it—coming forward to it—will be a process that will be encouraged by seeing how the body actually works and delivers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said previously, it is absolutely our determination to provide the body with the effective tools it needs to gain the confidence of victims. It is only in doing that that the body will be successful. If I may, I will return to the hon. Gentleman specifically on the evidence point later in the debate, because I do not want to say something from the Dispatch Box until I am certain it is the correct thing; I would rather delay the answer to that than give him an incorrect answer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
Dame Eleanor, I am conscious that I have been on my feet for more than an hour now and that Members from across the Committee will want to participate in this debate. I will take a couple more final interventions, however.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Clause 18 clearly states:
“The ICRIR must grant a person…immunity from prosecution if conditions A to C are met.”
Condition C is that the person engages
“true to the best of”
their “knowledge and belief”. If it is later proven that the information that individual gave the process is false, will immunity be revoked?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which others have raised in the past. The position in the Bill is that immunity, once given, cannot be revoked. However, I hear the point he and others have made, and I am sure we will return to it later in the debate. This body will have significant latitude in testing an individual’s credibility and sincerity. I would hope that the engagement and professionalism of those appointed to serve on the panel will be such that such cases will rarely, if ever, arise.
Richard Drax
I commend my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for doing such a difficult job and doing it so well. Can I just clarify something in my own mind? If a soldier is freed from all the appalling hounding and so forth that they have been subjected to and there is then a demand for an inquest, which would be a legal procedure, would that trump the decision of this panel, or would that soldier be free from that point on? Could the panel’s decision be legally challenged by, for example, an inquest court? That worries many soldiers.
Conor Burns
We are very clear on this, and the Bill sets out the timetable. Where an inquest is ongoing and has reached a substantive part of its deliberations, that inquest would carry on. New inquests can continue to be opened until the Bill is law and this body is enacted. Once this body is up and running, there would not be new inquests for these cases; this panel would then be the body that dealt with them.
I have one final point about a decision whether to grant immunity. The panel must also take into account any relevant information that it holds or obtains as part of the investigation. That might include information that the commission has obtained as part of its investigation, from disclosure, relevant authorities and so on. Before the ICRIR becomes operational the Secretary of State will publish guidance that sets out how the body should go about deciding whether the conditions for immunity are met when it considers an application for immunity. The Bill is clear that the panel must take that guidance into account when deciding whether an individual should be granted immunity, and we will develop that crucial guidance with key partners.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Before the Minister closes on immunity, does he agree that language is crucial here? The word “amnesty” suggests wrongdoing in the first place and therefore cannot be applied to British soldiers, who were working to bring about peace.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it has been said repeatedly by myself, the Secretary of State and other members of the Government that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the actions of those who were in Northern Ireland to uphold the rule of law and those who were engaged in a terrorist campaign. I also agree—I hope I have demonstrated this to some degree today—that language is incredibly important when we are dealing with these highly contested, deeply emotional topics. Often the overriding thing that someone wants is their loved one back, and that is the one thing that none of us can give them. What we can try to do is give them the information and help them to find a way through these processes and a way to deal with and face up to the traumatic events in their past.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not wish to detain my right hon. Friend, but I was listening to what he said about inquests, and I am a little concerned or confused—or both—about how this process will work. If somebody goes to the commission, will it be public knowledge that they have gone there on the basis of a set of issues and have been clear about those issues, one of which may relate to a potential inquest? If that individual’s situation is not related to a particular area of crime, can that inquest still not go ahead because they have been in front of the commission? How do we actually define when an inquest cannot go ahead? Will the coroner know that? Who will have the information? My right hon. Friend’s statement was a bold one, but I am not quite sure I understand how the process will work.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister has to answer one question before he can take the next one, even if it is on the same point.
Conor Burns
The intention behind the Bill is to have this body as the one to which people will go to recover information and to find out the truth of what happened in the deaths of their loved ones or others. One driver for the creation of the independent information recovery body is that the current complex and competing legal frameworks and routes are not bringing things to a conclusion for people. We have to acknowledge, in humility, how long ago many of these things happened. For many of those who suffered, time is running out—they are becoming very elderly. It is the intention that this is the body and the process for people to go to, not competing inquests and other forms of legal remedy.
Julian Smith
I have two points to make before the Minister concludes. This issue of “review” and “investigation” is not just semantics. In the case of Operation Kenova, we have seen that when it has been asked to review cases, it has led to some limits on the information that it could receive, whereas if it had been asked to investigate a case, that has given it much more scope and much more access to material. Can the Minister clarify why we are unable to be use much firmer in the language in the Bill to make it clear that we are talking about investigations?
On the point about inquests, I intervened on the Minister in his closing remarks on Second Reading, and he committed to returning to the House with a revised commitment to look at the pipeline of inquests so that victims who have been promised an inquest can be absolutely certain that they will be heard as part of the programme of inquests that was agreed only a year ago. Can the Minister clarify what his thinking now is on that?
Conor Burns
On the very specific question as to why the terminology is “review” rather than “investigate”, there may well be a legal reason for that. I have not actually asked that question—it is a very good question. What I have been interested to look at is the scope and the powers of the body. The fact that it will have full police powers, the ability to cross-examine people and to contest what is put to it, and the ability to see source material looks to me, as I have examined this, very much like investigations. There may be a reason for the choice of word, and I will return to my right hon. Friend if there is a technical reason, but it seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the body can undertake investigations if it so determines.
On the point about the pipeline of inquests, I am happy to give that commitment again to my right hon. Friend. Nothing will change until this Bill becomes an Act, and that is a little way off. We will certainly want to have a look at those that are in the pipeline before the Bill kicks in. The panel would be appointed, and it would become the alternative mechanism to the inquest route.
Conor Burns
I think I have been reasonably generous in giving way, and I have been on my feet for well over an hour now. I am very interested to hear contributions from across the Committee for the remainder of this afternoon, and I can reply to points of detail and information when we conclude this evening’s debate. On that note, I commend this Bill to the Committee.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am very grateful to you, Dame Eleanor, for calling me to speak. I listened carefully to the Minister’s expansive oration, and I am grateful to him for taking the time to make it. Obviously, the issue that is vexing the Committee the most relates our amendment 115, which I shall come to towards the end of my comments. I look forward to any debate around the amendment and hope that I can answer some of the questions that have arisen on it.
The test of a way forward on legacy issues is that it must provide more benefit for victims than for perpetrators of terror. Labour opposed the Bill on Second Reading because it fails that test. Today in Committee we are dealing with part 1 of the Bill, which defines the troubles, and part 2, which contains clauses on how the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery will work.
As we consider this legislation, we cannot overstate the importance of the task before us. The legacy we are talking about is the deaths of more than 3,000 people during the troubles in Northern Ireland, across Great Britain and in Ireland, and thousands more who were injured. Among those were 722 service personnel who were killed by terrorist actions. I put on record once again that we cannot forget and we remain grateful for their service.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman mentions that victims are at the centre of this, and that is right, but I hear repeatedly that when that is said, veterans do not get mentioned. Can he clarify to the Committee and to me where veterans sit in this and where their concerns are based? Ultimately, that is why we are here. We have reached the point, 25 years down the line, where this process is not working and we must find a way of bringing fairness to it. Where do veterans sit in his thinking on what he would do in this process?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, as always. We recognise that service personnel were victims too, including the 722 service personnel killed by terrorist actions during the troubles. I put on the record yet again that we cannot forget the service they provided. They must have justice. Many of them and their families remain without the justice they deserve.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Victims also include service personnel who have been repeatedly pulled up before the courts. We have not made that clear so far in the debate, but I want to do so now. There are many servicemen—and some servicewomen, perhaps—who are still suffering. They are victims too, because things have not been cleared up for them. I hope this Bill will sort that out.
Peter Kyle
These were issues that dominated the debate on Second Reading. I know there are people here with lived experience, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, an honourable and gallant Member of this place, and that there are speeches to follow from both sides of the Committee that will encompass that. Believe me, among Members on the Opposition Benches our respect for the service of those he mentions is enduring.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I agree with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses about our servicepeople and the injustices they have suffered. Does he not accept that this Bill is a huge step forward in righting some of those injustices, so that people can retire and live without the fear of being prosecuted and hounded to their dying day?
Peter Kyle
At the risk of rehearsing the Second Reading debate again, the concern we have always had is that those who served our country so bravely during the troubles are subjected to the same legislation as those who committed acts of terror. They should not be treated the same way, because they are not the same and the motives were not the same. Those are the difficulties and troubles we have had with the approach to this Bill, but these points will be ventilated elsewhere.
Colum Eastwood
We have heard already that many of these events were a long time ago. Well, in August 1971 Kathleen Thompson, a mother of six, was shot by the British Army. Today, in 2022, they finally got the result of an inquest that proved that that shooting was unjustified. Under these proposals, no other family would be entitled to get that truth and justice—it would be barred. They would not get access to the inquest process. Whatever people may say about things being a long time ago, we have a case today proving that inquests work, that they get truth for families and that families who have had to suffer and argue and debate and campaign for 50 years can get at least some truth out of this process. This Government want to bar that. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?
Peter Kyle
Yes, of course. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on record and bringing in the experiences of families, many of whom will be watching the proceedings today from home. It is very important that those experiences are brought into this.
As I said at the start of Second Reading, we approached the Bill hoping that we could shape it and that there would be ways of really improving it. For many victims of the troubles, particularly from the early troubles era, the passage of time may mean that this is their last chance for a piece of legislation that can deliver the truth and justice that they deserve. That is why we have, from the outset, tried very hard to engage with Government. Only because the voice of victims has been so fundamentally shut out of the process did we decide that this was simply not good enough for them and they need support.
Ian Paisley
It is absolutely right and proper that the shadow Secretary of State refers to the victims who will be watching our debate, and probably hanging on every word that is said. It is therefore important that we treat this very sensitively. It is 39 years ago, almost to the day, that Iris Moffitt-Scott’s husband was shot dead for doing no more than his job ploughing a field on their farm—shot dead because he was a UDR part-time soldier. The day he was murdered was his child’s first day at school. In the case of the two officers murdered in Lurgan, just a few days ago their orphaned children gave an interview on our television screens. It is one of the most powerful interviews I think I have ever heard in which the next generation of those who have suffered tell their story. This is not over. The legislation does not end it. This only begins another generation of suffering.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman speaks from the heart and puts on record the experience of many, many families across Northern Ireland and across Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorists during that time. He is right; they need to be respected. I am pleased that their experiences are being brought into our proceedings today, and I am grateful for his intervention.
On Second Reading, there were thoughtful contributions from across the House. Members from Northern Ireland demonstrated how the troubles had touched the lives of everyone in their constituencies. Members who had served in the armed forces spoke about their experiences serving our country and the impact of being questioned about their service many years later. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, the vast majority of veterans deserve the chance to talk about their experiences and their service with pride. Speeches demonstrated a profound respect for victims’ families and the dignity they have shown.
There was a consensus that this Bill needs substantial changes if it is to begin to make up for the failures of successive Governments on behalf of victims. With victims in mind, the amendment I have tabled would mitigate some of the worst effects of the Bill.
Mr Baron
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, that where we are is nowhere close to perfection? We have had 25 years, broadly, since the troubles. To my knowledge—I stand to be corrected—there has not been one successful prosecution—[Interruption.] I do apologise; there have been a few, but they have been pitifully small in number given the scale of the troubles. We need to move the process forward. The Bill allows a step forward in the sense that people are encouraged to co-operate by the prospect of immunity, and if they do not co-operate, they can still be liable to the full force of the law. That has to be a move forward.
Peter Kyle
We have not made the degree of progress that we should have done, but the progress that has been made is transformative for the families and those impacted by the crimes of the time. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that it is a small number, as if it is inconsequential, but I urge him to look at two things. For a start, there is the work of the Kenova investigation, undertaken by Jon Boutcher. With the Stakeknife investigation, it is currently looking at 220 murders—220. There is substantial progress. Is the hon. Gentleman going to put his hand up and make the gesture for “small” when we talk about resolving 220 murders?
There will not be justice for everyone, but families and victims are not naive. They know that not everybody will get a prosecution out of this, but they might get the results of an investigation done to criminal standards. This is the kind of thing that gives families a sense of justice and enables them to start healing after the damage that the troubles have inflicted on them. I do not accept the premise that because the numbers are small and do not match the scale of the challenge, this is not consequential.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for taking that line in response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). Twice now he has said in Committee that we cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, and yet today we have amendments from the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues, amendments from me and my colleagues, amendments from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and his colleagues, and amendments from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and those elsewhere in the Chamber. That is the process. We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, but today is about making the Bill better. Rather than ignoring the amendments because we cannot achieve everything, surely the purpose of Committee is to try to get as much of this right as we can.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the tone and the content of what the hon. Member says.
Peter Kyle
I will give way once more, and then I have to make progress, because there are meaningful issues to discuss.
Mr Baron
To be absolutely clear, in relation to the intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and what the shadow Minister has said, one is here to try to improve the legislation. I suggested in my previous intervention that I would probably be sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East, but also to amendment 115. That is the process, but the message one is trying to get across is that opposing this Bill without due consideration of all the amendments will not improve the situation as it stands. We have to try to work together to make sure that we do improve it. I, for one, may support the amendment just to prove a point, but that does not mean that the Opposition should oppose this Bill when we stand a chance of improving it.
Peter Kyle
I urge the hon. Member not to take the advice of just one or two members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. I suggest that he listens to all of them, and to every victims group and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, because there is unanimity. We are not freelancing to make political points; we are trying very hard to be constructive and to give voice to something that will deliver the justice that we need.
On that note, I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is here, and I hope that his need to have a cup of tea at some point will not prevent him from waiting until I address some of the issues that he raised in his interventions. I know that our proceedings are lengthy.
I support amendments 97 and 98, which would raise the bar for immunity; that is something that concerns the Committee. We will also vote with parties that seek to remove clause 18 from the Bill, as there has been no compelling argument for how the proposed immunity will lead to new information.
For the Labour party, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is one of our proudest political legacies. We did that with many other parties, working constructively through that process. We understand, deeply, that compromise is the only path to progress in Northern Ireland, but we have seen no sign from the Government that they are willing to listen to those who oppose this Bill. I remind the Committee that among the opponents are every one of the Northern Ireland parties, all victims groups and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which, incidentally, was established as part of the statutory outcomes of the Good Friday agreement.
The Government claim they are seeking to achieve reconciliation in Northern Ireland with this Bill, but the simple, inconvenient truth is that reconciliation cannot be imposed; it is built with painstaking effort, respect and an unwavering commitment to listen to all sides.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All the parties in Northern Ireland oppose the Bill, and that is respected. I will speak later about the 25 years that have elapsed in which other and better ideas that might have brought happiness could have been implemented. We talk about Tony Blair, his Government and the 1998 agreement, which everybody recognises is a huge piece of work. Jonathan Powell, who had a huge part to play in that, endorses these plans. What, therefore, would the shadow Secretary of State say to Jonathan Powell?
Peter Kyle
I have spoken to Jonathan Powell, who is, of course, always worth listening to on such issues. The hon. Gentleman says that Jonathan Powell endorses the plans, but I do not think that he endorses the Bill wholesale; he has concerns too. Like Tony Blair and others who participated in the lead-up to and signing of the Good Friday agreement, he is desperately keen for progress. They also recognise that not everybody can be satisfied by the Bill, but I think that more people can be satisfied by it than is currently the case—that is what we aspire to.
Most importantly, the Government need to listen when people tell them that they have got it wrong. In recent weeks, Ministers have gone to great lengths to highlight the necessity of cross-community support in Northern Ireland when it comes to the protocol, yet the Bill has achieved cross-community opposition. The Government cannot have it both ways: either consent matters or it does not.
Since Second Reading, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has held evidence sessions. People whom the Government should have consulted on the Bill prior to its publication have had to say that, regrettably, it just does not work. That includes the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland victims commissioner. That would force most Governments to reconsider their proposals to address such a sensitive issue, and to look at amendments that could be brought forward to address any concerns. We have seen none of that, however. The Government’s reckless single-mindedness shows its face again.
The Government must be aware that the lack of real prelegislative scrutiny and consultation, and the Bill’s rushed journey from publication to Second Reading, undermines its ultimate aims. The process has damaged trust in the investigative body before it has even been established. Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, does not believe that the Bill can be made compatible with our human rights commitments. On 7 June, she told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee:
“I am very sorry to say, because I want to be constructive, that I certainly cannot see a way in which this Bill can be made compatible when taken as a whole. One cannot simply pick out bits and pieces. You have to see it in the context of the whole Bill, what led up to it and the absence of any democratic accountability, public support or political support for it.”
I also put on the record the words of David Clements, whose father was an RUC reserve constable serving in the station at Ballygawley, County Tyrone, in 1985. He was off duty with a colleague and was opening the security gates when IRA gunmen stepped out from the shadows and shot both of them in the head. As David’s father lay dead, the gun was taken from his body. Three years later, three other men were murdered with it. David has actively supported victims and survivors over many years since his father’s murder. About the Bill, he said:
“No one was ever charged for my father’s murder—though I have some reasons to believe that at least some of those responsible for his death were later themselves killed in Troubles related shootings. I recognise that discovering the whole truth about my father’s murder and anyone ever being held to account may now be almost impossible, but what I find hard to swallow is for this process to legislate that slim hope into an…impossibility”.
There is a real fear among victims that the Bill will not deliver them information.
Colum Eastwood
A lot has been said today about closure. The Government have said that they have engaged and listened—I think that was the word—to victims. I know that the shadow Secretary of State has engaged with victims, as have all of us on this side. Can he tell us if he has met any victim who has told him that they support the Bill or that it will give them closure?
Peter Kyle
I have met victims via their representative bodies and organisations, and directly, on every visit I have made to Northern Ireland since I had the privilege of being appointed to this job in early December. I have not had the opportunity to hear any one of them support the Bill as it is. I have also never met a victim who believes that they are going to get all of the justice that they want. Victims recognise that they will not get everything that they would in an ideal world and they know that the passage of time has changed what is practicable in delivering justice, but they know there are investigative methods that they have a right to expect and they know that there is a right to keep the full judicial process at least on the table as an opportunity should the threshold be met. They also know that the broad agreement there has been in Stormont House has been disbanded and ignored by the current method, and they know that they have been let down over time, with trauma heaped on trauma.
Peter Kyle
I will give way, and then I must make some considerable progress.
Jim Shannon
What probably keeps all of us who have lost loved ones going has been that flicker of life, or flicker of a candle, with the opportunity that, possibly some day, someone who has carried out despicable crimes will be made accountable. What keeps us going is that we believe that some day those people who thought they would get away with it will not get away with it. That is what we are all about.
Peter Kyle
One more time, the hon. Gentleman brings humanity and lived experience to the debate in an extremely powerful way. The first job I had on the Front Bench was as the shadow victims Minister, and everything he has said applies also to victims of other serious crimes in other circumstances, but never more so than it does in the situation we are addressing today. I am very grateful for what he said and how he said it.
There are warnings from the human rights safeguards established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that this Bill is not compliant with the European convention on human rights. The Government have failed to convince anyone that the new independent body and the immunity panel, which are at the core of their proposals, will lead to more information for victims and their families. In fact, the Secretary of State has said openly that only “one or two” people might end up giving information to this new body. He said that just last week in an interview for The House magazine. That seems scant compensation for shutting down all coronial, civil or criminal actions. I want to share the words of Julie Hambleton, whose sister Maxine was killed alongside 20 other innocents in the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. In her words:
“Our loved ones did nothing wrong. They were law abiding, tax paying citizens. There is nothing in this legislation that provides anything for victims’ families or survivors.”
Turning to our amendments, amendment 111 would ensure that any review conducted by the independent body is carried out in line with the standards of Operation Kenova. During debates on legacy, the only process that was praised time and again by members of all parties was the work of Jon Boutcher and Operation Kenova. Crucially, their work has managed to gain the trust and support of victims, families and the security forces. Our amendment is based on a definition of reviews, which Operation Kenova has provided, that would greatly strengthen the reviews in the Bill. It was surprising to hear the Minister’s lack of awareness about a review as compared with an investigation, because both legally and most certainly in practice, there is a very profound difference with a review, which our amendment addresses.
Our amendment would mean that a review must have access to all material relating to the case held by Government agencies. It would establish whether any forensic opportunities exist to identify those responsible for the crime. It would identify potential witnesses, members of the security forces or suspects who may be able to assist with understanding who was responsible for the crime. It would conform to nationally recognised standards, be conducted with integrity and objectivity, not overlook any investigative opportunities, and identify and share investigative and organisational good practice.
Given Operation Kenova’s success in gaining the trust of so many of those affected by legacy issues, we should take every opportunity we can to learn as we seek a way forward. Victims need and deserve to be persuaded that the Commissioner for Investigations is going to carry out more than a desktop review of deaths and serious injury. These standards for review are not exhaustive and could be built on further, but the starting point should be what we have seen work in legacy and Operation Kenova. This is a probing amendment in the hope that Members in the other place will take a fuller and more expansive look at the issue. I think the amendment strikes to the heart of the Bill, but I will not push it to the vote today, in the sincere hope that it is one of the central planks of investigation in the other place.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this issue is also important for attracting the right people to be chief investigator and lead the unit? If the Government do not confirm that legal commitment to investigations, that will have a net effect on the types and quality of people who will be attracted to come in and do the work that we need them to do.
Peter Kyle
The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland makes an incredibly important point, which has been raised with me by investigators in other situations. I say investigators—plural—because there is a lot of intense interest in this role, but if we are to get somebody of calibre interested in it, they will want to know that the work, and the legal framework for their work, is robust, credible, and will provide the foundations for work of which they as individual investigators can be proud.
Amendment 113 would involve Northern Ireland’s actors in the appointment process for the commissioners. The Bill gives vast powers to the Secretary of State. As it stands, it is up to the Secretary of State alone to appoint commissioners who will be in charge of the new body. With the greatest respect to the current Secretary of State, that concentration of power has damaged perceptions of the Bill, and it undermines its chances of support in Northern Ireland. Multiple Governments have failed on legacy issues. Simply put, there is not enough trust in the UK Government within Northern Ireland to give sole power for appointing the commissioners to the Secretary of State. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with the appointments panel before being able to appoint a commissioner. We have based the panel on the Stormont House agreement proposal. It would contain the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, a member of the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, and a person with experience of managing major criminal investigations, appointed to the panel by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister.
Reconciliation cannot be imposed. The Government’s proposals are supposedly based on the principles of the Stormont House agreement, but that approach was rooted in Northern Ireland and was supposed to flow from its institutions. The amendment would require those Northern Ireland institutions to approve the Secretary of State’s recommendations for commissioners. It would strengthen the independence of the commission, and provide reassurance that only candidates of the highest calibre could become commissioners.
Finally, amendment 115 would exclude sexual offences from the scope of immunity provisions in the Bill. The need for such an amendment highlights once again how the Bill has come forward without the required consultation or scrutiny. I listened to the debate unfold earlier, which was sparked by friends from the DUP and other Northern Ireland parties asking questions in support of amendment 115, and the discussion that unfolded, and I listened with some frustration. Why frustrated? It is because, for us, this debate has been going on for a very long time. I raised the point on Second Reading, when I was assured multiple times that it was not an issue, and I was reassured that Ministers would go away and consider it. I even intervened on the Minister in his summing up, to recheck whether the issue would be addressed. I was told that it was not a legal problem, and that it would be looked at once again in an open-spirited way.
I listened carefully to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s inquiry, where reams of evidence was given by witnesses that criticised and said in no uncertain terms that the Bill did not exclude sexual offences from immunity. Once again, if I as shadow Secretary of State was listening, why could not the real Secretary of State and all his officials have listened too, and realised that there was a problem? I tabled the amendment and have had channels open to people responsible for such things. Nobody could have been in any doubt whatever about my intentions in the Bill, so it cannot be claimed that the problem has just emerged in this debate.
Simon Hoare
I absolutely concur with the shadow Secretary of State. He points to the weakness that, while Ministers have asserted one thing, too many people for comfort have got a concern about the issue, so the Bill is not clear enough and further work needs to be done. He referenced the exchanges across the Committee. I asked him this through my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I now ask him directly: cannot additional time be found through the usual channels to safeguard extra time for Report, which, to take the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) would ensure that an amendment could be considered? His office and the Secretary of State’s office should be given the space and time to sort this out either through an amendment in the other place or by allowing us time to consider an amendment on Report that he and I know the House will support. However, may I plead with him not to divide the Committee on such an important and sensitive issue this afternoon?
Peter Kyle
I am always grateful for the hon. Member’s considered and sincere interventions. He will sense my frustration that it has come to this moment in time. In effect, he is asking me to play the role of Government party managers, Front Benchers and Ministers, who should have been considering the issues and discussing and debating them with Front Benchers, Back Benchers and the party way in advance of today. I have been designing solutions to the problem based on the work of the hon. Member’s Committee and involving victims, and it has not been done in secret. I might add that it has involved doing the hard work of going through previous legislation to see how the exact same issue has been overcome in other circumstances. We have several more hours of consideration on the Bill, so I think that we have plenty of time to come to an agreement, but it needs to be rooted in amendment 115.
Peter Kyle
I will ventilate my argument and then of course give way so that the right hon. Member does not encourage me to say something that I am already about to say—I fear that might be the case.
On Second Reading, I raised the warnings from experts that the Bill would allow immunity to be granted to rapists and other sexual offenders. During the debate, Ministers insisted that that was not the case. Since then, we have had months of Select Committee evidence hearings where multiple witnesses confirmed that the Bill would allow immunity to be granted to perpetrators of sexual offences committed as part of the troubles.
Daniel Holder from the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the model Bill team clearly stated:
“Our interpretation of the Bill as it stands is that it does not exclude sexual offences. They are included in the potential amnesty/ immunities scheme, which, as you will know, is pretty much unheard of in international practice—torture as well. We are aware of the argument that has been made by another Member of Parliament that they are not Troubles-related offences and therefore they would not be included, but that, in itself, is problematic, to deny that sexual violence was part of the Troubles, as it very clearly was.”
I heard that—I was watching—and Ministers and officials would have been watching as well. That needed to be considered before the Bill got to this place.
Other witnesses from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Victims’ Commissioner echoed that exact view. I do not believe for a second that the Minister fails to take this issue incredibly seriously—I know that he does—and I am certain that he wants those who committed acts of sexual violence during the troubles brought to justice as much as I do.
I want to explain for colleagues’ benefit exactly what our amendment 115 would do. It is simple and straightforward. It reads:
“Clause 18, page 17, line 7, at end insert—
‘(12A) But certain offences of sexual violence listed in Schedule (Exempt offences) must not be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution.’”
The schedule of offences is based entirely on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. As many Members will know, that Act went through exactly the same kind of debate that we are having now, with the Government refusing to include the amendment and then suddenly, at the last moment, realising there was a problem and tabling the amendment that they wanted themselves.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care—this is what Committee is all about. May I take him back to what he has just said about pressing the amendment to a Division? His point about the overseas operations Act is a powerful one. I was involved in the development of that legislation. There is, I think, a difference between that Act and this Bill, which is the terms in clause 18. He has been striving valiantly to find a solution, and I commend him for that; he knows that there are people on the Government Benches with equally good intentions. I make the gentle plea to him that it would be better to try to resolve the point without a Division today. I undertake to work as hard as I can on my side of the House to achieve the common goal that we share.
Peter Kyle
I certainly hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s gentle plea. I know what a gentle plea is, because I have been making strident pleas to the Government to address this issue for weeks and weeks. I have a way forward. Even by his own admission, amendment 115 is in the ballpark of where we are going to land, whether it is the Government or the Opposition who come up with the solution, so we should allow the amendment to pass tonight. If it can be improved upon, there is a perfect place where that can happen: the House of Lords. That strikes me as a reasonable way forward—indeed, as a compromise, because I can say with absolute assurance that members of my party in the House of Lords stand ready to work with Government Members on this issue.
Simon Hoare
There may be a third way, which is for the Government to accept amendment 115 today without a Division, but with the caveat that the two Front Benches will work on the wording to ensure a joint Front-Bench amendment in the other place or for our consideration on Report.
Peter Kyle
And we get to where we need to be. I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s approach.
Conor Burns
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. I was very clear in what I said to the Committee earlier, and the Secretary of State was sat behind me when I said it. I want to reiterate the sincerity of what I said earlier—that we are where we are and we want to find a way to resolve this. There is some time to go before we get to the moment of interruption, and I am sure the usual channels are hearing our debate very clearly.
I certainly heard, sensed and felt the mood of the Committee. I do not think it would be in anyone’s interest if we divided the Committee tonight on this very serious and emotive subject, where we share an absolute ambition to achieve the same outcome. We are determined to find a way through, and I just reiterate that to the shadow Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the Minister’s sentiments. After we listened to the esteemed and senior Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is from the Minister’s party—I think we got to where we should be aiming for. Other senior Members of this place are nodding along in agreement. In that spirit, I look forward to any conversations that we might have around this place after the Minister and I have finished our opening remarks.
Colum Eastwood
It is lovely to hear all this agreement. In my view, the pressure is on the Government. It has been made very clear to us—the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) drew this out—that it is very unlikely that we will even get a Report stage. We have an amendment on the Order Paper. Members should be forced to vote for it.
Peter Kyle
I do not think I could have been stronger in what I said. If needs be, we will vote on the amendment tonight, but if the Government do not oppose it, there will be no vote. Let us see where this takes us; we will find out pretty shortly.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I say to the hon. Member, having sat here for 30 years, that he has every right to press his amendment to a vote. That is what this place is all about. We debate something and decide which side we will take. I will not ask him not to press it to a vote. On the contrary, I say to the Minister: the clock is ticking. Let us get something sorted before we end up in that situation.
Peter Kyle
I agree; the clock is ticking. Let us get on with it. It feels like it has been 30 years since we started talking about this amendment.
As we consider the amendments, I want to echo the words of my friend, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—what a shame he is not in the Chamber to hear me heaping praise on his previous oration. He said on Second Reading that
“we have to go further and over-compensate for a past that has failed victims…Families do not have confidence and we must commit to a level of transparency and openness.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 256.]
If the Government are sincere in their desire to deliver reconciliation with the Bill, I hope that they will look at our amendments as a way to begin the process. Victims and their families deserve nothing less.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I was about to call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but he is not in his place. How curious—I appear to have nobody standing on the Government side of the Committee.
Sir Robert Buckland
On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. I wanted some help as to how to explain—[Interruption.] When an hon. Member has had to leave the Chamber for comfort purposes, I wonder how that is to be put on the record. I seek your guidance.
The Chairman
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. I think it would be better if we just glossed over the last minute or so, with the understanding of Opposition Members who were standing to indicate their intention to speak. I will nevertheless turn my gaze back to the Government side of the Committee, as I normally would when the shadow Secretary of State has finished his remarks.
I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for his speech. I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare
Perhaps that was due to turning 53 yesterday or perhaps it was because I was referred to as “senior” and “esteemed”—it shows that being senior also has some other callings. I am very grateful to the Committee.
Let me make two “Second Reading points”, as I would describe them. Anybody who attended yesterday’s performance of “The Crack in Everything” from the Derry Playhouse, which was organised beautifully by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and anybody who saw the final episode of “Derry Girls”—which so reminded us of what we are talking about, notwithstanding the time differential—will know that they serve as two very painful and stirring reminders of the seriousness of these issues, the sadness that they evoke and how we need to deal with them in a very painstaking and clear way.
I am also conscious of the words of Sir Declan Morgan, who recently gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about the Bill. He made a point worth bearing in mind, which is that these are not easy issues. If this issue were easy, previous Governments would have dealt with it by now, but there is not even an “it” to deal with—there are different issues, different people and different responses.
How people respond is entirely individualistic, but given how long things have taken and how there have been patent, clear and demonstrable failures to guarantee and provide the support and closure that people need, Sir Declan made a valid point: it is this Bill, as amended, or nothing. Without the Bill, there will just be a continuation of the very unsatisfactory status quo; it is not as if there is something better out there. It might have been Stormont House. I prayed it would be Stormont House—Stormont House had the agreement—but that has not come to pass, and I think that too many years have elapsed.
Let me say a few words about the amendments in my name. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to press them to a Division this evening. As and when the Bill becomes an Act, part of the challenge will be not in trying to garner and maximise support so much as in trying not to maximise questions, opposition and hostility. Ensuring in statute that there are five commissioners will provide the scope for those commissioners to represent a wide constituency of interests and experiences.
Fay Jones
The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee speaks about the membership of the commission. He also referred to the final episode of “Derry Girls”; the two are linked. Does he agree that, where possible, international experience ought to be brought to the commission?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have an amendment to that effect: amendment 74, which is about bringing in one or two people with international experience, an international perspective, no particular skin in the game and a fresh pair of eyes—an honest broker, if you will. The credibility of their international experience could be drawn from the United Nations, from Rwanda or from other conflicts in places such as South Africa, where different sides have been brought together and a path to peace has been found—sometimes with baby steps, halting or retracting along the way, but slowly and surely making the progress that we wish to see.
Bob Stewart
I agree with my good friend the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that we should have several commissioners, and I agree with their being international. As I understand it, however, the human rights commissioners are all appointed by the Secretary of State and no one seems to object. I do not really see the need for the process to be expanded beyond the Secretary of State, as people seem to accept the appointments that he has already made.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. and gallant Friend makes a perfectly respectable point that is sustainable under scrutiny. I do not seek to challenge him on it.
Let me set out to the Committee the thinking that underpins my amendment 92. We are aware that all the political parties in Northern Ireland are opposed, in whole or in part, to the proposals before the Committee. We also know that a vast swathe of civil society in Northern Ireland is concerned about the Bill. I know that of itself, amendment 92 will not address all those concerns, but the argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and I have heard in the Select Committee—and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) and other Committee members on both sides of the Chamber have heard—the Secretary of State, by dint of office, is part of Her Majesty’s Government, and state actors representing Her Majesty’s Government, in the armed forces, the security services or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, were part of that “Government machine”. A concern that amendment 92 seeks to address relates to the imprimatur, the democratic imprimatur, of a pre-appointment hearing—I was responding to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, but he seems to be about to leave the Chamber.
Simon Hoare
I was going to say that the imprimatur of a pre-appointment hearing by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and/or the Justice Committee, along with, possibly, the scope for an affirmative vote of appointment in this place, would provide an element of clear water between the Secretary of State, by dint of his or her office as a representative of the Government, and the commissioners who will be discharging such important duties. If those candidates could secure strong, hopefully unanimous but certainly cross-party and cross-community support, as represented by the parties in this place, that of itself might just provide—although there is no guarantee—a wee crumb of comfort for those who would ask, “Who identified these commissioners, who appointed them, and by what mechanism were they appointed?” In other words, this would not be an appointment arranged behind closed doors; there would be an element of the disinfecting benefits of sunlight, transparency and openness. That is what underpins amendment 92.
Amendments 77 to 82 effectively restrike a balance in suggesting that the authorities from whom information is required for the purposes of an investigation should not be able to deem what is “reasonably” handed over. That is not for them to interpret. They should hand over the whole box file, folder or whatever it might be— it might be a microfiche film—so that the commissioners and those leading the inquiries can see it all. As I have said, I am not pressing the amendments to a vote this evening, but I hope that the Government will consider these proposals as the Bill progresses.
I tabled amendment 83 because I do not think it is for the state to decide who is an “appropriate” member of the family to request a review. The amendment would allow family members to apply for a review, rather than there being a narrowly prescribed list of appropriate family members.
Amendment 84 addresses what I call the cock-up problem. Someone may have completed a form requesting a review, but may not have completed it properly. Those who look at it to see whether it gets over the first hurdle dismiss it, because there has been an administrative error on the part of the person filling it out. That person may not have had access to professional legal advice or guidance. There should be an opportunity for the commissioners to point to errors, not errors of substance but errors relating to boxes not ticked or to the language used, for instance, and to say, “Go away and make these amendments, and the request can then be submitted.” Under the Bill as currently drafted, a person makes a single application which is judged on its merits. According to my reading of the Bill, if the application fails on the basis of a technical aspect, it cannot be resubmitted.
I am not going to spend the time of the Committee rehearsing the approach to rape and sexual offences, which we have been discussing. It is set out very clearly in amendment 115, tabled by the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), although my amendment 85 is similar.
For those who are diametrically opposed to the Bill or who wonder about its article 2 compatibility, I think the courts should be able to determine that when it becomes an Act and is under progress. However, I say to the Minister that there is scope here, after a little quiet reflection, to introduce those elements of transparency and sunlight in order to deal with this. Another point relates to the proposal that if a commissioner is rendered incapable, falls ill or is taken off the case, the application for immunity could continue to be heard by that panel, but with a new voice. We would not do that in a court. We would not have a judge suddenly change halfway through. They need to hear all the evidence from beginning to end. To change halfway through would be like trying to watch a film from halfway through and to work out whether you liked it or not. The end might have been great but the start might have been hopeless, or the other way round. I do hope that the Government will give consideration to my amendment on this, which proposes that the same people should hear a review case from start to finish. If, for whatever reason, one of the panel could not do that, there would be a bit of an administrative time lag but a new panel would have to hear the case again. That could involve two of the same people, but having the same three people listen to the whole of the case is important on the ground of natural justice.
A perfect Bill? No. A Bill that has good intentions in it? Yes. I am encouraged by the response and tone not only of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State but of the other parties, and I pay particular tribute to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who has set out his frustration very clearly. It is one that he and I share on this. There are many issues on which the House will almost take pleasure in being on different sides of the debate in a vote, but I say gently to those on the Front Bench—I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is more than cognisant of this—that the issue of rape is not one on which we want to see political division. It is just too heinous and horrible. I say that as a husband and a father of daughters. One just does not want to be playing politics with that issue, and I think the Committee is probably with me on this.
I hope that, through the usual channels, we can find a way in which the very best of this House can be reflected on this sensitive issue. This is a democratic debate about making this right for people who vote for us, and I look to the business managers—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and others—to ensure that we have time in this place for a proper Report stage, perhaps through an amendment to the programme motion, to give those on the two Front Benches a window of opportunity to address this important issue.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I am sure that whatever view each of us here today takes of this Bill, from whichever vantage point, we all feel a great weight of responsibility in dealing with these matters. I am mindful of the time, so I will keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can. The Scottish National party has serious concerns about the Bill and the approach that has been taken to it in terms of its principle. I have been clear throughout, leading on this for my group, that where independent prosecutors consider that there is a sufficiency of evidence and the likelihood of a conviction, and where they judge it to be in the public interest to do so, they should still be able to bring forward these prosecutions. I am sorry to say that this Bill and the general principle behind it utterly squash that prospect. I do not intend to reprise my arguments from the Second Reading debate, except to say that we do not believe that the goal of achieving truth and reconciliation is advanced by closing down the prospect of further investigations that can be conducted to a criminal threshold, or indeed by setting aside the norms of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of individuals to seek recourse through that law.
The SNP has not tabled any amendments. We oppose the fundamental principle behind the Bill, and we do not believe it can be amended into acceptability. I am quite up front in saying that we will continue to oppose the Bill. That said, if the Bill is going to pass, which it certainly will, there are aspects on which we will join others in trying to improve.
In that vein, I place on record our very strong support for amendment 115. I heard all the dialogue with the Minister, and I do not doubt his sincerity on this for one moment. If the wheels are whirring behind the scenes on how a possible compromise might be brokered before we conclude our business tonight, all well and good. If not, I strongly urge him to accept the amendment and, if necessary, improve it elsewhere. We do not want to divide on this, but we cannot go another day without having clarity on how sexual offences will be treated under this Bill.
I listened closely to the arguments advanced for the other amendments, and we will approach the remainder of today’s proceedings on that basis.
James Sunderland
I spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading, although I highlighted several frictions and concerns that may merit further work, which is where we are today.
The people of Northern Ireland, our veterans and those directly affected must be at the heart of this Bill, and I hope to offer a wider perspective that may be of use. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said:
“Is the Bill perfect? No, of course it is not, and no legislation is, but let us not lose the good, or at least the intent to achieve the good, in pursuit of perfection.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 195.]
That is where I think we are today.
We know what the Bill does, as it has been covered a lot over the past few weeks and months: it establishes an independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery; it grants immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission—this is a key point—on a case-by-case basis; it ends, in theory, troubles-related criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings; it commissions a historical record of every troubles-related death; it covers memorialisation; and, importantly for me and for many others, it does not provide moral equivalence, which is an important improvement on the draft Bill.
The lingering concern of many I have spoken to, both here in England, Wales and Scotland and over the water in Northern Ireland, is that perpetrators may now never be brought to justice and the truth may never be known, notwithstanding what the Bill says it does on the tin.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. One thing the Bill might do, and I hope it does, is ensure the names of those who go before this reconciliation body are made public so that people know who they are and understand who carried out the deed, whatever the result for the person concerned. Victims and families may understand who did it, and I hope that will be considered in the Bill.
James Sunderland
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister heeds his point.
Having looked at what the Bill does, and having discussed it on Second Reading, I ask: where can we go from here? Where do we need to go as a Committee? First, I would urge the Government to reconsider the exclusion of rape and sexual offences, which merits further work, although I fully understand the arguments that exist in law. It may be a political point as opposed to a legal point, or it might be both, but it requires extra work.
Secondly, clause 18 currently says that the ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution if conditions A to C are met. Condition B states that a person needs to have engaged and stated the truth to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is a very low and subjective expectation of one individual’s account, for which the immunity panel is not required to seek corroboration. What if that individual is not telling the truth?
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is making. I, too, have concerns, but even if that was ironed out—I stand here to speak for the 21 families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings, the biggest mass killing on our streets in this country for which no one has faced justice—does he think that that would be enough for the lives of Maxine Hambleton, Tommy Marsh and Paul Anthony Davies? Would anything we could do today allow the families of those people to feel that an amnesty was enough?
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and she is not wrong, but the point I would want to make to her is that the Bill provides for a truth and reconciliation process whereby the truth could become known. After 24 years of the Good Friday agreement, and with prosecutions limited so far to date, it is important that we move on and not only offer hope to families wanting the truth but draw a line in law under the endless prosecution of vexatious complaints.
Let me return to the issue of people potentially stating falsehoods to the commission. There are numerous reasons why a perpetrator may give a false account to gain immunity, with the obvious one being to play down their role in an offence. There is also the potential for cynical abuse of the immunity process, perhaps by political elements. We must also address the issue of someone who acquires immunity for pre-1998 offences yet may still have been involved in terrorism post-1998 and still perhaps to this day. A distinction is required in that regard.
Fay Jones
I think my hon. Friend is referring to amendment 97, which has been tabled by DUP Members and calls for a file to be passed to the Public Prosecution Service if it becomes clear that lies have been told to the commission. Although that is incredibly well intentioned, does he share my concern that it confers a status on the commission that it has not necessarily asked for and may not even want?
James Sunderland
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is not wrong. My personal view is that we need to do a little more to ascertain that proof. It may be that the word of one individual may not be enough to grant them immunity; independent evidence and independent corroboration over a period of time may be needed to secure that immunity.
Gavin Robinson
First, the panel will already have to make an assessment of whether the information it has been given has been given truthfully, to the best of the person’s knowledge. Amendment 97 simply says what should then happen should it decide that that information was not given truthfully, to the best of the individual’s knowledge. It would not have much to do; it would already have made the assessment, and the file would then just go to the PPS.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the exact provision, in clause 20(4), I believe, which sets out that the panel does not need any information other than that which is given to it by P, and then to have a read of subsections (1), (2) and (3). I think that there lies the answer to the question he is raising—subsection (4) could simply be deleted. An amendment has been tabled by my party and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for that precise purpose.
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Minister is now in his place and I hope he is paying heed to what we are saying, because these are all tweaks to the Bill that I feel we could make.
Let me return to clause 18 and ask, first, what defines an acceptable level of engagement. How do we specify it? Nothing in the Bill defines what level of information someone needs to give in order to qualify for immunity, and I think that needs work.
Secondly, Where a person is deemed a subject of interest, and perhaps is assessed as being a current threat, is there a case for their not being granted immunity? I believe that there is a bit of work to do there, and that this may be possible.
My third point is that we should perhaps legislate so that if a person is convicted of a post-1998 terrorist offence, the offence they were granted immunity for can be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing for other offences—I know that that is tricky and divisive, but it is worthy of consideration.
My last point on clause 18 is about what happens if the person’s account is found not to be true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We discussed amendment 97 earlier. If it is proved that the information given is completely false, perhaps immunity could and should be revoked. I know that the Minister will cover this issue later, but I think there needs to be a bit of work on what happens if there is compelling evidence that proves that the information given at the time was not true. In my view, therefore, clause 18 needs work.
That may not be possible, but I have outlined some suggestions to the Minister. My next point relates to clause 20, which is entitled “Determining a request for immunity”. In forming a view on the truth of the person’s account, the immunity requests panel will not currently be required to seek information from a person other than P. I reiterate my previous point that the threshold for the provision of information by the perpetrator is already very low and subjective. What change might we wish to make? Perhaps there should be a requirement that corroboration is sought before any immunity can be granted.
On the issue of prisoner release, the Bill states:
“Schedule 11 makes provision about prisoner release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.”
Paragraph 5 of schedule 11 states:
“If a fixed term prisoner is released on licence under this section, the prisoner’s sentence expires”.
The key point is that the existing early release scheme provides that if a person’s application for early release is successful, they must serve the minimum term under their sentence before being released. Paragraph 5 replaces and repeals several provisions of the 1998 Act, potentially removing any minimum sentence. That virtually removes any incentive for a perpetrator to engage with the process. I therefore urge the Minister to look at that provision.
There are other areas that are not covered in the Bill, and we may come to them later. First, there is no legislation on the glorification of terrorism, or to enable those who flout such legislation to be held accountable. The issue is not provided for at all in the Bill, and that may require further work.
We may also need a better UK-wide definition of a victim or survivor of terrorism. In addition, there is the tricky issue of reparations for the bereaved. I know that that is difficult in law and difficult politically, but perhaps we could look at it in due course as part of the reconciliation process.
Perhaps we could even conduct a review in due course of how this legislation evolves and how it works in practice. Is the truth and reconciliation process working? Are people coming forward? Perhaps we need to build into the Bill a clause whereby we can legally review these issues in due course, with a view to tweaking what goes through Westminster.
This is a very difficult issue and this is a difficult Bill. I commend Ministers and everyone involved, particularly in the Northern Ireland Office, for getting this far. We now have something on the table that needs to go through. Time is short, and I recognise that the Bill will come back to the House on Monday, but I urge the Minister to consider what I have said over the weekend.
Gavin Robinson
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has engaged continuously with Northern Ireland issues since his entry into the House in 2019. We are grateful that he has shown such an interest. His speech allows me to make an initial point for people outside this place who do not understand how we operate. Today we are dealing with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, and on Monday we will deal with parts 3 and 4.
The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when it comes to the requirement for an amendment that allows for the revocation of immunity in circumstances where somebody has lied; one on the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 so that there is an inducement for people to engage in the ICRIR process rather than stay outside; and one on the glorification of terrorism. While there is a discrete amendment on the glorification of terrorism today, we will debate new clauses 3, 4 and 5 on Monday, and they deal with all those points. I do hope that, after hearing what the hon. Member for Bracknell has had to say, colleagues throughout the Chamber will not only look at those new clauses and the thrust behind them, but encourage the Government to look on them favourably when we debate them on Monday. They are demonstrable and positive changes that would make this Bill better.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is back in his place. Perhaps I was a little hard on him, especially after he suggested that he was going to support some of my amendments. I genuinely believe that I would not have wasted my time over the past number of weeks, with colleagues from across Northern Ireland, in the preparation of amendments to make this process better if none of those amendments had the prospect of success today.
It is disappointing that, even when we hear positive noises not just on amendment 115 but on a range of issues that have been put before the Committee today to make the Bill better, we really get zero traction. It is very frustrating.
Mr Baron
Let me put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. He was not too hard on me. Having served in the Province a few times, I am used to the Belfast way of things. What I would say, though, is that we are all, in good faith, trying to improve the Bill. We must remember that there are further stages, but I hear what he says.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the hon. Member.
This Committee stage highlights the fact that there is a strong body of opinion in Northern Ireland that this Bill is irredeemable, that it should not progress and that it has no support among politicians or victims’ groups in Northern Ireland. The SNP spokesperson right crystallised that opinion, and said that his party had decided not to participate in amendments.
I stand here as a member of a party that has tabled scores of amendments in the hope that we can get this Bill to a better place. But I recognise that, for many at home, this is not a comfortable place to be. Without reiterating the comments made on Second Reading, I say that this Bill, whether it will affect a small number of people or a large number, is a true corruption of justice. The very idea that, under schedule 11, as the hon. Member for Bracknell read out, somebody prosecuted for heinous terrorist offences would serve no time in prison whatsoever for a prosecution arising either because that person has chosen not to give any information to victims’ families and stays outside the process, or because they engage in the process in an untruthful and dishonest way, is an affront to justice.
Johnny Mercer
How would the hon. Member describe the 1998 agreement that let murderers out having served two years? Would that be a corruption of justice? Would that be an affront to justice? And—
Gavin Robinson
Absolutely. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let me make this point: we are not going to get unanimity of opinion on that issue from people in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party did not support the Belfast agreement. One of the strong reasons was the corruption of justice and the denial of rights to victims who saw the perpetrators walk the streets.
Gavin Robinson
I will give way to the hon. Lady, because she will take a different view, and I want to be respectful of that different view. Then I need to move onto the amendments tabled for this Committee stage.
Claire Hanna
It is fair to say that, over the past couple of years, there have been a lot of new converts to the Good Friday agreement. Will the hon. Member concede that although the issue of prisoner releases was a very difficult pill to take for every single person in Northern Ireland, it was done with democratic legitimacy —in a referendum that more than 70% of the population voted for—and those people were in jail after due legal process?
Gavin Robinson
People were in jail after due legal process. Not only did we have that corruption of justice then, but we have had subsequent corruptions of justice on the provision of on-the-run letters, on letters of comfort, and on attempts to make sure that people get an amnesty or immunity from prosecution. Here we have a further iteration.
Gavin Robinson
I will not give way at this stage if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I am deviating from the amendments and I recognise that we do not have much time.
We should be encouraging people in this process to give information, and we do that not by removing the consequence of avoiding the process, but by ensuring that there is a consequence should they not engage.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made reference to Mrs Iris Moffitt-Scott, who gave an interview this morning on “Good Morning Ulster”. She asked that the Government not trample on victims. She said that today, on the 39th anniversary of her husband’s murder. Her husband had no affiliation; he was a farmer cutting hedges, and had just delivered his four-year-old child to the bus for the first day of school when he was murdered in cold blood. There was no reason for his murder other than pure, base sectarianism, and she is just asking today that the Government not trample on her and other victims like her.
Ian Paisley
I think in my earlier intervention I may have said that he was a part-time member of the UDR, but I was wrong in that. He certainly was not—in fact, reports at the time record his family saying he was a friend for all, a man with friends right across the entire community. There was no justification. His local canon, I think, indicated that the only reason he was murdered was that he was a member of the Protestant community. It was a straightforward, dirty, evil sectarian murder and it must be called out as that. As my hon. Friend will know, for those of us who grew up through those days—I was 17 at the time; he is slightly younger than me—our days were punctuated by the sounds of those bullets and bombs going off. Our news bulletins were punctuated by the soundtrack of the troubles. Unfortunately, this legacy Bill does not bring that soundtrack to an end.
Gavin Robinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
I have made reference to some of the substantive amendments that we will consider on Monday. I want to raise a series of amendments that I hope are not controversial, which representatives from across Northern Ireland would be able to accept, and put them forward in the hope that the Minister can offer some positivity. Then we will get on to the substantive amendments that I think will form part of our considerations later on.
An innocent victim: we know what that is. It is somebody who has been injured through the troubles through no fault of their own. They have not engaged in illegality; they have not gone out to damage, to murder, to kill. They have been injured. The Government accepted that definition when they published regulations around troubles pensions. There is an opportunity, which we can come back to on Monday when we talk about memorialisation, for this Government to provide a legal definition of an innocent victim.
There has been a debate about immunity. The legislation talks about its being general immunity, and that has caused concern for victims. The Minister, through engagement and with the NIO, has been very clear that it is immunity specific to an event, but covers the generality of offences during that event. The immunity attaches to the incident and not the person. I think the Minister should take the opportunity to clarify that and look at whether that can be strengthened through amendment.
I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Bracknell on clause 20 subsections (1) to (4). Subsection (4) is unnecessary. It suggests that the panel does not need to take information from anywhere other than the person before it, but subsections (1) to (3) suggest all the relevant information that the panel can and should take into account in making its determination on an individual incident. Clause 20(4) should be removed.
Amendment 97 is one that I hope hon. Members will engage with. An assessment must be made of whether the individual perpetrator who is giving information to the panel has done so truthfully, to the best of their knowledge. If they lie, if they seek immunity and spin the process out, playing with victims and their families, there is no consequence for them whatsoever. At the very least, amendment 97 would see a file issued to the Public Prosecution Service.
Amendment 119, which I referred to, is about the glorification of terrorism. The last thing we should do, if we are truly interested in achieving reconciliation in Northern Ireland, is to offer someone immunity only for them to go out and talk positively or proudly about their heinous exploits. That would be a fundamental outrage. We will never get reconciliation in Northern Ireland if we empower people to rub salt in the wounds of victims and their families there.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend accept that the point he is raising is based on evidence that we already have of where, for example, members of Sinn Féin who engaged in a prison break-out in which an officer died went around boasting about the part that they played in that break-out? He is not making a theoretical or an academic point, but a very real point that we have to make sure is addressed.
Gavin Robinson
Yes. It is appalling—sickening—that people organise events and dinners, fundraise, sell books and write scripts for movies, then benefit on the backs of the blood of our neighbours in Northern Ireland. That is not appropriate.
I ask Members to consider amendment 98 very seriously indeed. This process is about providing answers to families who do not know all the circumstances of their loved one’s demise or who was responsible for it. That is a significant subset of legacy cases that are yet to be resolved in Northern Ireland. There are, however, other cases where the family know exactly who was responsible and know all the circumstances, and furthermore the state knows who is responsible and has sought the perpetrator for investigation and prosecution. Then what did the perpetrator do? They stood up and walked across the border and evaded justice. In amendment 98, we ask the Committee to accept that there are no circumstances in which we can provide a process that would grant immunity and allow somebody who has evaded justice, skipped the jurisdiction and made sure that loved ones had no answers the opportunity to come back to Northern Ireland and retire with dignity. That would be an affront to democracy and to justice. I hope that Members will look at accepting amendment 98 on such runaways.
Jim Shannon
One example of that, as this House already knows because I have said it before, is Lexie Cummings. He was having his lunch out at a shop in Strabane and was murdered—shot in the back of the head. The person who did it was apprehended by the police, who took him to court. They made a mistake in the subpoena that they handed out and got it wrong. While the subpoena was being changed, the person escaped across the border. He is now a very prominent member of Sinn Féin, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) knows very well. That is an example of where the system has fallen down. My family, who are relatives, want to see justice for him in court. He has an on-the-run letter, which makes it very difficult for us as a family to comprehend and deal with issues, knowing that justice is not seen to be done and because we know who the perpetrator is.
Gavin Robinson
I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that Members will look on amendment 98 favourably.
Finally, because I recognise that time is short—here we are, three hours in, before we get a Northern Ireland voice, but I appreciate the interest in the Bill—I turn to amendment 115. There has been considerable attention on amendment 115 during the Committee stage. My colleagues drafted our own amendment to exclude sexual offences from immunity. It was not as good or as strong as the Labour amendment, and, in truth, it was in the wrong place in the Bill, so we did not table it and signed amendment 115 and new schedule 1. We did that because we want to get to the end point. We are not interested in the politics, but we want to make sure that on such a wedge issue that engages issues of compassion and controversy, and affects communities right across the board in Northern Ireland, we have our name on that amendment, and we want to see progress on it this evening.
I have already highlighted the frailty of the argument that we could leave this issue until Report. I have heard that we could change the programme motion. Here we are with a programme motion that has already been extended once, at the end of Second Reading for this Committee stage, and I am the first Northern Ireland MP to speak when we have been debating the Bill since 20 minutes to 3.
Colum Eastwood
Can I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he was saying a little bit earlier? We obviously disagree on the Good Friday agreement and the need for prisoner release, but I think we both recognise that those prisoners were released on licence. A licence is capable of being revoked and has been on a number of occasions. If this Bill went through, would that get rid of that, so that those prisoners would then be totally immune from going back even on licence?
Gavin Robinson
I know that some from Northern Ireland did not take technical briefings on this Bill, but sadly I did and had to listen through them. Schedule 11, where we are talking about moving two sentences down to one, could lead to a circumstance where, were somebody prosecuted outside of this process, they would have a conviction on their record and would automatically be on licence for it. It is not that they would not be on licence—they would—but they would serve no time in jail whatever. We need to incentivise this process, and that is why I have talked about new clauses to be debated on Monday, which would ensure real terms and a real-life consequence for not offering truth to victims’ families.
I was talking about amendment 115 just before I was derailed. The Government have a huge opportunity to respond to what has been said this evening. This is a hugely important amendment. We talk about some amendments being inconsequential, and I accept that this one would affect a very narrow subset of legacy cases, but that does not make it any less of a touchstone. It genuinely is, and it has the support of our party. I am sad to say that there is no Northern Ireland Office representation in the Chamber at the moment. They are not here, and I genuinely believe that they had better be outside getting an agreement over this amendment so that it does not need to be pressed to a Division this evening.
Gavin Robinson
I will give way in turn to the hon. Members, and then I will conclude.
Mr Baron
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured when I say that a number of others are making representations to those on our own Front Bench on a number of the amendments being discussed. One hopes that people are listening, which I suppose reinforces the point that we are trying to move in the same direction here and improve the Bill.
Simon Hoare
I want to add to the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), if it is of any help. To the best of my knowledge, conversations are taking place within Government and with the official Opposition to try to resolve this issue before we get to the moment of interruption. Principally that is because of the strong case that has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), by colleagues and by the shadow Secretary of State, which I hope a number of us on the Government Benches have helped to augment.
Gavin Robinson
I do not want to sow discord or break the prospect of agreement, but I will say this to those who are outside talking about an amendment that we have signed, but who are not talking to us about that amendment: it is not just the first signatory who can ensure it proceeds to a Division. I hope there is an agreement on that amendment, but as signatories to it, should there not be an agreement, we think the Committee should divide on it.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange, given the debates in this House over the past week about the lack of response from the police and the courts on rape victims, the way in which so few rape cases are being brought to court, and the commitments that Ministers have made, that there is even a debate or a discussion about those who use their paramilitary positions and power to cover up rape having their crimes overlooked?
Gavin Robinson
I have to give way to seniority, but my right hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well for me, and it needs no further explanation. I am grateful for the time of the Committee.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Dame Eleanor, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised an important question in regard to who can move an amendment. Clearly it does not just have to be the principal signatory. It is my understanding—I am probably wrong, and I would welcome your guidance—that any member of the Committee of the whole House can press an amendment to a Division, even if they are not a signatory to it, so long as the amendment has been selected, which of course it has been. Is my understanding correct?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point of order, and he is correct. We are in Committee of the whole House, and it is indeed the case that if the lead name on an amendment does not move the amendment at the appropriate time, any other Member can do so. I note that amendment 115, which is the one to which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was referring, has five names in addition to the shadow Secretary of State’s, including the hon. Member for Belfast East and some of his colleagues. I have every confidence that if for some reason it was not moved by the shadow Secretary of State on behalf of the official Opposition, plenty of other people could move it.
I am also sure that that matter is being dealt with at this moment—from what I have seen from the debate—in the way that it ought to be dealt with. It is a matter of some satisfaction to see the House working as it should in Committee, which is about not grandstanding or soundbites, but getting the best legislation that we can produce by working together. That is exactly what is happening at this moment.
Johnny Mercer
I am grateful to be called in this incredibly important debate. I had a speech prepared about the usual things that I have bored everyone about for many years, but instead I will address some critical points that have been advanced by hon. Members—particularly on the Opposition side of the Committee, but some on the Government side too—about their concerns with this legislation.
It is important to remember that those who oppose the Bill have genuinely good intentions, as has consistently been the case since the Bill was announced. I understand what has been said, particularly on the issue of rape, which is an incredibly difficult subject to legislate on. It is also difficult to talk about whether it should be on the face of the Bill. When I oversaw the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, we encountered that exact problem. Clearly, everyone finds the use of rape in war, Northern Ireland or wherever it may be completely abhorrent, but the issue is what it looks like politically if the Department does not put it on the face of the Bill. That is where it needs to do a bit of work. I understand why it has not done that, but in my experience it is worth having those conversations to see what can be done to ensure that hon. Members and those who will use the Bill are under absolutely no illusion as to its reach and extent.
The problem that the Department faces is that if rape and then sexual assault are on the face of the Bill, what makes up sexual assault and what was sexual assault in the period of the troubles? It becomes increasingly difficult to define those offences. It is important to have such debates, and I hope that the Government will work to change their position on the legalities of what is in the Bill so that people feel comfortable, but hon. Members should not demonise those who think, as I do, that the Bill should go through to the Lords as it is. We should talk about the amendments when it gets down to that process and send it through unamended today, even though there is a particular issue around this crime that we all agree is abhorrent.
I totally understand why the Northern Ireland parties oppose the Bill, and why the DUP opposed the Good Friday agreement. Nobody on the Government side of the Committee wants anybody who has committed an offence, whether they were in uniform or a paramilitary, to get away with that—nobody wants that at all. If people ask me what I want from the Bill, I say that I want justice, fairness, and anything that brings a degree of peace and an ability to live on past the troubles to come forward.
The problem is that we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that was raised as a bad thing, but that is what we are here to do. I totally understand where the Northern Ireland parties are coming from, and this has been an educational journey for me as well. We have had some pretty feisty debates in this place, and I totally understand where those on all sides in the debate are coming from in Northern Ireland. The only problem I have is that, as politicians, we have to be pragmatic and we have to work in the space of what is physically possible.
I would, I suppose, have more time or more understanding for the argument that we have to try these different things if we were not 24 years on from the Good Friday agreement, and individuals such as Dennis Hutchings, who did nothing wrong and was never convicted of any offence, are repeatedly dragged over to Northern Ireland—he eventually died in a hotel room on his own in Belfast—because we have not been pragmatists. We have all been idealists, because we all want the perfection of a clear result in relation to what was an incredibly difficult period in Northern Ireland, but it is just not possible to achieve that.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend very much for allowing me to intervene, and I totally endorse what he has said. Those of us sitting here utterly understand how awful it is, and we totally understand why the parties in Northern Ireland cannot accept allowing people to get away with it. I feel the same, and when I vote tonight I will be using quite a long spoon because I totally understand where they are coming from. It hurts me, too, that anyone might get away with cold-blooded murder.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention, and I pay tribute to his extraordinary service in Northern Ireland in some of the most appalling atrocities of that conflict.
That is a really important point. We think about the mother of Stephen Restorick, a lance bombardier from one of my regiments, who was the last soldier killed in the troubles in Northern Ireland. He was asking for the driving licence of a lady passing through his checkpoint, and she said, “All I can remember about him was that he was a beautiful boy, and his smiling face as he leant down to the window to take the driving licence”, when he was shot in the back by a sniper. No planet exists where people such as me, from exactly the same organisations, would want an individual who had committed that to be released.
The individual who did it was convicted and sentenced to 490 years, yet was released under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. There is no comparison here. My friends from Northern Ireland live over there in their communities, but the truth is that pragmatism has to win—it has to—because to continue doing the same thing and expect it to be different is a definition of insanity.
I have not seen anybody else in the Committee sit through such trials in Northern Ireland, but I have seen the absolutely ludicrous nature of them. We talk about victims. I know this will make me unpopular in some circles, but I actually feel sorry for a lot of the victims for being dragged down this pathway now. Everybody there knows that we will never reach the threshold for a criminal conviction, but nobody has the courage to say to them, “Do you know what? I’m so sorry, but this is unlikely to be successful so we have to take the next best option. The best option is that we find somebody and we put them in prison. I’m so sorry—and it’s the state’s fault, it’s lots of people’s fault; we didn’t investigate properly—but that is not an option. So you now have to deal in this space, which is the pragmatic space. What are you going to do? Do you want to know what happened to your loved one, and that they mattered, in their final hours—or do you want to continue to progress down this path where you will never get an answer?” That is my experience of dealing with victims, and I totally respect that other people have different experiences.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I think he and I are two of the people who have some of these feisty exchanges that he talks about, and I will attempt not to be too feisty with him today. He has made it clear that he believes that there is no prospect of criminal convictions, and that those on this side of the Committee are appalled because people will get away with terrible crimes. Yes, that is one thing.
The other thing is that we do not believe the Bill will provide more truth or more transparency. We recognise that. By the way, we are very open with victims and all that, but we do not have to be because they are grown-ups. They have been doing this for a lot longer than any of us. They know the process, they know how difficult it is, and they would love convictions. In some cases convictions are possible, but in many they are not. But the very process of actually investigating, and having civil cases—that is what gets someone to the truth, and that is what the Bill will bar. That is the real problem behind our issue with the Bill, and the issue that every victims’ group I have met has with it.
Johnny Mercer
There has to be a landing zone. We are never going to reach an agreement that allows us to adhere to those standards. The hon. Gentleman’s point about trust in the state is valid. When it comes first to opening the books—I have experience of this not only as a Minister, but when I served in secret organisations, and I know there is an attitude or appetite to overclassify things and so on. Families have really felt the brunt of that over the years, and if I was part of one of those families, I would be deeply mistrustful of the state. I totally get that, and the Department must work harder to bring that integrity to the process.
However, I do not think we should throw away what is probably the last chance to get this right—well, “right” is not really the word, because we are not going to make it right: we are not going to bring anybody back. But we have to get to a space where we can deliver something for victims and veterans. We talk about prosecutions, but there have been no successful prosecutions of security force personnel since the Good Friday agreement. That is a fact.
What these victims are looking for is not there. If it was there, I would be the first to champion it. People such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) are absolutely repulsed by those who think that uniform is a place where they can commit crime. The idea that we would not want people who have done those things to be held to account is for the birds. People who promote that—I see it in Northern Ireland about me all the time, but I never respond to it because it is totally false. Nobody wants those people convicted more than those who served there and adhered to the standards, showing extreme courage.
Gavin Robinson
I would be keen to hear which amendments the hon. Gentleman is supporting. He wants to get this right, but does he understand that one consequence of the Bill at Royal Assent is that, unless a decision has been made to prosecute by the Public Prosecution Service, the prosecutions lapse? There are 32 or 33 actual active files with the PPS as a result of Jon Boutcher’s Operation Kenova. Unless a decision is made now, or before Royal Assent, the prospects of live files will disappear.
Johnny Mercer
That is a good example of technical details in the Bill that need work. Aspects of this do need work. I think I have spoken individually to everybody on the other side of the Committee who opposes the Bill, and I agree with their technical changes to it. The idea that immunity cannot be revoked, or that there is no real compulsion to get involved because of jail sentences—I do not agree with that. At the same time, however, I am not going to say, “Don’t vote for this Bill”, because this is it; this is as good as it gets. There is an opportunity coming down the line, when the Bill goes to the Lords, when things such as that will happen.
Johnny Mercer
With deep reticence, because I think my good friend from the Opposition will give me an extraordinarily hard time.
Jess Phillips
I am absolutely not going to give the hon. Gentleman an extraordinarily hard time, and I thank him for taking the intervention. He may be right as a pragmatist—I am a pragmatist myself—to say that this is as good as it will get, but the families affected by terror incidents, including the incident I ran away from myself in Birmingham, do not think that his saying, “What you’ve got is as good as it’s going to get” is enough for 21 people lying dead with no justice. That is not good enough for them. On whether it takes them the rest of their lives, Julie Hambleton is in her fifties now. She has been doing it since she was 13—she is in for the long haul—and the reason she keeps going is that she believes in the British state.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member is totally right. If it was my son or daughter, or the son or daughter of any of us, and there was a 0.1% chance that we would find out who did it or what happened, we would keep going down that burrow hole as far as we could.
All I would say is that there is another side to the ledger: people—yes, a lot of them are veterans—who are incredibly adversely affected and have a right not to go through the experiences of those such as my friend Dennis Hutchings. That is why this is such a difficult space.
Jim Shannon
I am mindful of many incidents in Northern Ireland. I think of La Mon, where on 17 February 1978 12 people were killed and 30 people were seriously injured—the people who were killed were incinerated. The person who gave the order for that was the IRA commander in west Belfast, who just happened to be Gerry Adams. I want accountability for my constituents who were burned alive, but the legacy Bill does not give me or my constituents the chance of that. For that reason, I want to see a legacy Bill that speaks for victims and ensures that those who perpetrated crimes are held accountable. They might get away with it in this world, but they certainly will not get away with it in the next world.
Johnny Mercer
I have huge sympathy for the hon. Member, whom I am close to and have huge affection for. He can imagine my views on Gerry Adams—thankfully we are in the House, so I will not get sued just for uttering his name—and on the incident that he refers to. However, I would say pragmatically that it has been a long time since that incident and, if that justice were possible, it would have happened. I want that more than anybody else, but it has not happened, so we must deal with the world as we see it, which is incredibly conflicted: evidence was not gathered correctly, the crime scene was a mess, and it is very difficult to reach the threshold of criminal conviction.
Johnny Mercer
I will give way to my hon. Friend, then to the hon. Member, and then I will shut up.
Jack Lopresti
Until the previous intervention, I was not entirely clear whether my hon. Friend was going to support the Bill; I am pleased that he will. He talks about seeing the world as it is—we all do that, and we have to deal with reality—but, as politicians, do we not have a responsibility to show some leadership and moral courage as well as appreciate that legislation is not always universally acclaimed? There are tough decisions to be made and, as a soldier, he will appreciate that.
Johnny Mercer
We are here because over many years our predecessors looked at this issue and thought that it was too difficult. I focus on two groups: the victims, who have been dragged down the legal pathway; and veterans, for whom—I am sorry—the experience is equally unacceptable. I have seen 85-year-old men in court who needed a loo break every half-hour—they could not remember what happened yesterday—getting spat at on their way in. They were not guilty of anything. Their cases got thrown out and the judge said, “I can’t believe this has come this far.” So there are two sides to the ledger, and we are here because we have not had the courage to deal with the issue as we find it.
Tony Lloyd
Like the hon. Member, I believe that, had there been action in the past, we may not have needed to be here today. He said that the search for truth by the families of victims is valid, but he also said that little can be done now. We recently had the Ballymurphy inquest, which came to a definitive conclusion and gave some truth to the victims’ families. On that basis, will he at least accept that getting rid of inquests would fly in the face of the interests of victims’ families?
Johnny Mercer
This will be deeply unpopular on the Opposition Benches, but the reason we have inquests and they do not result in criminal convictions is that they do not reach that threshold. Obviously, the evidence is there in the inquests, and I do not decry them—they are very important—but they are not at the criminal threshold, which has driven the experiences of veterans and so on. Yes, inquests have made findings—they have found things around collusive behaviour—but they have never been proved in court. While people will have very strong views—I have seen that across the Committee—we have to go with what is proved in court. That is the lie of the land. Even cases that I cannot believe have not been prosecuted have not been proved in court. It is a desperately sorry situation for everybody—the victims, veterans and so on. While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, I just do not see what good end point that achieves.
I understand that we must be open. The Department could be more open with this process than it is with inquests, because of all the legalities included in that. The idea behind this immunity from prosecution is that there could be total transparency. I accept that people think, “They won’t be transparent,” but what do we do? Do we just throw away this last chance—do we let these old guys die in a hotel room in Belfast and let the sectarianism continue, the protests outside the courts continue, the spitting at me when I walk in continue—or do we try to do something just a little bit different?
I have never asked for favours for anybody. All I have asked for is fairness—just fairness. There are some people you will never find me defending, because I have my own thoughts about it. All I have asked for is fairness, and I have been treated in a particular way in Northern Ireland. I just urge colleagues to think about the art of the possible. We all have a duty—to victims and to veterans.
James Sunderland
As we all know, my hon. and gallant Friend has been a proud champion for veterans. He has probably accomplished more for veterans in his time than many other parliamentarians. But he is also very keen, when he needs to, to be critical and challenge the Government, so what he is saying this afternoon carries a lot of weight, certainly for me. Does he agree that this is about pragmatism and timing, and that the time is now? Does he agree that we have admired the problem for far too long, that we still have an opportunity, with the Minister in his place, to amend the Bill as we need to over the weekend, and that the Bill does need to pass?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kind words. I strongly agree with him that the Department needs to reflect on what has been said. I was a lone voice in opposing what came out from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in August. I pay tribute to him again, because many people—me, certainly, and the Opposition too—were pretty rude about him and rude to him about his proposals. He has had the courage to look at them. He wants to get this right. He has no skin in the game to do something that is going to divide communities and not stand the test of time.
I say to colleagues across the Chamber that there is a way around this rape-on-the-face-of-the-Bill stuff. I had exactly this issue with the overseas operations Bill. There is a way around it. We can deal with the legal language and make it really clear that that is not part of this.
Johnny Mercer
Yes. [Interruption.] What do you want me to do? [Interruption.]
Mr Baron
I will keep it very brief. I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent speech, but may I suggest that what has been underplayed in this debate is the fact that for the victims, just knowing answers can help people move on? This is about justice, but it is also about providing and knowing answers, and we have not heard too much about that.
Johnny Mercer
I will sit down, but my hon. Friend is right: it is about truth and knowing answers, and we really need to get there. I just urge pragmatism and courage in this space to get stuff done.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will call the Minister no later than 10 minutes to 7. You can see how many people are standing, so if you want to get your colleagues in, please show some time discipline—we cannot have speeches of the length that we have had up to now.
Claire Hanna
I will try to be brief, because I appreciate that there are colleagues who have been working on these issues for years and decades, who understand them fully and who wish to advocate for their constituents. I shall build on the points that we made on Second Reading and speak to some of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).
By way of context, we spent Monday discussing the departure from the rule of law and bilateralism that is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. This is another day and another treaty breach. People have to understand that many see this Bill in that context—that it is unravelling the culture of lawfulness that we have been working on for many decades. I say that completely without pleasure and I agree with the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who believes that the Bill is unamendable.
I will focus on the setting up of the ICRIR. It relies on the fiction that is being presented, which is that we are doing the same things over and over again. We are here because things have not been done, because the architecture to enable truth and justice has been suppressed, because files have been locked up, because omertà has been practised by paramilitaries, and not because we have done all these things incorrectly. We are taking this action when there is a live and productive programme of investigations. Hon. Members have referred to Operation Kenova, which is an active programme of investigation and inquest.
The Bill exploits a population who are worn down by discussing legacy. They are tired of these issues, the politicking and the revisionism. Nobody is being false with victims. Everybody knows that the possibility of prosecutions is vanishingly rare, but information can come out of these inquests and investigations. That is what people want and it has absolutely not been demonstrated that that will come out of these bodies in any way. That is why victims oppose this. Nobody wants to move on more than victims, but we have a general amnesty masquerading as a conditional amnesty, with perpetrators walking free. As Members have indicated, they will have no licence, which they would have had under prisoner release. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether the licences of prisoners who have already been released will go under the Bill as well.
We have examples on the books, such as the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which existed for years. People could clear their conscience and give information to relieve families and give them the dignity of a burial without any threat of prosecution, but people did not do that. Nothing in the Bill or during these days of debates has indicated why we suddenly believe that people will come forward.
It is fair to say that the amnesty is a variation on a theme. We have been down this road before. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle asked about files that have been sealed for decades and will be sealed for decades to come. How are people supposed to believe that the same Government who do that are suddenly interested in advancing information to them? As we all know, national security means whatever the security agents want it to mean. We know that they were intimately involved with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries—it is a fact. Although Members may wish to shut down the inquests, court cases and civil actions that establish that, it is a fact, as has been acknowledged by many people. How are people supposed to believe that the same Government who are suppressing that information suddenly want to advance it?
We know that the first motivation is the protection of security force elites, but we can call a spade a spade: this applies equally to paramilitaries. There is a joined-up quid pro quo between the sets of victim makers that keeps all this behind closed doors. Our amendments seek to address that.
The Bill outlines reviews that are not compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. They are a sham and are half-baked. The ruling on “flexibilities” because of reconciliation has been ruled out by a number of witnesses to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is also clear that the Secretary of State will be the person who can appoint all the commissioners who will be involved in the process of investigation. I refer to my earlier points about the fact that they have been actors. Essentially, victims are being told, “Move on because Brandon Lewis and Boris Johnson want you to move on, and they will create all the people who will help to facilitate it.”
I want to be very clear: the SDLP does not propose that we do nothing, and we are not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have worked with integrity on the issues for many years. We supported Eames-Bradley, which was imperfect; we supported Stormont House, which was imperfect; and we supported Haass-O’Sullivan, which was imperfect. The Government committed to Stormont House in December 2014 and committed to it again two and a half years ago, under this Prime Minister, so they cannot say that it has been done on anybody else’s watch. We are asking for the principles of that agreement to be enacted, which would address the issues with the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland. It was a bilateral treaty that had obligations for the Irish Government as well.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Claire Hanna for keeping her remarks short.
Mr Baron
Let us be clear. In this debate, which overall has been a very good one, there is great sincerity about the issue among all hon. Members. However, I respectfully point out to Opposition Members that I stand by what I said earlier: there have been relatively few successful criminal prosecutions since the troubles. That is a fact, no matter how one cuts and splices it.
I hear from Opposition Members about the quest for justice. We get that. Those of us who support the Bill genuinely get it. I know that time is short, but let me point out that I served in a variety of locations in the Province during the troubles. As a young platoon commander in Crossmaglen, I played billiards with a Royal Ulster Constabulary officer one evening. The following day, I had to put up a cordon because he was caught by an improvised explosive device and he was in pieces. That brought home the cost of the troubles not just to the individual but to the families concerned, and how bloody they were—for both sides, but I can speak only for the side that I was representing.
I say in the nicest possible way that I will not accept any suggestion that Conservative Members do not believe in justice. We firmly do, 100%. I am not suggesting that there is any division on that point, but from what we have heard, one could take away the view that we downgrade the need for justice. That is simply not true.
We must remember what the Bill is trying to do. I have not heard too much in this debate about the fact that the Bill is trying to provide answers to many, many families of victims. Answers help people to move on, but there are too few answers, given the scale of the troubles, the number of lives lost and the number of people injured. I think we need to focus on that, because it is a large part of the purpose of the Bill: to try to move things on in the hope that we can bring about greater reconciliation and provide answers for families, while leaving the door open to prosecutions for those who are not co-operating.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is not in the Chamber now, but I have certainly been pressing Ministers on a number of the amendments he mentioned. What we must try to understand about the Bill is that this is not the end of it; there are other stages to come, and some of us, while we support the Bill, will be seeking to firm it up and give it some teeth. I ask Opposition Members to bear that in mind when we vote tonight.
I do not want to speak for much longer, because I know that others want to contribute, but I will say this. Some say that the legal system was not suspended during the Good Friday agreement, but in many ways it was. People who had committed heinous crimes were let out of prison. The Democratic Unionist party may not have agreed with that, and at the time I had trouble swallowing it, but it was put to a referendum in the Province, and 71.1% of the people of Northern Ireland backed the Good Friday agreement. In many respects, the legal process was suspended then. No one could pretend that the rule of law was being enforced, whether I agreed or not. The bottom line is, however, that we have to deal with the art of the possible in trying to help many, many families in Northern Ireland to move on.
The Bill is not perfect, although I hope it will get better as it proceeds through its various stages, but as I said earlier, perfection should not be allowed to be the enemy of the good, especially when we are dealing with such a momentous period in our history as the troubles were. The Bill encourages co-operation, as I have also said, in trying to provide answers for families while also trying to ensure that we do not completely lose sight of the need for justice. I will look very sympathetically at amendments 97, 98 and 115, for example. I have had a chat with the Minister, and I know that the Government are actively engaged in looking at those amendments.
Let me end on this note: we have to see things in the round. Twenty-four years after the Good Friday agreement, there have been relatively few successful criminal prosecutions, but a great many answers are still needed for a great many families. If the Bill helps us to move closer to providing those answers without ruling out the use of the criminal justice system for those who do not co-operate, it still may not be perfect, but it will be better than what we have seen in recent decades, and we will have a chance to improve it beyond the votes tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. As I said earlier, I will be calling the Members who will wind up the debate no later than 6.50 pm. In order to accommodate as many Back Benchers as possible, I am now introducing a time limit of seven minutes.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I should declare an interest, as a veteran of Operation Banner.
I will speak as briefly as I can, because I want to give as many other Members as possible an opportunity to speak. Let me begin by saying that the Bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that I have been asked to consider during my time in the House. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intentions, and I completely understand how complex and difficult this issue is, but if passed in its current form the Bill will mean that those who are guilty of kidnap, torture and murder will never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison, or even, for that matter, be subject to a proper investigation. Indeed, they will not even need to say sorry to be granted immunity for their crimes.
Members have rightly focused today on the impact that the Bill will have on victims. As has already been observed, many of the victims were members of our armed forces, and it is this cohort on whose behalf I want to speak, very briefly, this evening. I know that many of their loved ones and comrades will be watching this with great interest. They will know that 722 UK service personnel were killed in paramilitary attacks while serving on Operation Banner. A freedom of information request to the PSNI from the Centre for Military Justice just this month revealed that it still had 202 unsolved cases of victims who were members of the armed forces and a further 23 cases where the victim was a veteran. That is 225 unsolved alleged murders where the victim was someone who had stepped forward and put themselves in harm’s way to serve our country. Behind every one of those 225 cases is a story of enduring pain caused by the absence of truth and justice.
One of those stories began on 11 August 1971 outside the Corpus Christi church in west Belfast, when a joiner by the name of John McKerr fell to the ground after being shot by a single bullet to the head. John’s family only found out he had been hurt from a newspaper report the following day after he failed to return home from work. He was labelled a member of the IRA. A little over a week later he died of his injuries in hospital, becoming one of the 10 victims of the Ballymurphy massacre. For half a century, John’s family were forced to live under a cloud not just of distress but of deception.
On 11 May last year, Mrs Justice Keegan published the findings of her inquest into the Ballymurphy killings, confirming what John’s loved ones had always known to be true: John was unarmed and not doing anything that could have caused a threat. He had no associations with the IRA. In fact, John had lost his right hand while serving in the British Army in the second world war. His daughter said:
“The only thing he belonged to was the British Legion.”
In the words of the coroner:
“He was an entirely innocent man who was indiscriminately shot on the street.”
The inquest at least removed the stain on John’s character, but it is worth noting that under the Government’s proposals, inquests will be brought to an end, meaning that others will not have the same access to the truth as John’s loved ones. After more than 50 years, the McKerr family still do not know who was responsible for his murder. John sacrificed so that we could be free, but he was shot in the head and left in the street to die. The response of the institution he once proudly served was to tarnish him as a terrorist. John McKerr’s family told the inquest that their objective was not punishment but truth. It is in that spirit that I urge the Minister to consider the merits of amendment 115, about which there has been much debate, and also amendment 111. Strengthening reviews in line with the standards set by Operation Kenova will at least provide the families of members of the armed forces killed during the troubles with a degree of truth and justice.
There is deep unease in the service community about the Government’s proposals, not least from the family of Private Tony Harrison, a soldier from 3 Para who was brutally murdered by the IRA in front of his fiancée and his fiancée’s family. One of those involved has admitted his involvement, but no one directly responsible for his killing has been investigated. We owe John McKerr, Tony Harrison and all those who perished a debt. We can start to repay that debt by giving their families the dignity of knowing what happened to their loved ones. As it stands, the Bill will not afford them any comfort. It will only compound their misery, and for that reason I cannot support it.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Today I will be speaking against several of the proposals in part 2, specifically clauses 18, 20, 23 and 24, and in support of amendments 111 and 115. My position on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has allowed me to hear a range of views on the legacy of the troubles, and the reality is that victims and survivors groups have been let down for decades with successive Governments preventing them from finding out the truth about their loved ones and failing to investigate the most horrific crimes. It is now a sad reality that there can be no perfect solution to how we address legacy issues. There is simply too much division and too many lives lost for that ever to be possible. We must one day accept that we will have an imperfect solution, but that does not mean we have to accept this bad one.
The solution offered in part 2 is unquestionably a bad one. It fails victims, denies them justice and conceals the truth. It threatens the Good Friday agreement, violates article 2 of the European convention on human rights and breaches both the Stormont House agreement and the New Decade, New Approach commitment made just two years ago.
Stephen Farry
I will try to be brief, in order to allow colleagues to get in. First, I wish to say that the Bill overall is fundamentally flawed, unworkable and unamendable. That is the strong view we have heard from stakeholders—academics and, most importantly, the victims sector in Northern Ireland. There are alternatives, despite the accusations from many in this House that there is no alternative to this Bill; I appreciate that Stormont House may well not be an option that people currently favour in some regards, but Stormont House with some tweaks, based upon the recent Northern Ireland Office consultation from 2019, is a potential way forward. Indeed, Stormont House implementation was mentioned within New Decade, New Approach as recently as January 2020.
I also say, with a heavy heart, and in the knowledge that this will find opposition from a number of people, that the current status quo in Northern Ireland is messy. It is piecemeal, selective and not a comprehensive approach to legacy, but even that is better than this Bill, because at least there are some mechanisms that are achieving some results for some people. We need to do better, but what is in the Bill takes us down a different avenue. The Bill is not article 2-compliant. The reviews are hard-wired into the entire Bill, rather than investigations. This is more than simply a case of language; we have thought about trying to amend the Bill to change the word “review” to “investigation” but that itself would not make it article 2-compliant. We also need to address serious issues regarding independence; there are step-in powers for the Secretary of State across a very broad front.
I wish to focus particularly on immunity and what is, in effect, a de facto amnesty, as that is a central issue for me. With the support of the Committee, we hope to have a Division on whether clause 18 should stand part of the Bill; we think it is a fundamental point of principle that the Committee should divide on, because the issue of immunity goes right to the heart of why this Bill is viewed as unacceptable by so many people. The test for immunity in the legislation is extremely low; it is inherently subjective; there is a presumption in favour of it being granted; and it is framed around the interests of the perpetrator rather than the victim. Those are the four key reasons why immunity should not be proceeding.
In the rare event that the panel does not grant immunity, the question as to what happens then is still very much up in the air. People talk about investigations happening and potential files going to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that is very much a theoretical prospect, because there is no investigative arm that will do that work in practice. In addition, any statements given to the panel are not given under caution and so they cannot be the basis of an investigation. An investigation will have to be from first principles. As we know from other examples of the legacy process as it stands, that will seriously complicate the prospects of any prosecution actually happening.
There are quite a few issues with the mechanics of the ICRIR that I could go into, but I want to make a broad point. This body could very much be a white elephant—and an expensive one. There is no real incentive for perpetrators to come forward to it, and they might do so only when there is a genuine risk of action against them, so it is hard to see exactly when and how that will happen.
Equally, victims might not engage with this process, and there is a major question mark as to whether they will see it as legitimate. They might not wish to take the risk of seeing a perpetrator associated with the loss of their family member receiving immunity; that might be a very difficult prospect for them, and that might well deter people from going forward.
The Secretary of State also has the option of arbitrarily closing the process at any point. Again, that gives no confidence about the longevity of the process. The commission is there to create an historical record, but there may well be so many gaps that the process becomes pointless. There are also issues about what are relevant materials and how those are defined, and the definition is seen as incredibly loose.
We look forward to having a Division on clause 18; it sets out a key principle, and it is important that the Committee gives its view on it.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am going to reduce the time limit, because there are four Members left to speak. If I reduce it to six minutes, by the looks of it, we will hopefully get everybody in. I call Ian Paisley.
Ian Paisley
Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans. I want to speak first to amendment 98 and then to amendment 115 if I get an opportunity.
Amendment 98 is very specific. It says that those who have previously been arrested and perhaps even charged but who have then fled justice will not be able to benefit from this process. Why are we saying that? It is very simple. The evidential material is there. These people have evaded justice—they have evaded the entire process of law—and they now have the opportunity literally to get out of jail scot-free.
If the amendment were to have a name, it would be the Rita O’Hare amendment. Although she is not the only example, she is a very good example of the sort of person the amendment would encapsulate and capture—there are many other notorious examples, but hers is a specific example. She is now a Sinn Féin employee. She has worked in the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland. She tried to kill Warrant Officer Fraser Patton in October 1971. She was arrested and charged with that and with malicious wounding. When she was on bail, she fled, evaded justice and got sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland, where she continued her dastardly work. Indeed, in 1979, she smuggled more explosives and ammunition and faced a shorter jail sentence. The Republic of Ireland refused to send her to Northern Ireland.
Rita O’Hare then went to the United States of America, where she has had a glowing career. It has been so glowing that if we look her up on Facebook or elsewhere on the internet, we can see her standing with no less a figure than President Biden in one of her most recent posts. We can also see her standing with President Obama in one of her posts. Then there is Mr. Richie Neal, who likes to visit Northern Ireland and lecture people about peace and prosperity—there he is, arms around a person who has evaded justice in Northern Ireland and who should be facing justice.
The amendment would capture that type of person and say, “There's a body of evidence here. You’re not getting away with this. We’re going to put you through due process and get the sort of justice that Warrant Officer Fraser Patton is entitled to.” That is what the amendment would do, and I urge support for it.
I got the Minister into a fairly broad discussion about amendment 115, but I think it was worth while, because we got to the kernel of the issue. There should be nothing preventing the Government from accepting this amendment. I do not accept that it is outside the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the woolly and quite condescending argument that we cannot tie this issue into Protestant and Catholic stuff or Ulster Volunteer Force and IRA stuff. We can—speak to Máiría Cahill; speak to others. If a victim finds that someone could benefit from this legislation—if it is enacted—and the name is sparked off, it will have a trigger effect. They will say that that is the person who abused me. It will have that trigger opportunity. Therefore, if we do not address this sexual offences matter immediately, we do ourselves a gross disservice. I hope that the Minister has been listening—I think that he has—but, more importantly, I hope that we have not just fine words and eager listening, but actual actions that will speak much louder than words.
Mr Gregory Campbell
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). The issues surrounding this Bill, I suppose, can be traced back to 1994—rather than to 1998, as many people allude to unrepentantly over and again—because that was when paramilitary groups decided, in various ways, to call it a day. Those who had inflicted pain, misery and mayhem on all of us in Northern Ireland said that the game was up and that terror was going to finish. Political negotiations then came about. Four years later, unfortunately, terror was then legitimised. Those were the unfortunate origins of where we are today. We might try to rehearse history or to rewrite it, as others have tried to do, but that is what happened.
We then had a period of diminishing violence. All of us tried to come to terms with what we hoped would be a much better future. I fully understand, accept and share the view that many have on the Conservative Benches: that the problem now is that IRA terrorists, by and large, are not pursued, but there are the soldiers and former police officers caught in very difficult circumstances who, in many instances, had a split second to decide whether their lives were at risk or to take action to try to preserve an innocent life by taking someone else’s—a split second to decide whether a person was a threat to themselves or to their colleagues. Therein lies the difficulty.
Again, I fully understand the views of Conservative Members, especially those who have served, who say that we have to try to draw a line under this, and that this Bill is a way of doing that. Several Conservative Members have alluded to, for example, the late Dennis Hutchings. His case would, I believe, have collapsed, as did those of Soldier F and several others. There are different reasons for each case, but the underlying reason is that the passage of time has meant that even where the Public Prosecution Service thinks there is a possibility of a successful prosecution, it finds that for a variety of reasons it is not able to bring it to a successful conclusion, no matter how much it presses.
The passage of time has occurred and people’s memories are dimmed, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate recollection of what happened on a particular day. For example, I was on the city streets of Londonderry on the very day of Bloody Sunday. I have a reasonably clear recollection of what happened, even though I was a very young teenager at the time, but I could not give a second-by-second, minute-by-minute account of everything that happened on that day. I do remember that three days before two police officers had been gunned down with a machine gun. We will never know whether it was the same machine gun that the Saville inquiry said Martin McGuinness held on Bloody Sunday.
We come to the point now of assessing whether the Bill—even with some of the amendments that we hope, if passed, would make it a less bad Bill—will draw a line under what is happening. My view is that it is unlikely to do so. There are many people in Northern Ireland and a whole range of victims. Some have moved on, while some find it difficult to move on. Some have come to terms with the loss of loved ones, while others continue to grieve. What they all know is that even before this Bill is considered, there is very little likelihood of any successful prosecution.
The problem the Bill presents is that, if it is passed—even in slightly amended form—it slams shut the possibility of any potential prosecution or any justice ever being brought to bear on the cases involving loved ones. For that reason, my colleagues and I will be opposing the Bill.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Like other Northern Irish Members, I live among so many people who, through no fault of their own, are victims of terrorism. Those victims have approached me, while going about their daily business, to express how hurt they are by the Bill and how it extinguishes that glimmer of hope of any form of justice—although they know all too well that justice has already been grossly perverted in Northern Ireland.
We table our amendments in recognition that the Bill is likely to be made law. It will never be good law; it will always be fundamentally flawed and will always represent injustice and pain. However, it can be made to be better law, and we urge hon. Members to give serious consideration to what we believe are measured, constructive and victim-focused amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has eloquently outlined the rationale for the amendments in our names and the names of our colleagues, and I wish to reiterate some of the thinking behind some of the amendments.
Much of the public cynicism, certainly within the victim’s community, is based on the belief that if someone is willing to put a gun to a person’s head and take their life, lying about their actions will not disturb their moral compass. Amendment 97 would offer some form of recourse for lying to the panel. It is also, we believe, appropriate that such cases at the very least be directed to the Public Prosecution Service. If this process is to have any semblance of credibility, surely the Committee will agree that making a mockery of the process should come with an appropriate penalty.
We must also consider the situation of those who have deliberately evaded justice. That is our rationale for amendments 96, 98 and 99. The DUP utterly rejects the idea of immunity for any terrorist, but the Bill needs to offer specific provision for cases where those terrorists fled from justice. Whether they have scuttled off to the safe haven of the Irish Republic, the United States or elsewhere, those subject to active proceedings should not be afforded immunity. The thought of such individuals being welcomed through airport terminals by cheering crowds, to be embraced as heroes by leading figures of Sinn Féin, makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, as did similar images at the release of terrorists following the Belfast agreement. To permit such circumstances through this Bill would be wholly wrong. We therefore ask the Committee to support our amendment that addresses that salient point.
Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 199 relate to the whole issue of immunity. My party has always opposed immunity, for one reason—it is wrong. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave numerous examples of terrorist atrocities in a very personal and moving contribution. His story is the story of so many people in Northern Ireland, and indeed here in Great Britain. How anyone could listen to that account of loss, pain and suffering and believe that immunity for the perpetrator is acceptable is beyond comprehension. Members across the Committee seem to think the situation is justified by saying, “It is not perfect and we don’t like it, but we have no other option.” Yet there is always one option, and that is to do what is right. Victims want this Committee to do what is right.
I cannot close my contribution any more powerfully than by using the words of two victims of IRA terror. I urge Members to give their ear to these voices—to listen to these broken hearts speak. Abbie Graham lost her father, Constable John Graham, and Louie Johnston lost his father, Reserve Constable David Johnston, when they were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan in my constituency of Upper Bann on 16 June 1997. Abbie and Louie were aged seven and in primary school when their much-loved fathers were murdered. I urge Members to listen to these words. Abbie says:
“The way the law works is that if the killers were caught and jailed they could only do two years. That would be a formal recognition of the wrong that was done. But if this law was to come in and then someone came forward with the information, it’s too late.”
Louie Johnston states:
“We’re 25 years on from and there are always new forensic opportunities becoming available and always the chance someone will come forward. But if the government is going to remove that opportunity it leaves us without any hope. This was the murder of two fathers who said goodbye to their children on a normal school day, the same thing that was happening in every decent human being’s house.”
He says:
“We need to look at what is right and wrong and take the politics out of all of this. What is happening now is that we are creating a justice system based on a postcode lottery. You can get justice as long as you don’t live in Northern Ireland. This government is burying justice and Boris Johnson and Secretary of State Brandon Lewis are playing the role of undertaker.”
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please do not refer to the Prime Minister by name.
Carla Lockhart
My apologies, Mr Evans. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are playing the role of undertaker. Louie went on:
“How can you say to someone that if their loved one was killed before April 1998 it doesn’t count? How can people be willing to stand for that?”
That is the question for this Committee: how can anyone be willing to stand for that?
The Second Deputy Chairman
I call Jim Shannon, but please resume your seat at either 10 to 7 or before.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Mr Evans.
I am not unaware of the Government’s aim. We absolutely need to move forward. We need to investigate processes to be used in proper form instead of the rewriting of history that currently sees us so badly abused, with Sinn Féin being the guilty party. We need our ex-service personnel to be allowed to retire without, at 75 years of age, being questioned about a case that they handled 45 years ago and asked to validate statements or investigations they carried out, and the pressure of that leading to illness. We need soldiers to be allowed to retire and not to be asked the exact wording of an order given to them 40 years previously when under fire and attempting to save their colleagues.
I understand the Government’s objective, but in the time that you have allocated to me, Mr Evans, I want to be very conscious of the victims. I did that at some length in the previous debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said. For me, it is all about the victims and all about justice. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the flicker of light.
I hold on to that flicker of light that someday justice will come for the murderer of Lexie Cummings—he fled across the border. He has an on-the-run letter. He is a prominent Sinn Fein member, and he has not been held accountable for his misdoings or for the murder. Kenneth Smyth and Daniel McCormick were murdered on 10 December 1971, some 50 and a half years ago. Where is the justice for them when it comes to this Bill? I do not see that tonight either. I do not see justice for the four UDR men murdered in Ballydugan. Nine people were arrested, and only one person has ever been held accountable. I cannot see that justice.
Johnny Mercer
What would the hon. Gentleman say to the family of Dennis Hutchings in this situation?
Jim Shannon
I supported Dennis Hutchings, and I still do. I will speak for the victims every time, and I will speak for Dennis Hutchings as well. I support him and his cause, but it is all about the victims. Let us focus on the people who have no justice, but who want justice. We should do that—not through this Bill, because this Bill is flawed—but in a different way. Many of my constituents and my people cannot grieve because justice has not been seen to be done. That is the issue for my people, for my constituents and for people on this side of the Chamber. I wish it was an issue for those on the Government Benches.
Conor Burns
We have had a very full debate. It has been emotional and emotive. It has lived up to what we said earlier: it has been contested and there has been an absence of consensus—we certainly got that on steroids. We have heard some harrowing and moving accounts of horrible lived experience in Northern Ireland, and individuals have been named who suffered grievously and lost their lives during the troubles.
I express gratitude to everyone who has participated for the tone of the debate. I will address one issue head on, which is amendment 115 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State on behalf of the Opposition. Earlier, I sought to explain the Government’s thinking and why we were sure that the Bill as written would not have the perverse consequence that the shadow Secretary of State feared. However, as I said—the Secretary of State and I discussed it on the Front Bench—we have heard loud and clear the mood of the Committee and its wish to see greater clarity in the Bill. With that intent clear, and our recognition of the mood of the Committee on that, we are willing to accept the amendment on the condition that we will work over the coming days to see if we can find a refined wording that we can bring back to the House on Report.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he has approached the issue and the conversations we have had throughout the debate, both across the Dispatch Box and beyond. I accept the offer that he has made and the spirit in which he has made it. The Opposition obviously have an overarching concern about the overall Bill, but I am pleased to be working with him on this. I assure him and the Committee that I will do so on behalf of the Opposition and other parties in an open-hearted and sincere way and in a way that I hope will improve the Bill in time for Report on Monday.
Conor Burns
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for the way that he has responded to my offer. We and our officials will work collaboratively with him and hon. Members across the House to find the solution that gets us to where we want to be by Monday.
Simon Hoare
I am hugely grateful to the Minister. Any of us could do it, but on behalf of everyone who has spoken on the issue, I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for the work they have done on it in the last hour or so. Notwithstanding the contested nature of the Bill and some of the outcomes, I hope that, for people who are concerned about these issues, we have been able to show a glimmer of how well the House can work when it pulls together.
Conor Burns
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is exactly what Committee of the whole House is about—drawing on collective experience and wisdom to improve the legislation before us.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I congratulate the Minister on this, but I have a specific question. I want to be absolutely certain and get clarity from the Dispatch Box that a Report stage will be guaranteed in the business motion and that it will not be bumped. That will allow us to rectify and fiddle around with what goes on, so it is settled.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Christopher Pincher)
indicated assent.
Conor Burns
One of the leading business managers is nodding positively from the Bar of the House at my right hon. Friend’s question. That is absolutely our intention. I am pleased by the way we have managed to resolve the issue this afternoon. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has spent much of the afternoon outside the Chamber trying to help us to reach a resolution that would be agreeable.
Julian Smith
I also pay tribute to Members of the DUP, SDLP and Alliance—the Northern Ireland parties—who have represented their constituents who are very much at the centre of the issue. They, as well as the Opposition, worked together with those on the Government Benches this afternoon.
Conor Burns
I absolutely join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Members of parties from across Northern Ireland, who speak so eloquently and passionately for those they were elected to serve. The one thing that unites us across the Chamber is a determination—even if we disagree about the means—to try to do the right
thing for the people of Northern Ireland, who it is our pleasure and obligation to serve.
If I may, I want to come specifically to some of the amendments discussed at various points this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the shadow Secretary of State raised questions about the independence of the commissioner. We are absolutely clear that central to the effective delivery of this legislation is the need for the body to be independent and to carry out robust investigations and reviews. We see the merits of requiring the ICRIR to provide a copy of its annual report to Parliament and to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we will take that away and consider it further.
On my hon. Friend’s suggestion that one of the commissioners should be someone of international experience, we certainly see advantages in that. We do not necessarily see an advantage in writing that into the Bill, but it is certainly something the Secretary of State will bear in mind when we get to the point of appointment.
On amendments 111 and 112, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, the commissioner for investigations will be a senior individual with significant experience in conducting criminal investigations and the authority to conduct the commission’s investigative processes as they see fit. There was some conversation about the difference in scope between an inquiry, a review and an investigation. The term “review” represents the scope of the investigative process that can take place. If the body is required to fulfil an article 2 obligation, it can conduct an appropriate investigative process to do so. In other circumstances, a different approach will be required and the commission will have to be flexible in order to do that.
I do not see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) in her place, but she talked about the very tragic circumstances in Birmingham and public inquiries. Just to be absolutely clear, the role and power of the commission is comparable to a public inquiry. It will be led by a judicial figure, as chief commissioner, and the investigative process will be supported by full state disclosure. We have continually made the point that we will be passing across state documentation for the body to consider.
Bob Stewart
When the ICRIR meets and gets evidence, and perhaps gets evidence of the identity of some person who has committed a heinous crime, can the Minister guarantee that the name of that person, who may well then get immunity from prosecution in some way, is made public so that those poor people who have lost someone will actually know who has killed their next of kin?
Conor Burns
I am afraid that the answer to my right hon. Friend is conditional. That will be a matter for the panel itself to determine, and it will have all the evidence at its disposal to make the appropriate judgment. In reference to what I said a moment ago about passing over state records, we will obviously have to take precautionary measures to make sure that we do not jeopardise named individuals who may have been involved in different things where their naming could put them at risk of significant harm.
Just to clarify the question from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) about the keeping of evidence, biometrics will be destroyed a reasonable period after the end of an inquiry, but all the records given to the body by other bodies will of course be retained, because they will be with the bodies—the police and others—that supplied the information to the body in the first place.
In response to amendment 83, we think the definition of close family member provided in schedule 3 to the Bill casts a significantly wide net as to who may request an investigation and a review into the death of a loved one. The legislation’s primary focus is on effective information recovery. The ICRIR will conduct investigations for the purposes of providing answers for those who want them. To be absolutely clear, individuals who have moved to a jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom and are subject to ongoing prosecution proceedings initiated prior to the entry into force of this legislation by a UK prosecutor for a troubles-related offence will be unable to avail themselves of immunity in the scope of the Bill before the Committee today.
There was some mention of concern about the glorification of terrorism and granting immunity for those who could go on to glorify terrorism in their communities. The Terrorism Act 2006 already makes it illegal for the encouragement or glorification of terrorism, whether in the past, in the future or generally. Nothing in the Bill would prevent the prosecution of individuals who are deemed to have committed an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Bill is an ambitious attempt to try to move society in Northern Ireland forward. The role of the Committee today, and the role of the other place in days to come, will hopefully improve the Bill further, as we seek to steer it through to the statute book. I commend it to the Committee.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the Committee that 10 minutes are allocated for the first Division, with eight minutes for each subsequent Division. I am anticipating at least three Divisions, but—who knows?—there may be more.
The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Immunity from Prosecution
Amendment proposed: 97, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
“(6) If Condition C is not met because P’s account is found by the panel to be not true to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, the Chief Commissioner must direct the Commissioner for Investigations to submit a prosecution file to the Public Prosecution Service for consideration and direction.”—(Gavin Robinson.)
This amendment is intended to reduce the risk of claimants deliberately misleading the panel.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Monday 4th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 July 2022 - (4 Jul 2022)
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:12 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:22 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 211 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:46 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Members may wish to note that a manuscript Government new clause and manuscript Government amendments to improve the drafting of amendments agreed in Committee on day one have been tabled for consideration on Report. They are now available in the Vote Office.
Clause 33
No criminal investigations except through ICRIR reviews
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 34, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) But enforcement action may be taken against P to prevent P from seeking to profit from their conduct in relation to that offence (see section (Grant of immunity: criminal memoirs etc).’
This paving amendment is linked to NC2 which is intended to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Act from profiting from the from the conduct which they received immunity for.
Amendment 107, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3) But any sentencing decision in respect of a serious offence committed by P after 10 April 1998 may take into account the panel’s findings on any relevant serious Troubles-related offence committed by P’.
This amendment is intended to allow the offences for which immunity has been granted to be taken into account in sentencing for post-Trouble offences.
Clauses 34 to 36 stand part.
Amendment 121, in clause 37, page 28, line 11, at end insert ”,or
(d) a file relating to P in respect of an offence is submitted to the Public Prosecution Service.
‘(2A) But if no prosecution of P is directed on the basis of the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the case relating to P should be returned to the ICRIR for investigation in accordance with this Part.’
The purpose of this amendment is to treat as criminal enforcement action the passing of a file to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
Amendment 122, page 28, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a criminal prosecution of P is to be treated as having begun when a file relating to the criminal investigation into P’s conduct has already been submitted to the Public Prosecution Service on or before the day that section 33 comes into force.
(3B) But if no prosecution of P is directed on the basis of the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the case relating to P should be returned to the ICRIR for investigation in accordance with this Part.’
The purpose of this amendment is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when the file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
Clause 37 stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 116, in clause 39, page 30, leave out lines 15 to 42.
This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in Northern Ireland.
Clause 39 stand part.
Amendment 117, in schedule 10, page 79, leave out lines 4 to 39.
This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in England.
Amendment 118, page 81, leave out from line 18 to line 16 on page 82.
This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in Scotland.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.
Amendment 108, in schedule 11, page 83, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (2)(a), replace “four” with “five”.
(1B) In subsection (2)(b), replace “four” with “five”.’
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 110.
Amendment 109, page 83, line 21, at end insert—
‘(6ZA) The fifth condition is that the prisoner has been fully cooperative in responding any request for information made under section 14 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022.’
This amendment is intended to add a fifth condition for prisoner release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to ensure that prisoners who take part in the reconciliation process are not treated in the same way as those who do not.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
New clause 2—Grant of immunity: criminal memoirs etc—
‘(1) A person (P) who has been granted under section 18 immunity from prosecution for an offence may not seek to profit from their conduct in relation to that offence.
(2) The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is amended as follows.
(3) In section 156 (Qualifying offenders), in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i) at end add “or a citizen of Ireland who would qualify to be a United Kingdom national”.
(4) In section 159 (Relevant offences), after paragraph (1)(a) insert —
“(aa) a serious Troubles-related offence (see section 1 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022,”.
(5) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the First Minister and deputy First Minister if practicable, make regulations to prohibit the exploitation for profit of Troubles-related offences by any individual granted immunity under section 18.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may further amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and make any necessary provision to amend any relevant primary or secondary legislation.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative procedure.’
The intention of this new clause is to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Act from profiting from the conduct which they received immunity for, by adapting the exploitation proceeds regime under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
New clause 3—Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998: repeal—
‘(1) The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is repealed at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any necessary temporary, consequential or transitional provision in connection with the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.’
This new clause provides for the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to be repealed when Part 3 of this Bill comes into force.
New clause 5—Revocation of immunity (No. 2)—
‘(1) This section applies if a person (P) has been granted immunity from prosecution for the offence under section 18, but later evidence is submitted to the immunity requests panel established under section 21 which the panel considers to be conclusive evidence that the Condition B in section 18 was not met because P’s account was not true.
(2) This section applies if, after the immunity requests panel has ceased to operate, the Secretary of State considers that there is conclusive evidence that the Condition B in section 18 was not met because P’s account was not true.
(3) Where subsection (1) or (2) applies, the immunity of P under this Act is revoked.’
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause 43, page 34, line 12, at end insert—
‘(3A) The designated persons have an overarching duty to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.’
Amendment 110, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) The designated persons must take into account the interests and concerns of victims of the Troubles in the preparation of the memorialisation strategy.
(3B) “Victims of the Troubles” do not include any person P who has received immunity under this Act and whose physical or mental harm was caused by Troubles-related conduct in which P participated unlawfully.’
This amendment is intended to ensure that only innocent victims are included as victims in the memorialisation strategy under this Act.
Clause 43 stand part.
Clause 44 stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 45, page 35, line 22, leave out “of the period of operation of the ICRIR” and insert
“from the date on which this Act is passed”.
This drafting amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Amendment 42, page 35, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Amendment 43,page 36, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Amendment 44, page 36, line 8, leave out “the ICRIR reports and”.
This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Amendment 45, page 36, leave out lines 18 to 21.
This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Clause 45 stand part.
Clauses 46 to 48 stand part.
Amendment 93, in clause 49, page 37, line 43, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 15 on page 38 and insert
‘establish an independent panel of experts to make appointments for the purposes of this Part.
(1A) The independent panel of experts must include—
(a) representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive, the United Kingdom government and the government of Ireland,
(b) representatives of the British Academy, the Royal Irish Academy or other comparable learned societies, and
(c) a person of international standing with experience in or comparable to the post of special rapporteur on transitional justice for the United Nations.
(1B) When deciding whether to designate a person for the purposes of this Part, the panel must, in accordance with clear and transparent criteria, ensure that the individual has the necessary expertise in at least one of the following: oral history, academic research, archiving, trauma, gender studies and memorialisation.’
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to designate persons for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill and instead provide for the appointment of an independent panel to designate persons for the purposes of this Part, while keeping the provision for financial and other resources to be supplied by the Secretary of State.
Clause 49 stand part.
Amendment 94, in clause 50, page 38, line 20, leave out from ”means” to end of line 21 and insert
‘persons designated by the independent panel established under section 49 (1);’
This amendment removes the definition of designated persons in Part 4 of the Bill as persons appointed by the Secretary of State and instead refers to appointments by an independent panel.
Clause 50 stand part.
New clause 4—Offence of glorifying terrorism: Northern Ireland—
‘(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to some or all of the members of the public in Northern Ireland, to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2) A person P commits an offence if—
(a) P publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time P publishes it or causes it to be published, P—
(i) intends members of the public in Northern Ireland to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public in Northern Ireland will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by a reasonable person as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism include every statement which—
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation in the past of Troubles-related offences; and
(b) is a statement from which members of the public in Northern Ireland could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.
(4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public in Northern Ireland could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both—
(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.
(5) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)—
(a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism, of acts of terrorism of a particular description or of acts of terrorism generally; and
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or Troubles-related offence.
(6) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person P in whose case it is not proved that P intended the statement directly or indirectly to encourage or otherwise induce the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism it is a defence for P to show—
(a) that the statement neither expressed P’s views nor had P’s endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the statement‘s publication, that it did not express P’s views and (apart from the possibility of P’s having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have P’s endorsement.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years, or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(8) in considering sentencing for an offence under this section, the court will take into consideration as an aggravating factor any immunity granted to P under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022.’
This new clause, based on section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, makes having received immunity under this Bill an aggravating factor in sentencing for the offence of glorifying terrorism.
New clause 6—Opening closed files—
‘(1) Every Minister of the Crown must review the status and classification of files held or sealed by the Department for which the Minister is responsible which relate to events which formed part of the Troubles with a view to ensuring that relevant information, is duly and truly accessible for the various purposes of information recovery, historical records, memorialisation and academic research provided for in this Act by those mandated to discharge those purposes.
(2) Classified government files for the purposes of this section relate to deaths, injuries, other public harms and miscarriages of justice which occurred as part, or in consequence, of the Troubles.
(3) No later than six months from the date on which this Act is passed, each Minister of the Crown must compile a list of such Troubles-related files which have been sealed from public disclosure for longer than standard periods, showing the previously specified date until which they were to remain closed and indicating, on the basis of the review referred to in subsection (1), how and when relevant information in those files will be available to bodies or persons undertaking work enabled or mandated under this Act.
(4) The list referred to in subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(5) A Minister of the Crown must make a statement to the House of Commons on steps being taken to ensure disclosure of such information in order to afford more truth to those bereaved or otherwise harmed by events related to the Troubles, fuller public awareness and understanding and to assist the cause of reconciliation.’
This new clause deals with opening closed files as a State step towards truth and reconciliation. The duties of the Minsters of the Crown apply to any Minister including the Prime Minister, any Secretary of State (including the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland) as well as to the Lord Chancellor and the Cabinet Office.
Amendment 46, in clause 51, page 39, line 12, leave out subsection (1).
This paving amendment would remove Schedule 12 which amends existing legislation in relation to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery and the limitation of legal proceedings.
Amendment 47, page 39, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).
This drafting amendment removes a provision which would be redundant if Clause 38 and Schedule 9 were removed from the Bill.
Amendment 48, page 39, line 35, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment removes references to criminal investigations and inquests.
Clause 51 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 49, in clause 52, page 40, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Amendment 50, page 40, line 11, leave out from “they” to “may” in line 16.
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Amendment 51, page 40, line 11, leave out lines 21 to 28.
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Amendment 52, page 40, line 29, leave out from “procedure“” to second “the” in line 34.
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Amendment 53, page 40, line 37, leave out from “Parliament” to the end of subsection (4).
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Amendment 54, page 41, line 9, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 52 stand part.
Amendment 55, in clause 53, page 41, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 53 stand part.
Clause 54 stand part.
Amendment 56, in clause 55, page 46, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment removes provision relating to the repeal of the Coroners Act 1988.
Clause 55 stand part.
Amendment 57, in clause 56, page 46, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would be consequential on the removal of Schedule 12 which amends existing legislation in relation to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery and the limitation of legal proceedings.
Amendment 58, page 47, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 56 stand part.
Amendment 59, in clause 57, page 46, line 35, leave out “Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation)” and insert “(Memorialising the Troubles)”.
This amendment would change the short title applicable to an Act comprising only Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill.
Clause 57 stand part.
New clause 7—Compatibility with Article 2 of ECHR—
‘(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the exercise of powers, the performance of functions and the discharge of duties under this Act, including by bodies or offices created under this Act, may be subject to civil action and judicial review on grounds of incompatibility with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(2) Recourse to civil action under this section shall be open to—
(a) a close family member of a person whose death was caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles; or
(b) if there are no close family members of the deceased, any family member of the deceased.
(3) The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission may—
(a) provide assistance to individuals or families who take civil action under this section; or
(b) bring court proceedings itself in respect of policies, practices and performances of relevant authorities with powers and functions under this Act in order to test their compatibility with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights or to vindicate that right or others under the European Convention.’
Amendment 72, in title, line 1, leave out from “by” to “providing”.
This amendment would change the long title applicable to an Act comprising only Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill.
While we are in Committee of the whole House, Members should refer to me as Chair or Mr Evans, and not as Mr Deputy Speaker. I call the Minister.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
Thank you, Mr Evans; we trust that it will not be too long before that is upgraded to “Sir Nigel”.
It is good to be here for the second full day of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to Members for how they dispatched the statement in what must be record time for a Prime Minister reporting on three international summits, to allow us extra time. I am particularly grateful for the pleasure that lies ahead.
I start by thanking the Committee for the tone of our engagement last week on controversial and emotional subjects; I hope that that tone will continue across the Committee this afternoon as our deliberations progress. I meant to say this properly last time, but I did not. Successive Governments have not engaged in this space, and I want to pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for grappling with these contentious and emotional issues over the last couple of years. This is a Government Bill, but it is very much his Bill—he has steered it through. I also pay tribute to those in the Northern Ireland Office who have supported the work of Bill as it has progressed beyond the publication of the Command Paper last July.
We commence today’s proceedings with part 3 of the Bill, which covers investigations, legal proceedings and the release of prisoners. Clause 33 prevents criminal investigations into any troubles-related offence from being initiated or continued on or after the day on which the clause enters into force. That prohibition does not apply to the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. The clause ensures that the commission becomes the sole body able and responsible for conducting criminal investigations into troubles-related deaths and serious injuries.
Future prosecutions will remain a possibility for those involved in offences connected to a death or serious injury if they do not actively come forward to seek immunity or do not co-operate sufficiently with the information recovery process. New criminal investigations or prosecutions for troubles-related offences not connected to a death or serious injury will no longer be possible.
The clause places a duty on the heads of each police force in the United Kingdom to notify the Secretary of State of any criminal investigations of troubles-related offences that their force is carrying out on the day before the clause comes into force, enabling the Secretary of State to identify cases that trigger an obligation under articles 2 or 3 of the European convention on human rights, and ensure that those are referred to the commission for review.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister of State for setting the scene. There is one thing that concerns me and, I believe, many DUP Members, but which has not been mentioned very much in any of our debates or discussions about the Bill: the collusion involving the Garda Síochána in relation to the murders of some police officers on the border. There was also collusion involving not just the Garda Síochána but high-level members of the civil service who turned a blind eye to those who carried out the murders across the border. Can the Minister of State reassure me and other hon. Members that there will be accountability in the process for those in the Garda Síochána who were involved in collusion in the murder of Royal Ulster Constabulary and police officers in Northern Ireland, and for those in high levels of the civil service who were also involved in collusion? My cousin was murdered by the IRA, and the people responsible went across the border and lived a safe life there. If that is not collusion, I would like to know what is.
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great emotion and personal connection to these events. I extend again, from this Dispatch Box, my sympathy to him and to all those in Northern Ireland, in Ireland and across these islands who felt the impact of the brutality and evil of events perpetrated in the name of Irish republicanism, and indeed some in the name of loyalism.
The hon. Gentleman mentions matters relating to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That Government, on behalf of the Irish state, freely entered into commitments that they would have a process for information to be brought forward for people so that we could find out what happened. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proposals in the Bill and the information recovery unit would absolutely be strengthened if the Government of the Republic of Ireland came forward with their own proposals, so that we could deal with the issues across the totality of these islands. I very much hope that the commitment that was undertaken will be delivered by the Irish Government in due course.
Conor Burns
I will, but I will not do today what I did last Wednesday, which was to take about 40 interventions and detain the Committee for an hour. I want to set the scene for what our debate today will cover and the scope of the Bill’s clauses and amendments. However, I give way to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful. The Minister mentions that the Irish Government made commitments. I absolutely agree that they need to deliver on those commitments, but they were made in the context of the Stormont House agreement. The British Government made commitments as well, but they are now moving miles and miles away from the Stormont House agreement, stopping any opportunity for people to get access to truth and justice, despite what the Minister might say.
Conor Burns
We believe that the commitment made by the Government of the Irish Republic was a stand-alone commitment to bring forward their own legislation to have a means of resolving some of the unresolved cases to the benefit of all, to aid the process of information recovery and reconciliation across the island of Ireland and the totality of these islands. We could rehearse—although I do not think that it would be particularly helpful, because the hon. Gentleman and I both know the arguments that would be deployed—why we have come to the conclusion that the process around Stormont House and the bodies that are in place will not, in our judgment, deliver what we seek, which is to help those who want to find out what happened to their loved ones. We have been open in saying that this is a movement beyond Stormont House, because the Government believe that this will be a better way of getting that information and trying to aid the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
The prohibition created by clause 33 will not apply to criminal investigations that are ongoing on the day when the legislation enters into force, where those investigations are being carried out for the purposes of a criminal prosecution commenced before that date. The police will continue to conduct such investigations until the related criminal prosecution has concluded.
Clauses 34, 35 and 36 set out, for those granted immunity, that no criminal enforcement action may be taken against the individual in respect of the serious or connected troubles-related offence or offences for which immunity has been granted, while those who committed crimes should not be able to obtain something for nothing. They will not mean that individuals have immunity for any other serious or connected troubles-related offences in which they may have been involved. Those who do not acknowledge their role in the troubles-related events and incidents will not be granted immunity, and will remain liable to prosecution should sufficient evidence exist or come to light. If immunity is not granted, criminal enforcement action could be taken in respect of the offence. If the commissioner for investigations thinks there is enough evidence that an offence has been committed, the ICRIR can refer a case directly to the relevant UK prosecutor. The ICRIR will be fully equipped with the necessary expertise and full policing powers so that it can carry out robust investigations for the primary purpose of information recovery, as well as being able to refer cases directly to prosecutors if there is evidence of an offence for which someone has not been granted immunity.
Clause 37 contains general and saving provisions applying to troubles-related criminal investigations and prosecutions. Clause 38 and schedules 8 and 9 state that any new civil claim brought on or after the date of the Bill’s introduction will be prohibited once the relevant clauses come into force, two months after Royal Assent. Troubles-related civil claims already filed with the courts before the date of the Bill’s introduction will be allowed to continue. We want to deliver a system that focuses on effective information recovery and reconciliation measures, getting as much information to as many families as possible.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will know that if a prosecutor has not made a decision on a file prior to the enactment of this law, the prosecutions will not proceed. That has caused huge concern among the families who have engaged with Operation Kenova and the more than 30 live files that rest with the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. There is an amendment on the table tonight that would allow the Government to accept that the cases that are with the Public Prosecution Service could proceed irrespective of when that decision is taken. Can the Minister confirm that he wants to see a conclusion to the Operation Kenova process, and that he wants to see justice for the families who have engaged so honourably and thoughtfully throughout this time?
Conor Burns
I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, and the view that he takes. I have acknowledged from this Dispatch Box, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that some of these decisions are finely balanced and difficult, but the Government want to see a single body dealing with the cases and with getting the information to families, and that will mean that at some point there must be a date on which we stop other processes and roll everything into this one body. I will talk about that in more detail a little later, but the point is that the powers that this body will have at its disposal will be greater than some of the powers available to other bodies—for example, inquests—and we think that this will be a better way of proceeding.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his stance. While everyone wants to see finality and an end to this process, some of these prosecutorial decisions have taken three to four years, during which time the people being investigated have died. My right hon. Friend has to draw a line somewhere. It is painful, of course, and we do not want to undo the work that has been done, but ultimately we need courage when it comes to reaching a finite point and getting these people investigated by a single body.
Conor Burns
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for what he has acknowledged. He has been in the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in, that of a Minister making very finely balanced judgments. We believe that we have got those judgments right, and we are happy to explain the rationale for the decision-making process that we have undertaken. I acknowledge, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, that this will be difficult for some people to accept, but there must be a point at which the new body becomes the sole body to deal with these matters.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that those who are engaged in the Kenova process want not information recovery but prosecutions? They want an outcome that will ensure that those who committed a crime are found guilty of committing a crime. Moving this to information recovery is not doing justice to those who, for many years, have engaged with the process hoping for an outcome. Will the Minister at least encourage the Public Prosecution Service to ensure that it makes a decision on these cases before the deadline on the Bill?
Conor Burns
The right hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. As I think the Committee acknowledged when we talked about these processes last week, there is not a consensus among the families or victims on a single route that they want to take. They want different things: many want prosecutions, many want just to know, and many want a wrong acknowledged. He makes an entirely fair point that I am sure will be heard outside this Chamber and that I know has already been strongly heard by different bodies, lawyers and families in Northern Ireland.
The body will be established after this Bill enters into force. We are only at Committee stage in this place, and the Bill will hopefully leave here this evening and go to the other place, where I am sure it will receive detailed and expert scrutiny. In the meantime, a lot of decisions can be made. The processes can carry on, and we have been very clear that processes that are in train by the time the Bill comes into force will continue. That is why we listened carefully after publishing the Command Paper last year, when we heard the strength of feeling about ending all ongoing inquests. That is why clause 39 sets out that inquests—inquiries in Scotland—that have reached an advanced stage by 31 May next year or by the date on which the ICRIR becomes operational, whichever comes first, will continue to their conclusion. The clause states:
“An inquest is ‘at an advanced stage’ if the inquest hearing to ascertain—
(a) who the deceased was, and
(b) how, when and where the deceased died,
has begun before the relevant day.”
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Can I ask the Minister to recognise that there is an in-built unfairness in this process of arbitrarily closing off some inquests while others will have an opportunity to come to an end? The order in which these inquests have been put together is not based on any rationale, and there is a sense of it being the luck of the draw. Does he not feel it would be better to allow all inquests to finish, even if that means working in parallel with other institutions, flawed though they may well be?
Conor Burns
I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that in all these things there has to be a point at which we move to the new process. If we are establishing a new body and we believe that that new body is the right vehicle to bring information to the fore and to incentivise people to come forward, co-operate with it and hand over state information, we have to have such a point. I recognise the challenge of that, but I also recognise that there is an opportunity between now and that body being established for progress to be made. I also say to him that the existing inquests can be rolled into the new body and that their work can carry on in that sense. The new body, the ICRIR, will have more information than inquests do and will have comparable powers to compel witnesses, so it is the view of the Government that the new body will perform many of the same functions, but perhaps even better than the inquest process will. But on his point about the date, no, we have to have a point at which we move to the new process.
Colum Eastwood
It is worth pointing out that we have two days for what is supposed to be the Committee stage, and this is fundamental legislation that needs to be scrutinised. Does the Minister recognise that one of the key victories of the civil rights movement was getting rid of the Special Powers Act? The Act was introduced in 1922, and the architects of apartheid in South Africa looked upon it jealously and stated as much. One of the things they did was to close down access to inquests, but they did not go as far as this Bill, which this Government are just about to introduce in 2022. How in God’s name can that be right?
Conor Burns
The Government’s view is that this body will have more information and more powers than the existing processes and will be able to conduct these reviews faster than the current mechanisms are delivering. I completely accept that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and Opposition Members. Our contention is contested, but the Bill outlines how we intend to proceed.
Part 4 addresses how the vital work of healing and reconciliation, in societal as well as individual terms, will be achieved. Clause 42 makes provision for a new major oral history initiative that, consistent with the Stormont House agreement, will encourage people from all backgrounds to share their experiences of the troubles and listen to the experiences of others. Building on the feedback raised during the Government’s legacy consultation and since, the Bill provides for the designation of expert organisations with the requisite experience and trust to deliver this work collaboratively, independent of Government, by working with existing groups and projects as far as possible.
Clause 42 requires any persons designated by the Secretary of State under part 4 to carry out a gap analysis of existing troubles-related oral history collections in Northern Ireland to identify under-represented groups and communities. As well as collecting new oral history records, particularly from those found to be historically under-represented, the designated organisations must seek to secure the long-term preservation of existing collections by making them more publicly accessible through new digital and physical resources.
To ensure the independence and trust that are vital to success in this area, it is right that a high degree of flexibility is afforded to these organisations in the implementation of this initiative, which is why clause 42 focuses on core objectives and leaves it to the designated organisations to outline key operational details in a published document. This oral history initiative will be complemented by the work of the ICRIR and by wider independent academic research that is underpinned by the Government’s unprecedented commitment to disclosure. Taken together, this will add to the public understanding of the troubles in a way that is both inclusive and contextualised.
Clause 43 provides for an expert-led memorialisation strategy to build consensus and lay the groundwork for inclusive new structures and initiatives to collectively remember those who have been lost and to ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten. Within 12 months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State, designated organisations must produce an evidence-based report to the Secretary of State that makes deliverable recommendations on the way forward, to which the Secretary of State must formally respond. As part of this work, designated organisations must consider relevant comparators and lessons from other countries, as well as how any new memorialisation activities will aim to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Clause 44 requires the Secretary of State to respond formally to the recommendations of the memorialisation strategy provided for by clause 43 within one year of receiving it from the designated organisations.
Clause 45 makes provision for new independent academic research into the troubles. As proposed in the Stormont House agreement, this thematic research and statistical analysis will use the ICRIR’s historical record and family reports as source material. In implementing this initiative, the persons designated by the Secretary of State must use their best endeavours to secure the involvement of all UK research councils to ensure the work is rigorous and to the highest academic standards. The independence of researchers carrying out this work is enshrined in subsection (3). Flexibility is also afforded to designated persons in establishing the terms of reference, although subsection (6) requires the research to include an analysis of gender perspectives during the troubles. The research must be concluded and a report presented to the Secretary of State before the end of the seventh year of the ICRIR’s period of operation.
Clause 46 sets out that annual reports are to be published by persons designated by the Secretary of State to carry out the oral history and memorialisation measures.
Clause 47 makes provision for certain requirements relating to the way in which the oral history and memorialisation measures set out in part 4 are implemented by persons designated by the Secretary of State. It is important that the oral history and memorialisation work takes into account the widest range of views possible, not least those of victims and survivors, who should be at the centre of this work.
Stephen Farry
Is there not a danger of this process becoming rather hollow, particularly when the overall legacy institutions are not seen as legitimate across the wider community and therefore people do not take part in the processes? How can the various academics come to any rounded conclusions if they have only partial evidence with which to deal?
Conor Burns
I am slightly confused by that question, given the Government’s commitment to hand over pretty much all the evidence—[Interruption.] I want to say something to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party; by the way, I could say this to pretty much any section of political society in Northern Ireland. He says that they just do not believe us, but if everybody goes around telling them not to believe us, there is very little chance—[Interruption.] There is a reason, and I have just referred to it: the people who will be asked, tasked and made responsible for this will be independent of the Government. They will be given a huge degree of leeway in how they set this up, so that it gains the maximum possible public confidence and support.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Unfortunately, the Minister was interrupted in mid flow. He was about to make the point that the Government will give all available evidence to the recovery body. Two children were killed by plastic bullets, and the evidence around that has been sealed for 45 years, but none of us can understand why national security should mean that that is the case. Will he give a direct answer on this? Will that information be available to the recovery body?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian and a former very effective Minister, and he was a police and crime commissioner for a time. He will understand that I cannot possibly comment on an individual case from the Dispatch Box—no Minister could refer directly to that specific example.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
No, I will not give way at this moment. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the information recovery body will be given more information than any other comparable body or current institution that is examining these cases.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I have some sympathy with the Minister’s position, in so far as everyone wants to criticise the UK Government on the disclosure of information. Given that 90% of the deaths in Northern Ireland are attributable to paramilitary terrorist organisations who refuse to give any information about any of this stuff, I wish there was a bit more balance from some in calling for truth and honesty, when the leaders of some of those organisations are not even willing to say that they were members—never mind leaders—of them.
Conor Burns
The right hon. Gentleman’s point will have great resonance across these islands and with many families whose loved ones were murdered or maimed by the Provisional IRA. Importantly, it will be an undertaking of the British state to pass over information about all incidents on which we have records. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax) have served in the armed forces and have campaigned vigorously on this, and they will know that it is absolutely the Government’s view that there was no moral equivalence whatsoever between those who were on the streets of Northern Ireland trying to uphold law and order against a brutal, barbaric and evil campaign of republican terrorism, and those who skulked in the shadows and bombed, shot, killed and maimed. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to be careful in our language not to create any equivalence whatsoever.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
The final thing I will say—then I will give way a couple more times—is that the information held by the state will be not only information about the actions of the state, but intelligence on other actors, whom the body could then ask to come forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Conor Burns
In the interests of balance, I am going to take an intervention from the leader of the SDLP.
Colum Eastwood
Let me take this opportunity to make it very clear that every single murder and every single crime that occurred during the troubles was absolutely and totally wrong—I do not care who did it—and that every single bit of truth, accountability and justice possible should be got at. Every single paramilitary organisation should be coming forward with information, but we know that there is lots of information on those paramilitary organisations, because the British Government have infiltrated them—and still infiltrate them—to the very highest levels. We all know that. The information is sitting in the files of the British Government.
As my friend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), says, the reason that we do not trust the British Government is this: Julie Livingstone, Paul Whitters, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the Ballymurphy inquest. At every single turn, the British Government have tried to stop information getting into the hands of the people trying to find out the truth, including victims, who were told that they were at the very centre of this legislation. I have made this point a number of times now: there is a reason we do not trust you. Why not support our new clause 6, which would put on the face of the Bill that this information should be released to the public?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Bill, a legal obligation is being placed on all agencies of the state to provide the body with all the information they have. That is unprecedented; it has not happened before. Given the levels of trust—I understand why he says what he does to the community that he represents in Derry and Foyle—the truth is that the success or otherwise of this provision will be in the actions and outcomes of the body, when it is up and running. It will get information, some of which we understand and know will be very uncomfortable for some people who have been in the apparatus of the British state over the years. A huge amount will also be very uncomfortable for terrorists, who may think that there will not be another knock on the door for them. The success, or otherwise, will be in the fact that the information is passed over, and the body will have independence to act to get that information out there and, hopefully, to get information to the families.
Jim Shannon
Just last week, it was reported in the Belfast Telegraph that victims’ campaigner Kenny Donaldson—he is well known to everyone in the House, including the Minister and Secretary of State—said that
“if immunity was granted in exchange for information, then terrorists would then be ‘emboldened to wax lyrical’ about their involvement in violence”.
In other words, they would change their whole process.
Unfortunately, what I do not see in this legislation is the victims. It seems that the perpetrators of those crimes are getting off scot-free. The victims are not. That being the case, this legislation does not take us forward in the way that it should. The Government should be bringing something forward that addresses all those issues, but I do not see that yet.
Conor Burns
The current mechanisms are not delivering in a timely way. Time is running out, and we believe that the processes established under the Bill will help to get information to people. Central to the proposal is the fact that the individual who comes to the body, or is contacted by the body, has an obligation to co-operate fully and to give full disclosure. If that disclosure is not deemed by the body to be full or honestly engaged, the body has the absolute right to withhold immunity and pass information to the prosecutorial services throughout the UK.
If hon. Members go back and look at how the body will be constructed—at the expertise of the people who will be on it, at the fact that it will be led by someone from a judicial background, at the police powers of investigation that it will have, and at the fact that this will be the most complete information ever provided to anybody looking at these events—they will see that the chances of somebody coming forward and, in a sense, hoodwinking the commission is vanishingly unlikely. If people do not co-operate—if they withhold information or are not complete in what they tell the body—it is within the body’s rights and obligations to withhold immunity.
Sammy Wilson
In the interests of getting balance in this whole memorialisation process, does the Minister not accept that already in the Bill there is a clear indication that balance will never be obtained? The records that are held are mostly held by the state. The records of state activities are going to be given to the researchers and the body to tell the story and so on. He has indicated that some of the intelligence on terrorist organisations will be given as well, but that in itself is incomplete and the terrorist organisations, we can be sure, are not going to play the same and give the same access as the Government are going to give in this whole process. Therefore, how can the Minister ever hope that this will be other than a one-sided process that will not produce a balance, but will be used and abused to rewrite the history of the troubles in favour of terrorists?
Conor Burns
The right hon. Gentleman is, in a real sense, right to raise those concerns, but the way the process is being set up in the Bill provides more than a possibility that we can find a way of doing this in an inclusive sense—in a way that creates a complete picture of the troubles for future generations to understand—and that will certainly not involve the glorification of acts of terrorism. He is right—and he is right that I alluded to this—that the state holds not just significant information about what the state was responsible for, but significant intelligence-based information on the actions of others that may not ever have been acknowledged before. That will be part of the oral history—the official history, if you like—of the troubles.
Under clause 48, the cross-community, cross-sectoral advisory panel, which will consist of a range of organisations with a defined interest and expertise in this area, will include representation and voices from the victims’ sector. That should provide some reassurance that there will be voices in there making sure that this is not a one-sided account of the history of the troubles.
Conor Burns
I will give way to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I will then finish, and then the Committee can consider the clauses in detail.
Paul Girvan
On the last point, we have a difficulty in that many organisations have been set up to tell the story of victims and to fight on the victims’ side, but there are a large number of victims—I can talk personally, from a family point of view—who do not want to engage with anybody because they want to put this sad history behind them: unlike a lot of people who want to keep opening this up, they want to bury it. Where are those people’s views ever going to be heard? That is the difficulty that I have. Members of my own family will not engage with any victims’ groups. They do not want to be involved with them because they believe they all have an agenda and, for some, it is to rewrite history. We fear that this process will be used as an opportunity to rewrite history and to bring forward a narrative that will suit, primarily, in my case, a republican agenda, which will be spun by those who have a machine behind them set up to do that.
Conor Burns
I entirely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I entirely understand what he says about the range of views within victims’ groups, and even within individual families, about how they want to approach this. In a sense, there is no right or wrong thing to do here. These are matters of judgment, and the view that the Secretary of State and the Government have come to on how we proceed is that this gives a chance for a degree of reconciliation that is not delivered by the existing institutions.
For those who take the view that the hon. Gentleman describes and want to be cut off from the process and freed from thinking about it, often because what happened is so intensely painful to them that the pain of connecting to the events and to the losses is overpowering, we totally and utterly respect that. No one will be compelled to participate in an oral history or a remembrance of an event if they do not want to, but for those who do, it will be there. We will set it up as I have described, involving victims’ organisations and the cross-sectoral, cross-community advisory panel, to try to make it as inclusive and as embracing as it can possibly be.
Rather like the information recovery body itself, however, the success or otherwise of the memorialisation process will be judged only when it is up and running. It will be judged only when people can see what is happening and can make a judgment call on whether we have achieved, in the institutions we are creating, the objectives we set ourselves and the chance for greater reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
While the Minister took issue with the comment from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), it proved his salvation, because it allowed him to completely ignore the point that the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) was making: irrespective of whether people believe the Minister or not, they will not engage in the process. We have seen victims’ groups say they will not engage in the process. We have seen organisations that represent republican terrorists indicate that they will not engage in the process.
As the Minister concludes his remarks, I say to him that on Wednesday he had the opportunity to accept an amendment that would have removed the pitifully low fine for non-engagement if notice was served—three days of the Minister’s wages—for something more substantive and meaningful, and he was against that amendment. He knows there is no encouragement or inducement to engage in this process. He knows there is no consequence for lying as a result of the process. He knows that, even if somebody stays outside the process and is prosecuted, the sentencing regime will be reduced from two years in prison to zero years in prison. On each and every one of those points there is an amendment that the Government could engage with to make sure that the process works, yet still they are against them all. Why?
Conor Burns
I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and the points he makes. What I will say to him from this Dispatch Box, from the Government Front Bench with the Secretary of State beside me, is that these points have been made incredibly powerfully by the hon. Gentleman on the Floor and reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
The hon. Member for Belfast East is correct that the amendment on the fine for non-engagement was on the Order Paper last week. That question and the question on sentencing are things that—I think I am allowed to go this far—there are active conversations about internally. This is the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Bill will leave the Committee and will go to the other place. We are very carefully listening to the validity and strength of some of the arguments, but we must ensure that we get the Bill technically and legally right.
Mr Evans, you referred at the beginning to the fact that we will return later today to a manuscript amendment, at another stage of this Bill’s progress. That manuscript amendment is based on an amendment last week that we worked closely with the Opposition and other parties to get right, and we will table it tonight to achieve that. Just because we are not accepting an amendment as drafted this evening, or indeed last week, it does not necessarily mean that we have closed off interest in considering that in more detail to see if we can build on the ideas that the hon. Member for Belfast East has and improve the Bill further at a later stage.
Richard Drax
As we have heard, if a terrorist is convicted, they spend a maximum of two years in jail. As I understand it, if a terrorist does not come forward to this body and give information, they could still be investigated judicially. If there is sufficient evidence to bring a terrorist to court and they are found guilty, does that two-year jail term still apply, or can they be convicted for a proper length of time to account for their appalling crime?
Conor Burns
The short answer to my county neighbour is yes. That is why we are reflecting very carefully on the points that the hon. Member for Belfast East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and others, have made as to whether that is the right way to proceed, or whether we might want to have another look at that whole area and the wider context of the Bill as it progresses through its remaining stages.
I have done less today than I did last week, which I think is a good thing for everybody, including me. I look forward to hearing the detailed debate during the afternoon and evening, and look forward to returning to respond on behalf of the Government to the Committee later today.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could I ask anybody who intends to try to catch my eye to stand so that we can get an idea of numbers?
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible as well. We do not want to end up in the situation we did last Wednesday, where it took three hours before we heard a speech from a Northern Irish Member.
Today, we are going to scrutinise parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, followed by the final stages. This is a major undertaking in such a small amount of time, particularly for legislation on such sensitive issues. The Government’s rushing the Bill through has only deepened mistrust in its proposals. Opposition amendments 114 and 116 highlight some of the gaps between the Government’s rhetoric and what the Bill actually delivers. I hope the Committee considers the amendments with the same generosity it did amendment 115 last Wednesday, and that once again we can find agreement on how to improve the Bill. The Opposition will be supporting other parties in their attempts to remove clause 39. We will also support new clauses 4 and 5, which are thoughtful attempts at improving how immunity works.
Our amendment 114 is based on exploitation proceeds orders from the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which stop criminals in our country profiting from their crimes, usually through books or memoirs. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that people given immunity cannot then profit from the actions that they have just admitted to. The test that Labour has set remains that this Bill needs to offer greater benefits to victims than it does to perpetrators of terror.
The Government have repeatedly told us that as a result of this Bill all victims might get—might get—information, yet perpetrators stand to benefit much more. If basic tests are met, they must be granted irrevocable immunity from prosecution. There are no conditions to that immunity. There is nothing stopping people from then using their immunity to write down their own history of their crimes and profit from them. What is more, only perpetrators have to give the immunity panel an account of events that is true to the best of their knowledge. No input from victims is required. Quite simply, the Bill hands perpetrators control over the narrative of their crimes. Indeed, once a perpetrator has been granted immunity, I cannot see any limits on what they can do with it. There is nothing to stop terrorists writing books and seeking to justify the mayhem and senseless killings that they have carried out. Undoubtedly, that would re-traumatise victims. This is not idle speculation but a concern that victims have raised with me directly.
Just after my appointment, I travelled to Northern Ireland and sat with Paul Gallagher. Paul was left in a wheelchair after a loyalist gun attack in 1994 when he was just 21 years old. Paul told me that it cut to the core when he learned that his shooting featured in a book about his attackers. It contains a first-hand account and justification of Paul’s shooting by the paramilitaries. No one asked for Paul’s consent, or his version of events. This Bill would not only allow perpetrators to live in freedom, but empower them to tell their own version of events in their own names, without fear of prosecution.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member makes an important point, and the whole Committee will be united in agreeing with what he is saying. He is absolutely right. Can he clarify to those of us on the Government Benches where the balance is between the glorification of terrorism offence that exists in the Home Office legislation at the moment and what he would like to see added to this Bill to make sure, as I think everyone would accept, that none of what he is saying comes to pass?
Peter Kyle
There is previous and existing legislation relating to crimes, but when people have served their sentence, they are not given immunity afterwards. This Bill gives immunity from prosecution for crime, and therefore people can go on to tell their version of events without any repercussions in the law. That is what the amendment seeks to tackle. It is a real challenge that simply does not apply to other parts of the criminal justice system. The measure as it stands will enable people to draw a profit from the horror that they inflicted on the innocent lives of others. That the Bill will have these effects is truly chilling. Amendment 114 would mean that perpetrators of troubles-related offences do not enjoy benefits as a result of this Bill which do not exist for other criminals. This is a very low bar that this Bill needs to pass to ensure that it is not deepening divisions, instead of fostering reconciliation. I am glad that the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has added his name to the amendment.
Our amendment 116 would remove the provisions into the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 that require the closure of existing troubles-related inquests in Northern Ireland. The Bill is meant to provide information for victims and promote reconciliation. One way in which victims have received information about what happened during the troubles is through inquests. Only last year, on 13 May 2021, did we have findings from the Ballymurphy inquest. In his statement to the House, the Secretary of State acknowledged the power of an inquest for families. He said that
“the desire of the families of victims to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones is strong, legitimate and right.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c.277-78.]
The campaign for justice in Ballymurphy has reminded us all of that, if we needed to be reminded at all.
On Second Reading, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) asked the Government to look again at the Bill’s proposals on the closure of existing inquests. The Minister at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), confirmed that he would, but we have not seen anything from the Government about any amendments they are bringing forward on this matter. Indeed, it was not addressed in the speech that we have just heard from the Minister.
Our amendment would simply remove the clauses of the Bill that close existing inquests in Northern Ireland. There are not many. The total figure is likely to be fewer than 20. Last month, Sir Declan Morgan, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, gave evidence to the Select Committee. He summed up why it is unjust to close existing inquests on the basis of whether they have reached an advanced stage by the time the Bill is enacted. For the benefit of those who are not keen followers of the Select Committee, Sir Declan developed the five-year plan for dealing with remaining legacy inquests. It had its first year in 2021 and has been disrupted by the pandemic. These inquests have already had funding confirmed.
Sir Declan told the Committee:
“Of the 56 inquests that comprise the legacy inquests, 20 have been heard so far…A further 10 are already identified as year three cases, which will get hearing dates, other things being equal, between the end of 2022 and 2023. That would leave standing, as it were, 21 inquests. Some of those inquests relate to multiple people. For instance, the Stalker/Sampson inquest relates to four people. That would leave 18 cases to be dealt with.”
What is the justification for ending those 18 cases, when other people who are part of the same five-year plan will have their inquest heard?
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech. He mentioned the Ballymurphy inquiry, which shows what can be achieved even after a long time. Some 50 years on, the families were provided with some truth and justice, and it was shown that the victims were not guilty of any wrongdoing. Does he share my concern that the commission will not be able to investigate in the same way and therefore, in future, families will be denied that same right to truth and justice, however long it might take?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly powerfully and well. It is true that the information and justice that came out of that inquiry, and others, had a profound impact on the victims’ families.
We should also not forget how long those families campaigned to get the inquest in the first place, which is an essential part of it—some have campaigned and called on Ministers to deliver inquests for decades. Some of those inquests have been granted, so it would be incredibly painful for them to be cruelly snatched away now. This is a process that families have faith in, and as we well know, faith and trust in state practices in Northern Ireland is hard won.
Crucially, the cases are not separated on merit; they are in a list based on a range of practical factors, such as resource availability. Most families who are part of the five-year plan know each other and have supported each other’s efforts. It is cruel to allow some of the remaining inquests to continue, but close others based on the order in which they were due to proceed. At a time when the Government need to be reaching out to victims, such provisions only push them away.
Gareth McCord’s brother Raymond was beaten to death in 1997 by a loyalist gang. A pending inquest into Raymond’s death is one of those that might be closed by the legislation. Gareth wanted me to put on the record how that is affecting his family. He said:
“We are being punished for obeying the laws while those who murdered and maimed will be officially rewarded with an amnesty. Raymond would be 46 years old now. For nearly 25 years our family has suffered on all levels. Hearing this news that inquests are to be shut down I have no doubt will remove what kept us going.”
The Government must justify why closing existing inquests is worth the price that they are asking from victims and their families.
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to both Front Benchers—the Minister and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle)—for the manner in which they have engaged with these subjects. I will not speak for long—we have been over much of this ground—but I will cover a couple of things that I heard in the speeches of Northern Ireland MPs last week, which were very good, and a couple of points that have been made today. I will then stay again and listen to all the points of Northern Ireland MPs.
My first point is about homogeneous views and veterans and families. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned that families involved in Kenova are not interested in criminal investigations and that they just want information. He is a good man and is not misleading the Committee— I accept 100% that that is what he believes—but I have spoken to other families who are not in that position. The problem is that if we present our personal experience as a homogeneous view, we will never get anywhere in this process.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is a great friend and represents the same cohort as I do. He said that the military have deep concerns about the proposals, but in my experience, they welcome them, because they bring some conclusion. At the same time, however, he is right. I urge all hon. Members to engage in the debate conscious of the fact that none of those disparate groups, which all have different experiences of the conflict in Northern Ireland, has homogeneous views.
Johnny Mercer
Of course I will give way in a minute.
That is why this space is difficult for the Government, because there is no clearcut answer to what we are trying to do. Whatever we do, somebody with an absolutely righteous cause, who is absolutely right, will object to it. The difficulty for us as politicians is to try to act in the round. Although we all want the sort of justice that has been talked about, the net result of that is soldiers being in court cases like some of those I have sat through in the last couple of years.
Colum Eastwood
I am very grateful to the hon. Member; we are becoming good friends here now. I agree with him on the issue of homogeneous views. Of course, it is absolutely right that many families internally—within those families—have different views. I have not met too many who do not want to seek truth. I suppose the experience that we have, having dealt with so many of these cases—and the experience of Kenova, which he talks about—is that unless we properly investigate, put people under the cosh and do it properly, we are not going to get to the truth. I think in nearly every family’s experience, whether from a paramilitary organisation or the Government, truth does not come knocking at their door. It does not come willingly—it just does not happen—unless they are put under pressure. That is why removing the investigation and removing at least the possibility of criminal proceedings is also, in our strong view, removing the opportunity for many families to get any truth.
Johnny Mercer
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member, and he is right in a lot of what he says in this space around investigations. I have repeatedly stated that I would like the Government, as they have done by introducing amendments today, to continue to be receptive to changes to the Bill as it goes to the Lords. It is not only about the issue mentioned there. The issue of sentencing has also been raised by those from one of the Northern Ireland parties. I think it is absolutely critical that if people choose not to engage in this process, there is a heavier burden and a heavier penalty for not engaging in this process than there currently is, and I would urge the Minister to take that away.
I want to tackle the narrative about collusion, which is an incredibly difficult term. It is a real touchstone for the security forces, and I understand why. The reality is that a lot of these young men and women who went to serve in Northern Ireland did not choose to go to Northern Ireland; it was somewhere they went as part of their duties. While collusive behaviours have been highlighted over the years—things that have caused immense pain to families, which I totally understand—collusion, as a stand-alone term, has never been proved in court.
I will tell the Committee why this is so difficult for members of the security forces. Conflict such as this is never clearcut. We cannot have an honest two-way debate about it in public, with clear rights and clear wrongs, because it is so messy—it is so messy—and that is not the operators’ fault. The operators were young men and women making incredibly difficult decisions around incredibly complex scenarios, with lots of different factors affecting the way they made those decisions.
I am afraid—as someone who has consistently asked for the Government to do a better job of holding their own people to account in the military—that I cannot honestly stand here and allow the collusion narrative to go through without challenge, because these men and women committed everything to try to restore peace in Northern Ireland, while there were those, who have been talked about, who got up in the morning and genuinely thought it was the right thing to do, to advance their political aims, to murder women and children—to murder women and children in the name of politics.
I recognise that Northern Ireland MPs accept that, but I would gently say to them that there is a reason why people feel the narrative has got out of control. The reason is that things have been mentioned about what took place, and of course the military kept loads of records—of course it did—so it was always going to be out of balance. People such as the IRA, Gerry Adams and all the rest of it, never kept records, so of course there is going to be an imbalance.
I would just urge people to think about the young men and women who went to serve there. They never went out there with the intention of ending up on the wrong side of the law or the wrong side of history. I have always accepted that things happened in Northern Ireland that should never have happened and were not investigated correctly, and families have suffered immense pain. However, we must never let this collusion narrative run away to the detriment of the service of those brave men and women in Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood
The hon. Gentleman has forwarded the argument about collusion a number of times, and I totally agree that we need the whole picture. If I accept that, will he accept that there are now very few people left who do not agree that there were collusive practices, that collusion was a thing, and that people who were being paid by the state murdered people in Northern Ireland? That is the whole point of the Kenova investigation.
Johnny Mercer
This is an incredibly challenging place, and I will choose my words carefully. Were people who took public money involved in killings in Northern Ireland? The state undoubtedly ran agents on all sides of the conflict, but the truth is that collusion has never been proved in court. The hon. Gentleman can get frustrated with that, but that is the way the country works.
Johnny Mercer
I am not the only person left. That is the way the country works. There are other people who think that collusion existed every day. They are very loud, and they tell everybody about it every day. There is another side, a quiet side, who are getting older now, and who think, “Actually, there wasn’t collusion. We did our best in incredibly difficult circumstances, but there was no formal collusion. We did our best to bring peace to Northern Ireland.”
Colum Eastwood
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman one simple question: there are countless examples, but has he ever heard of Stakeknife? He has quoted Kenova.
Johnny Mercer
I am afraid I know the Stakeknife case intimately, which is why I said what I said at the beginning of these remarks. Obviously, I am not going to talk about individual cases, as that would be wrong. I totally understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this issue, but there is a difference in the English language between collusive behaviour and collusion proved in court. To go over that line is a disservice to those who served, but I am sure we will continue this conversation for many years to come.
There was another point about people not engaging with the information recovery body in Northern Ireland
Sammy Wilson
Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the point about balance, he and I share the view that there must be a mechanism to ensure that the history of the troubles is not rewritten, and that those who stood up against terrorism are not made the equivalent of terrorists, or have their name blackened by the imbalance of information. On disclosure of information, the Bill lists state institutions that can be instructed and given guidance by the Secretary of State about the kind of information that ought to be provided. There is no equivalent—there cannot be—on the terrorist side, and that is where the imbalance will come from.
Johnny Mercer
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but as he said, there cannot be an equivalent. So what do we do? The situation is grotesque. There are no winners here at all, but as he said, there cannot be that mechanism on the other side. All I would say to my hon. Friend—Northern Ireland Members probably do not consider me that these days, but they are my friends—is that while I totally understand why they go on to a narrative about “We must have justice for this particular murder, and that one”, which everyone agrees, they must also accept that the price of that is the experience of people such as Dennis Hutchings, who they have stood up and spoken against as well. The two things cannot co-compete in this space.
Johnny Mercer
I am happy to give way in a moment.
At some point we have to decide where the balance lies. If we constantly go over this saying, “Justice, justice, we will get there in the end”—0.1% chance, and the experience of all these veterans going to court in Northern Ireland has been an absolute joke; I am sorry to say that it has reflected very poorly on everybody in Northern Ireland. These veterans are going through the last 10 or 11 years of their life under this, and dying alone in a hotel room in Belfast. It comes at a price, and my hon. Friends have to be honest about that price and whether it is one worth paying, for the majority view, in getting at the truth and trying to understand what happened at that time, and bringing some sort of peace to the families.
Gavin Robinson
I would love to say that I am enjoying the hon. Member’s third Second Reading contribution. He knows full well—he sat on the Defence Committee, as did I—that the consequences and problems that we highlighted were repeated in investigation after investigation. The option was there for his Government to embrace the argument about what is required under article 2 of the ECHR and how the state has discharged that duty through a previous investigation, but his Government did not want to engage with that. They could have embraced that in a way that would have supported veterans and others. That is honesty. That is an honest position to hold, but his Government did not have the bottle to do it.
Johnny Mercer
I was in the Government, and I left the Government. Look, lots of discussions on legacy have taken place over the years. I sat on the same Committee as the hon. Member, and he raises a fair point, but it comes back to the same argument. This is where we are now. If the Government will accept his amendments, they will do and, if not, they will not, but if that means that we do not engage in this process—this is the last chance—that would be a huge mistake.
The last time that happened—this is the problem with what the hon. Member just said—was with the Historical Enquiries Team. I sat in a court in Belfast on the murder of Joe McCann when Soldier A and Soldier C—two soldiers, one significantly older than the other—gave evidence. One of them had a reasonable memory—the other did not—and gave a cohesive account of what happened to the Historical Enquiries Team, under the auspices that it would not be used to prosecute him, in order to bring some peace to the McCann family. Five years later, he sat in court with that evidence being used against him. That is why this process is needed.
Johnny Mercer
They were prosecuted. Soldier A and Soldier C ended up in court in Northern Ireland—I was there—and the evidence that was attempted to be submitted was from the Historical Enquiries Team.
Johnny Mercer
I will give way, because I am the only speaker on the Government side and I think that we want to have a debate. I do not want to bore anyone, though.
Gavin Robinson
The hon. Member knows that that prosecution collapsed, and rightly so. The court was hugely critical of how what was presented as new evidence had only a new cover letter on top of it—there was nothing new in the evidence—and there was a direction of no prosecution.
Johnny Mercer
That is my point: the fact that it got there and those two soldiers went through that process for nine years of their lives from 2005 to 2014. The wife of one the soldiers died during the process. That is why we need this process. A lot of this could have been done better over the years, but we are where we are.
I have a concern that people in Northern Ireland will not engage with the process and that victims and other groups will not come forward. That is a legitimate concern—I can see that campaigns will be run to try to get people not to engage. The only people who will lose out will be the families in Northern Ireland. For some time, they have been taken on journeys that, at times, were unfair on them. That is not a popular thing to repeat given the side of the argument that I come from, but some of the practices have been unfair on them.
Finally, I turn to glorification, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to listen to Opposition Front-Bench Members on that. I know that there are provisions in legislation—[Interruption.] Not about crime but specifically about the glorification of terrorism. We must be very careful that those cowards who got up in the morning to murder women and children for their political aims are given absolutely no opportunities to glorify what they did. We must double down and ensure that there is no gap in legislation where those people could take advantage of their crimes.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Will the hon. Member support the amendment on glorification this evening?
Johnny Mercer
As I understand it, conversations are ongoing about how that objective can be achieved—[Interruption.] No, it is not as simple as that. I have been a Minister and seen amendments that, on the face of it, looked like they would improve a Bill, but the reality is that certain things cannot be done because of how other legislation bumps up against them. Legislation must to be crafted in the correct way. As I understand it, Ministers are looking at that with the Opposition and they will ensure that there is no gap in the legislation that allows for terrorism to be glorified.
I have sat through all the speeches and every minute of the Bill’s passage, and I am afraid that I repeatedly hear things that are not true. We all have a responsibility to deal with this issue not as though we are speaking to our home crowd but as it actually is. If not, ultimately, the people who will lose out are families, victims and veterans. For me, they have always been at the heart of the debate, and I hope that we can continue to hold them there as we progress.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I will attempt to emulate previous speakers in trying to speak for the shortest possible period, although as I spoke for only 2 minutes and 40 seconds on day one, that might be something of a challenge given the interest in the amendments before us. Nevertheless, I will do my best.
I turn first to amendment 114 and new clause 2, which seek to prevent people from profiting from conduct for which they have been granted immunity. That seems to be, at the very least, the baseline outcome for which we should look from any such process. It is unconscionable at the best of times for people to profit in such a manner from crimes that they have committed, and particularly so when a status of immunity has been granted. On that basis, that amendment and new clause have the SNP’s support. As, indeed, does amendment 116, on keeping troubles-related inquests open.
I have been clear throughout that our preference is to allow historical inquiries to continue and for them to be properly resourced, not necessarily with any huge expectation of convictions but simply to allow a police-standard inquiry to continue and to keep hope alive. That seems to be at the heart of what many of the families of victims are seeking most from the process. Flawed though the legislation is in principle, it would be easy for it to resolve the situation of closing down not just investigations but promised investigations simply because of their order in the queue. It would be easy for the Minister to resolve that, so I hope that he will consider the amendment and incorporate that into the Bill.
I said on Second Reading that I thought the immunity process placed a pretty questionable obligation on those seeking immunity to tell the truth, and that requiring them to do so only to the best of their knowledge and belief is a considerable distance short of being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To that extent, the SNP very much supports new clause 5 to the effect that, were evidence later to come to light that someone granted immunity had failed to meet condition B in clause 18, that immunity would be revoked. I do not think that immunity, once granted, should always be forever if it was found to be achieved through someone acting in bad faith. Again, I accept that the bar for that would necessarily be high, but nevertheless that seems to be a baseline output from a Bill being driven by such principles.
I turn to new clause 4 and the aggravating factor of glorifying terrorism. I very much appreciate what it seeks to do—we would all deprecate any attempts to glorify terrorism—but I am less certain about how it might work in practice or how solid it is. However, I look forward to hearing speeches on that. We will listen carefully to the arguments.
Finally, I will briefly address some remarks to new clauses 6 and 7. New clause 6 would be a valuable addition to the Bill. I accept the Minister’s good faith on how the state would intend to open up its records, but it would place in legislation a duty of openness on the Government, not just on opening up files but on specifying those that have not been opened and giving some narrative on that. That would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill.
Colum Eastwood
I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly on judicial reviews and civil actions. I think he would agree that it is particularly egregious that the Government are seeking to close down the civil route for victims. The deadline for putting in new civil cases was the day the Bill was announced and published. For me, that was particularly difficult to take. Does he remember the example of when Michelle O’Neill, who was Deputy First Minister at the time, stopped and held up the opportunity for victims to get access to the victims’ pension? It was actually the judicial review process that got that position overturned and now, finally, victims have the opportunity to avail themselves of that. We have countless examples of where victims have used JR in civil cases to get a better result than they got from the Governments who are supposed to represent them.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. To speak to his wider point, the right of access to judicial review is a fundamental right for any individual against an overreaching Executive or Government. It is only right that that route should remain open to people, notwithstanding the Bill. To incorporate that right in the Bill would provide a very important safeguard for people. I urge the Minister to ensure it is there, so that that right is not in question at any stage after the Bill is passed.
Sammy Wilson
First of all, we understand how sensitive the whole issue of legacy is: we live with it every day in Northern Ireland. We get representations from our constituents about it and there are varying views, but the one thing the Government have to be aware of is just how much opposition there is to the proposals on the table tonight. We have tabled amendments that we believe would improve the Bill. Would they make us vote for the Bill? No, they would not. But at least they would improve the way the Bill operates for victims and how it addresses the unfairness that those who involved themselves in terrorism will now be able to walk away free.
If we look at the terms of the Bill and what victims get out of it, we can see why there is so much opposition to it. We welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on ensuring that those who were involved in sexual crimes do not use the cover of the troubles and their involvement in paramilitaries to be granted immunity, but there are other proposals that I believe are equally compelling, and the Government ought to look at them. First of all, from the victims’ point of view—this was mentioned in the last point made by the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson)—those who want to take civil actions can now no longer do so. Those were the only avenue open to many people. Indeed, in the case of the Omagh bomb and others, we saw how people were able to at least try to overcome the deficiencies in the police investigation. What is on offer for those who are victims?
Terrorists who co-operate and tell the truth, at the end of the day, after they have admitted their role, will walk away with no sentence at all—no time in jail. They are free; they are immune. Those who do not co-operate can still be subject to an investigation, but there will be no outcome at the end of it, other than if they are successfully prosecuted. Their crime will be highlighted but they will not pay any price for it.
For those who, laughingly, go into the process and tell lies, and hurt the victims more, there will be no sanction either. One amendment we have tabled will ensure, if the Government accept it, that those who knowingly lie in the process at least know there will be a sanction on them. It is a reasonable amendment, and the Government should accept it. Otherwise, there is no incentive for people to go into the process and tell the truth. The Government may well argue, “Why would you go into the process if you don’t intend to tell the truth?” The fact of the matter is that here are people who engaged in murder and terror for so many years. It may well be that simply to avoid the prosecution process, they are prepared to go in, hoping that nobody actually knows and has sufficient information to expose the lies they are telling. But if they knew there was always the chance that, having been caught in those lies, some sanction or penalty would be imposed on them, then we may well get at least some indication. They would know there was some penalty involved at the end of the day.
On the amendment on the glorification of terrorism, this is a big danger. We have seen it already with members of the IRA, some of whom are now MLAs in Northern Ireland. They committed crimes, escaped from prison with a prison officer killed and now go around boasting about it. It is how they pack people into their dinners for fundraising. They write about it in books and make money out of it. The real danger of the Bill is that once they have been granted immunity, they will be totally free to do that without any comeback at all and with no sanction imposed on them.
Johnny Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, particularly on those seeking elected office who have been convicted of horrendous crimes in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the converse problem is that we have individuals in the justice system and so on who also have interests on different sides of the argument? They get to a different position, such as a prosecutorial position, and then make a decision based on that. So the whole system has the challenge of individuals within it who hold views on different sides of the debate, and that is why the Government have to act.
Sammy Wilson
I really do not understand the logic. The Government must act to deal with the hurt that victims have been caused, not increase that hurt in the ways I have outlined in my speech so far by making it possible for those who have involved themselves in terrorist activity to walk away with no prosecution. They can lie and still walk away with no prosecution, or they can engage and walk away with no prosecution, and at the same time not even leave a civil remedy open to the victims. Furthermore, once those people have been granted immunity, the Government are allowing them to make money out of it—or worse, allowing them to encourage another generation to engage in the same activities by boasting about what they did, why they did it and the outcome: “And by the way, you can walk away at the end of this process. Here am, able to tell my story and encourage other people to think that I did a good thing, and here has been no impact on me at all.” That is why the amendment about the glorification of terrorism is so important.
There are people who never even lived through the troubles who now think that nothing wrong was done during the murder campaign. Why is that? Because they go to events where they are told, “What we did was the right thing. We are proud of it!” Furthermore, even play parks are named after those who engaged in that. The lesson for children is that the terrorist, sectarian campaign was totally legitimate.
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The prison officer who finally died as a result of the breakout from the Maze was one of my constituents. His wife still lives in my constituency, but his son is dead. The grief of such families has not in any way dissipated over those years. Yet prominent Sinn Féin MLAs and former IRA terrorists glorify those events as if they were part of a great “Roy of the Rovers” story. They were not: they involved the murder of innocent people, who gave their lives for this country. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the hurt, pain and soreness that my constituents in Strangford feel will last for all their lifetimes, until the day they die.
Sammy Wilson
The problem is that we do not know how many other Gerry Kellys are there, lurking in the background, who have not yet faced prosecution or got over the whole legal process, been sentenced and had sanctions imposed on them. Once that has happened, of course, he thinks he can go and boast about it, but there are probably a whole plethora of people within the ranks of terrorist organisations who currently fear that if they did that they would be opening themselves up to prosecution. Once they have been granted immunity, of course, they will be free to do so.
I hope that the Government will accept a number of the amendments that have been put forward. I hope that they will not allow a situation to develop in which, having been granted immunity, the terrorist can rub the victim’s face in the dirt by boasting about their actions.
I still have huge concern that the Bill has the seeds of an unbalanced narrative about the troubles. I listened to what the Minister said, but the truth is that when it comes to that narrative, the main source of information—the Bill makes clear the range of public and Government bodies that will be given directives to reveal information—does not have the equivalent on the terrorists’ side. I accept that the Minister says that police intelligence can also be revealed, but the very fact that so many people were not prosecuted and so many thousands of murders were never solved is an indication that the intelligence that the police, Army and state hold about terrorist organisations is incomplete. They are not likely to complete it, yet there will be an obligation on the state to reveal what it knows about the activities of the security forces.
That will, I believe, lead to an imbalanced report of what happened and will leave the door open for the information to be exploited by those who, as we have seen, are masters of the manipulation of public information. That is another huge flaw in the Bill, and one that I think we will live to regret.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I utterly agree with him about the narrative. What sickens me is the fact that when history records what happened—the troubles, all the murders and the terrorism—the narrative will be, in the end, “Well, the Government decided that we did nothing wrong.” That is what really worries me about the Bill. I will vote for it, but I will sup with a very long spoon.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right.
The Minister said that the Bill is not about equivalence between terrorists and those who bravely fought them in Northern Ireland, but the truth of the matter is that it is. The mechanism open to terrorists is the same as the one that those who were in the security forces have to use. There is equivalence here. No matter how the Government try to twist on this one, I believe that the Bill does a huge disservice not only to victims but to those who fought bravely and sacrificed in Northern Ireland—the very people who many Government Members have rightly sought to defend as constituents, and who have been unfairly dragged through the courts not once or twice but, in some cases, three times. Yet the mechanism open to them is the same as the one open to terrorists. That does those people a disservice.
The victims, the security forces and the people who suffered through the terrorism in Northern Ireland have all had a disservice done to them. If some of the amendments that we are debating were accepted, that at least might ameliorate some of the deficiencies, but it would not make the Bill acceptable.
Gavin Robinson
I follow on from my right hon. Friend’s point about the frailties of the Bill. We have been consistent in our position that it is a corruption of justice. For me and my colleagues, one of the most disappointing things about the process is that here we are, on day 2 of Committee, and we should be discussing the merits of amendments that try to do what is in the best interests of people who have suffered through years of conflict in Northern Ireland, but all we get from the Government is that they cannot—or will not—accept amendments; they refuse.
I heard the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) indicate his support for our new clause 3, which looks at sentencing issues, and I have heard warm support from Labour, the SNP and others around the Chamber about the merits of our amendments on glorification. Yet still there is this intransigence. We, the representatives democratically elected to come to this Chamber and make laws that actually work for the people we represent, are told that it is really not our business because the amendment might involve a write-around or bureaucracy, so we should just leave it all to the Lords.
What are we doing? What have these two days of scrutiny been for if our scrutiny amounts to nothing? It is even worse when people in the Chamber accept the very points that we are making but say, “Ah, but our hands are tied. It would be far better if Members of the House of Lords dealt with it.”
Bob Stewart
I entirely agree. Please will the Government accept the amendment that would stop the glorification of terrorism? That glorification is wrong, and we should not agree to it. I urge the Government—my own side—to accept the amendment, because it makes absolute sense.
Gavin Robinson
I am very pleased that I gave way to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have appreciated all his contributions on Northern Ireland issues over the years.
The amendments that the Committee is considering were tabled in advance of the sitting last Wednesday. Discussions about legal applicability, drafting and getting it right could easily have occurred over the weekend, exactly as they did with respect to amendment 115, but I am sorry to say that there has been a lack of willingness to engage thoughtfully and productively with the amendments that have been tabled. It is no use telling us that addressing them cannot be done tonight and will have to be done in the other place, when we have demonstrated over the weekend that it is possible. From listening to the concerns of victims in Northern Ireland and those who represent veterans’ organisations, the police and the Army, we know that there are aspects of the Bill that we can improve—and yet, try as we might, all we face is stiff Government resistance.
Johnny Mercer
If some of the amendments are accepted, will my hon. Friend be minded to vote for the Bill?
Gavin Robinson
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has listened to my contributions throughout these proceedings. We voted against the Bill on Second Reading because we believe that it is a corruption of justice. We will vote against it on Third Reading because the same corruption of justice will apply. The hon. Member represents a very bespoke view, or one-sided view, of the issues.
Gavin Robinson
It is not unfair; I think that it is absolutely appropriate. I do not say it as any criticism or to malign the hon. Gentleman. He and I take an interest in veterans’ issues: we have both served on the Select Committee on Defence, and he has been a Defence Minister and has served this country honourably.
I represent victims in my constituency. I represent people who have been blown up, bombed and maimed by their own neighbours in their own community. I represent families who walk the streets of Belfast and know that they are walking past the perpetrators who took their loved ones’ lives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that when we say that the Bill is a corruption of justice, we mean it. When we table scores and scores of amendments, we are trying to make the Bill better, but that does not make it just.
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend says that I represent one side. I have never argued for anything other than fairness in this process; it is disingenuous to claim otherwise, and he knows that. I have only ever argued for fairness—and yes, that includes veterans who did the bidding of this House for the freedoms and privileges that Members on the Opposition Benches enjoy. Yes, I want fairness, but I have never been one-sided. I ask him to think again about that.
Gavin Robinson
I listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he heard what I had to say in response. If he wants to ask me the same question again, I will give him exactly the same response. I am not impugning his character, but I hope that he can accept where we are coming from.
This corruption of justice can be made better, but that does not make it just. This corruption of justice before us tonight can be improved, but that will not unpick the ban on the coronial court system or unpick the ban on prosecutions in this country, and it will not change the fact that a victim would not be able to sue the perpetrator of their crime. That is all in the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the amendments that we have tabled can bring the Bill to a place where we can support it, he is sadly mistaken.
We have raised amendment 112 in earlier exchanges with the Minister. I understand his point about deadlines, but Operation Kenova and the Public Prosecution Service’s live cases need to proceed. If we were to have an engaged exchange, we would probably agree that the Public Prosecution Service needs to move on with its decision-making process. However, now that the Government have established Operation Kenova to look into the actions of Stakeknife—Freddie Scappaticci, the head of the IRA’s internal investigations unit and an agent of our state—and now that the Public Prosecution Service has 30, 32 or 33 live prosecutions, they need to be concluded. The amendment would allow a conclusion to that process even if the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Surely the Committee cannot be saying that through a process to look at legacy and reconciliation, we will just sweep Operation Kenova under the carpet. After all the years, all the evidence and all the engagement with victims and families, I hope we will not say that the Bill will conclude that process. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope that it will be considered in the other place, and I truly hope that the Public Prosecution Service will get on with making a decision.
Amendment 107 is about the practical, simple ability for a court that is considering a conviction to take into account the fact that somebody has been granted immunity through the process. It seems to me very simple: if someone is granted immunity, they will stand before any subsequent court for any subsequent criminal activity and the courts will think that they have a clear record. Surely that cannot be our purpose. There should be a sentencing consequence for somebody who is now a repeat offender, albeit that they have immunity—somebody who has continued to engage in criminal activity post 1998. Should the courts not have access to that information? Should it not be available for the purposes of sentencing? The amendment says that it should.
Amendment 120, to which I hope the Minister will respond comprehensively in his closing speech, is connected to new clause 4. It specifically addresses the memorialisation project. How can we have a memorialisation project and a reconciliation project if there is no preclusion of glorification? The amendment would place a duty on the designated persons compiling the memorialisation project
“to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.”
What practical opposition could the Government have to that amendment? If they want the process to work and if they want it to be about reconciliation, surely they should impose on the people they are engaging to do the work a duty to preclude glorification.
I turn to amendment 110. The Northern Ireland Office and the Government have already accepted that an innocent victim is somebody who has not been harmed by their own hand. There are perpetrators of violence in Northern Ireland who have injured themselves while trying to kill others, but who purport to be innocent victims. We have gained significant traction with this argument; when it came to the troubles-related pension, the Northern Ireland Office accepted that an innocent victim is somebody who did not harm themselves and was not culpable for their own offence. Michelle O’Neill refused to allow the administration of the pension scheme, but the Northern Ireland Office accepted that interpretation of what an innocent victim is, so why is it not being replicated in the memorialisation project? It is simple—it is a rehearsal of a policy that the Government have already agreed—yet there seems to be some intransigent reluctance to accept it.
Johnny Mercer
I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but a lot of what he says supports the view that he is his own worst enemy when it comes to getting the Government to accept his points. I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others clearly do not want any glorification of terrorism, and so forth, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) comes forward with arguments that are clearly on one side, that does not deal with the situation as it is—not as we would like it to be, but as it actually is, for example in making sure that the investigations the first time round into people such as Dennis Hutchings were correct. We have to deal with the situation as it is, not as we would want it to be for individuals.
Gavin Robinson
I say to you, Mr Evans, that I have absolutely no idea what that intervention was about, what point the hon. Member was trying to make or whether it related to what I was saying or to his earlier contribution.
Johnny Mercer
What I am saying is that my hon. Friend is outlining individual cases and is putting across his outrage that they will not be reinvestigated ad infinitum. That is the point that he is making, and it is what he has said a number of times. Have I got that wrong? He has said it a number of times. My point is that if he continues down that byway while saying that the process should have been ECHR-compliant the first time round, we end up in a situation where the UK Government have to act unilaterally.
Gavin Robinson
The point that I was making was about the definition of “innocent victims” and the memorialisation project. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making relates to what he said during his own speech. He said that you cannot on the one hand say that there needs to be justice for victims, and on the other hand say that you stand with Dennis Hutchings. He either refuses to accept or fails to grasp a point that we have discussed over a number of years. There should be no repeated investigations when the state has discharged its article 2 compliance. It is as simple as that. The reason there is an investigation, the reason the coroner’s court looks at a case again, the reason a prosecutorial service considers evidence again, is that they are being told that there is new and compelling information. There is not.
Gavin Robinson
No, I want the hon. Gentleman to listen, because he does not seem to understand the point. From 1973, when there was a change in investigations, when the military stopped investigating themselves and incidents were investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, those investigations were compliant. We asked the Government to accept that that was the basis on which we could move on in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that analysis—the one with which he agreed when he was a member of the Defence Committee—he could look at the Stormont House agreement that all the parties in Northern Ireland sat down and discussed and then accepted. So there is a second view.
Gavin Robinson
No, I will not give way at this point. When the hon. Gentleman stands up and says that there is no point in talking about what has been, and that this is all we have in front of us, I hope he genuinely recognises—and I say this not in fury but in sorrow—that this is not the way to deal effectively with the trauma of legacy and our past.
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend talks about compliance with the European convention on human rights. The critical point is that some of these specific allegations and prosecutions, which have been tested in court, came after 1973, and have been tested on the basis that those investigations were not ECHR-compliant. Conservative Members would love all of them to have been ECHR-compliant; the problem is that what my hon. Friend has just said—that from 1973 onwards they were all ECHR-compliant—has been proved in court to be untrue.
Gavin Robinson
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to heed the necessity for the House to grasp the argument and to legislate on the basis of that argument: to legislate on the basis that, when an investigation has occurred in the past and was compliant at the time, we should move on. That is why we would have been legislating. There were some who did not like that because it would apply equally across the board, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that argument as well, but the Government never grasped it.
I am grateful for what Members have said about new clause 3, and I listened carefully to what the Minister said about it in his opening speech. He will recall from Second Reading that both the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I mentioned this proposition, which concerns sentencing. Members who had the patience to listen to all our contributions will have learned that the passing of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act meant that anyone who had been convicted previously was to serve only two years in jail, and that anyone who was subsequently convicted, but convicted of a pre-1998 offence, would only ever have to serve a maximum of two years. It did not matter how many people you shot, or how many people died as a result of your explosives; you would serve no more than two years in prison.
Buried in this Bill, in schedule 11, is the provision that those two years required to be served in jail should be reduced to zero. That would mean zero for anyone prosecuted after the passage of the Bill, irrespective of whether they refused to engage in this process or honestly offered victims’ families the truth. We have been told that we need to swallow this process so that victims get the truth, yet if someone engages in this process dishonestly, or refuses to engage at all, the maximum consequence will be zero time in jail. There is no consequence for snubbing families. There is no consequence for snubbing victims. There is no consequence for lying through your teeth, or avoiding the process altogether.
If we can accept that the run of this process is that those who engage honestly and honourably could be granted immunity, surely the opposite has to be that for those who refuse to give families the answers, those who refuse to help them with reconciliation, there should be a consequence. That is why we are saying, 25 years on from the 1998 Act, that it needs to go. If someone has been offered an open door and the prospect of immunity through this process and giving the truth, surely there must be a consequence for lying or abusing the families of those who lost their lives.
We never supported the Belfast agreement for this very reason. I know that that is not a view shared unanimously by Northern Ireland representatives, and it is not something that we need to fall out about this evening, but we did not support it, while others accepted it as a price worth paying. However, 25 years on, if people are not prepared to give, through this process, truth and justice to families who need it, and to be honest about it, there must be a judicial and sentencing consequence.
Conor Burns
The last few moments have demonstrated the truth of what I have said on both days on which we have discussed these provisions: these are contested and very difficult proposals for some people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout these islands.
I just want to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier, with the Secretary of State sitting next to me on the Front Bench, and to make two very brief points. The first is this. We believe that, when the body is created, the fact that it will be led by an experienced judicial-style figure and will be complemented with a team of people who are expert in investigations makes it highly improbable that someone could come forward with a false account, because it will also have access to the vastest array of information available to any body operating in this area hitherto. However, we accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about incentivisation for people to come forward and engage with the body, which is why I gave the undertaking earlier that we would look at the question of the financial penalty for non-engagement.
As for the question of why we are simply not accepting the amendments as they stand today, I think we demonstrated over the course of last week, and over the weekend, that when we think that the intent is sincere and it meets the objectives of the Government in the Bill, and also, critically, can command the greatest possible consensus across the House, the Secretary of State and I, and the Northern Ireland Office, will engage with Government lawyers to look at that. Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the specific amendment that he is currently discussing that we are committed to going away and talking to legal teams to see where we can achieve some movement. We want to have a constructive dialogue with parties across the House to see how we can address this as the Bill progresses.
I also understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the other place, but we act as one Parliament, and the objective for the Government is to secure the right outcome wherever we may do it in the course of the Bill’s journey.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I hope he accepts the point that I made earlier—that all the amendments that I am speaking to this evening were available last Wednesday, and that the same thrust and energy that were dedicated to amendment 115 could have been engaged in respect of a number of these as well. I recognise that that has not happened, but I hope that the fact that we are not focusing on them this evening does not mean that attention has been lost on the issue of the notice requiring the provision of information. These are not the same rigorous powers that the police have. There are no powers of arrest, for example. However, there is this notice, and provision for a fine of up to £1,000 if it is not complied with. A £1,000 fine is pitiful for someone who was an active terrorist, who tried to destroy peace and democracy in Northern Ireland, who has never engaged with truth and justice and who does not want to comply with this process. They could be fined up to £1,000—it really is so inconsequential.
There are amendments that were discussed throughout last Wednesday and this evening, and I hope the Government will engage with them. I have mentioned amendment 120, which would place a duty on people involved in memorialisation to ensure that there was no glorification. New clause 4 deals with those who are granted immunity and then go on to glorify terrorism. We accept that section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 provides an offence of glorification of terrorism, but that is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment not only replicates section 1 but indicates that, if someone had previously benefited from immunity through the ICRIR process, new clause 4 would make it an aggravating feature if they had immunity and then ultimately glorified terror.
We will support Labour’s amendment 114 on this, although we do not think this should be solely confined to profit. Labour Members like to focus on profit sometimes, and their amendment is very much focused on profit from glorification. There is more to this than just making money; it is about the ruining of lives and the retraumatising of individuals in whatever guise, and profiteering could be one of those.
I shall turn now to new clause 5. Mr Evans, you will note that I did not start my contribution by saying I was not going to say very much. I can be accused of many things, but hypocrisy is not one of them. New clause 5 deals with revoking immunity, and I want to thank other Opposition leaders and Members for indicating their support for this. It would be hugely controversial and hugely damaging to the reconciliation spirit of what is proposed in the memorialisation strategy if, having assessed somebody, we gave them immunity from prosecution for their heinous crimes, only for it ultimately to be shown that they had lied throughout the process. If there is no way to revoke immunity, the whole system will collapse. There will be a crisis of confidence in the system. There needs to be a mechanism, whether through the panel during the five years it is in operation or through the Secretary of State thereafter, whereby immunity can be revoked. In the same way, when people were released on licence after 1998, licences could be revoked. It would be anathema to anyone who believes in reconciliation to allow a situation where individuals were granted immunity for their heinous crimes on the basis of a subsequently demonstrated and proven lie.
I know that others will wish to contribute on the range of amendments that we have tabled. I have highlighted just seven of them this evening. We have had engagement from the Minister specifically on new clause 3. I am grateful and welcome that. I hope that he will have something more positive to say about new clauses 4 and 5 and some of our other amendments when he sums up the debate.
Stephen Farry
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). It is not often that the Alliance party and the DUP find agreement in this Chamber, particularly in the current context, but there was certainly a lot I would concur with in his remarks. I would also concur with a lot of the interventions from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). There is an important lesson in that, which is that, despite everything else that is happening in Northern Ireland, there is at least a degree of unity across the Northern Ireland political parties in expressing significant concerns about this legislation.
Before getting to the other points I want to make, I want to start on a more positive note. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), mentioned Paul Gallagher, who was shot and partially paralysed in a loyalist gun attack in 1994. I want to put on record our congratulations to Paul Gallagher on achieving his PhD at a ceremony at the weekend, not least because his research involves legacy. He has been both living it and researching it for almost 30 years.
The first point I want to make is about the word “reconciliation”, which appears in the long title of the Bill and is referenced throughout it. Reconciliation is very much in the DNA of the Alliance party; it is what we are fundamentally about. That said, we are concerned about the way in which the term “reconciliation” has been used in the Bill. Reconciliation was a core principle of the Stormont House agreement, and the implementation and reconciliation group was set up as a separate structure that was envisaged under Stormont House. Reconciliation was taken seriously in that process.
Conor Burns
On that point, I made the point strongly earlier that, whatever we say in this House or in the other place, and whatever is written in the media, the ultimate judgment on this body and its success will be how people engage with it and how it builds trust by the work that it does and the reviews and investigation processes that it undertakes. We believe that, over time, when people see how it is functioning and delivering and see that it is robustly and soundly based, it will win that public confidence. All I ask is for the space for it to be to created and allowed to begin that work.
Stephen Farry
I will be generous in accepting what the Minister says about his intentions, but we have to be honest and say that the nature of how we got here has, in many respects, been extremely bad and flawed, which hampers that aspiration. Who knows, people may well engage with the process in due course, but at the moment there is a lot of suspicion around it and people do not feel that it will address the needs of their families.
That brings me to the wider concern around the use of the term “reconciliation” and how it could well be used to almost legitimise the process around immunity—or, as many people see it, a de facto amnesty. There is an expectation that down the line many measures in this legislation could be challenged through the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, which is not part of the European Union, as we keep saying. The key piece of case law in this respect is Marguš v. Croatia. The broader lesson I take from European law, and wider international law, on this is that there is a general tendency to move away from the concept of immunity or amnesty. It might well have been in vogue at certain times in the 1980s or ’90s, but it is certainly not in vogue in the contemporary approach to the issue of justice in conflict societies or divided societies.
If there is to be a chance of immunity getting some degree of acceptance or being seen as legitimate, it would need at the very least to meet one of two tests: the process would either have to be agreed as part of an overarching peace process or agreed subsequently by the key stakeholders and other parties in the society. Where we have a Government unilaterally imposing an outcome on Northern Ireland, it is hard to see how either of those tests could be met if we found ourselves in a legal challenge down the line.
My second broad point relates to civil cases, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. I am not going to labour this point, but I want to stress that the notion of an arbitrary cut-off is incredibly unjust, particularly when it is linked to the timing of the Bill’s First Reading. Many people simply did not have the opportunity to lodge the papers they were working on at the time. Some people were able to lodge papers and some solicitors were able to act very quickly, but others were not, which creates a hierarchy in what happens in those civil cases.
In a similar light, we have touched on the inquests themselves. These proposals go back to my dear friend the Lord Chief Justice back in 2016. The process was not fully formulated until 2019, but we now have the prospect of some cases being taken through to conclusion and others being arbitrarily dropped because they are not at a so-called advanced stage when this legislation becomes active. I think this will create a real sense of grievance among families, particularly when they have been given hope of seeing their loved one’s case go through that process.
Although the Minister referred to the ICRIR potentially providing a process that encompasses legacy inquests, the reality has to be clearly understood. The level of interrogation that will take place as the ICRIR looks towards the immunity process is nothing close to the coronial system’s interrogation of evidence. They are fundamentally different concepts, so the fear is that the interrogation will be lost.
The Minister referred to the six months, nine months or a year before the knife falls and said that people can get on with it, which belies the reality in two respects. First, there is not the resourcing to accelerate the process any faster. Obviously, we would like to see more resources, which is something the Government could deliver.
Secondly, we have to acknowledge that the Government have not always been as co-operative as perhaps they could have been—I put it as diplomatically as I can—in how these inquests were taken forward. People express frustration that the Ballymurphy inquest only reached its conclusion 50 years after the event, but there were many battles beneath the surface, particularly with the Ministry of Defence, on co-operation. Things could have happened a lot quicker. In that respect, there are still ongoing battles and disputes on full Government co-operation with these inquests. If they are genuine about accelerating the process, they should reflect on that.
Finally on inquests, beyond what has been set out by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if this Bill is passed, any inquest anywhere in these islands in relation to what happened in the past will be cut off, but there may well be circumstances in which those inquiries should take place.
The oral history, memorialisation and academic research is an important aspect of the legacy process that perhaps does not get the same attention as others, but it has always been regarded as a core element. In some respects, it could stand on its own two feet but, in practice, it is tied to what happens with the other institutions as part of the wider legacy framework.
Although I certainly trust the academics who would or could be involved in this process to do a great job, we have to recognise that a number of hurdles will be set in their path. One of those hurdles is the power of the Secretary of State to make appointments. I believe the appointments should be delegated to another body so there is no perception of political interference.
There also has to be a concern that the evidence to the ICRIR will be piecemeal. There are fears about both ends of the process. First, there is a fear that the perpetrators themselves will not be incentivised to engage with the process until the knock on their door is about to happen and they feel a self-interest to do so. A very select group of people will come forward in that respect. Secondly, which families will engage with the process? Again, it may be a very select group, so the evidence base may be piecemeal. There are also issues with the documentary evidence that comes forward and whether it will be properly opened up. There is scepticism or cynicism about how effective that will be. Again, this evidence may well be partial and piecemeal.
It is worth sticking with this process, even if it is outside the Bill. We have to learn important lessons and listen to the practitioners from Northern Ireland, such as Dr Anna Bryson from Queen’s University Belfast and others, who have expressed concern about how this has been set up.
It is my intention to support both the amendments on which the Labour party seeks to divide the Committee, and both the DUP amendments, too.
Carla Lockhart
The Government and the Committee are very aware of my party’s reasons for opposing this Bill, as so eloquently outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).
This Bill, at its core, is about injustice, evading justice and denying justice, which makes it very, very wrong. Through amendment 107, we seek to ensure that those who engage with the panel and receive immunity will, at least, have their crime considered if they are in the dock for a post-1998 offence. Surely this is a fair ask. Surely this Committee and the Government acknowledge that, by not agreeing to this amendment, they would be erasing the past from our legal process.
If a terrorist is granted immunity for carrying out a murder and commits murder again, he or she ought to be considered for sentencing by the court in the knowledge that he or she has clearly shown neither rehabilitation nor regrets for the act of taking a life. He or she should therefore be sentenced as such.
New clause 4 and amendment 120 touch on the issue of glorification, and they would be a vital addition to this Bill. We tabled these amendments with victims at the forefront of our mind and because we desire a society in which glorification of terrorism is not seen as normal, and in which those who planted bombs and killed men, women and children are not venerated as some kind of heroes.
I sometimes wonder how many Members are aware of the perverse activity of some of our elected representatives in Northern Ireland and how they regularly glorify terrorism. If the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition attended the unveiling of a memorial to three terrorists, it would be headline news and would be raised in this House—there would be a media and press outcry, and their position would be untenable—yet in Northern Ireland the leader of Sinn Féin brazenly attends events celebrating IRA activity. It is a reflection on our society and our media that such activity, in the main, goes unmentioned and, more disturbingly, goes unchallenged.
If an MP from any other party named their constituency office after a terrorist, it would be dealt with by this House, but nothing was done when the Sinn Féin Member for South Down named his constituency office after IRA terrorists.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for their work on this Bill.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) agree that not only has the Member for South Down named his constituency office after IRA members from that part of Northern Ireland—I grew up there and know many of the families who lost loved ones as a result of the South Down Provisional IRA’s activities—but, even more concerning, this House funds that constituency office named after two IRA members who committed murder on a large scale in that constituency? Does my hon. Friend also find that objectionable?
Carla Lockhart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree entirely with what he is saying. It is abhorrent that this House funds an office that is a cold house to all members of the constituency that that individual represents. Every day, it retraumatises the victims of the terrorists after whom that office is named. I raised this point in this House in an Adjournment debate and have consistently raised it with Mr Speaker and a number of Ministers, asking them to take action. I will continue to do so until we have that dealt with appropriately. If we are to educate our future generations about the futility and evils of terrorism, we need to ensure it is never sanitised and never celebrated. That is why we ask Members to accept our amendment.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Amendment 107 is, of course, about addressing whether serious offences should be excluded, for example murders that occurred after 1998. Would it not be appalling if the people who murdered two soldiers at Massereene barracks in the South Antrim constituency and seriously wounded two civilians in the same gun attack walked away free if the case ever came again before a court? Surely that is not what this Bill should be doing.
Carla Lockhart
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is well made and has been noted.
New clause 4 seeks to ensure that terrorists receiving immunity cannot proceed to laud their evil activities; it is about ensuring that the book deals do not follow, and the fundraising tours and storytelling events cannot happen. Vitally, it is about protecting victims, for whom such events cause huge hurt and distress. The terrorists gave no thought to the victims and survivors before they made them such, and the activities of terrorists and their political proxies to this day show that they still have no regard for victims and the trauma they continue to inflict upon them. This Bill would be plunged to even deeper depths of moral despondency if it were to facilitate the further glorification of terrorism by those granted immunity in this process. I hope the Government will consider whether this is an outcome they would allow in England and, when they answer that question, act accordingly to amend this Bill to eradicate this extolling of evil in Northern Ireland.
Let me touch briefly on new clause 5, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. The Bill is lacking in many areas, but it certainly lacks in the whole sphere of the revocation of immunity. It is vital that this Bill does provide for situations where new evidence emerges showing that condition B in clause 18 was not met because the terrorist has lied. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that such instances will occur, given the types of people we are dealing with. Let us not forget that for many years senior members of the IRA have denied ever being members of the IRA; the truth is very much secondary to the cause. The granting of immunity is in itself abhorrent, but just how abhorrent would it be if someone had been granted immunity on the back of a tall tale and then the appropriate mechanism was not in place to revoke that ill-gotten immunity on the back of new evidence? This must be addressed, and we ask that the Government consider it carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East covered our other amendments in his contribution, passionately setting out why we believe they can at least make the Bill more robust. I reiterate his remarks, especially on the need to cut off at the pass any idea that immunity will give terrorists a platform to revel in their deeds and inflict more pain on victims who are already hurting so much because of this Bill.
Tony Lloyd
Let me begin by saying that this is an astonishingly important Bill and this is an incredibly incompetent way for this House of Commons to deal with it: to have had two days, in which we have been unable to get into the detail of the Bill, is frankly no way to deal with legislation of this import. The Minister is making valiant attempts to move a little with the mood of the Committee, but he must realise that we have not had the opportunity to get into the level of detail that we ought to on a Bill of this import.
I establish that because, interestingly, people from every party represented from Northern Ireland have spoken, at one stage or another, strongly against what this Bill seeks to do and indeed against individual parts of the Bill. That reflects the mood not only of victims and victims’ groups—I have talked to many of those over the years—but the opinion across the piece of the north of Ireland. It is important that we establish that because one problem with that the position is that it plays into different parties’ existing concerns. We have heard DUP Members say that they see this as a get out of jail free card for those who committed acts of terrorism, and I understand why. Those from the nationalist community will see this, again, as simply another attempt to gloss over the action of the state and the collusion that took place. In that context, the real danger is that rather than being something that moves us towards reconciliation, the Bill will establishes in people the rectitude of their own views of the injustice of the situation. That is very, very dangerous.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to the nationalist community, but I am sure the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) would agree that the sense of injustice on the part of that community is not just related to the state; there are many, many victims in the nationalist community of paramilitary terrorist organisations who are also looking for justice and who join other innocent victims in regarding this legislation as very harmful to them.
Tony Lloyd
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I have spoken to many victims, from all quarters, and to hear the pain that still exists all these years on is a measure of the intensity of their grief. It is not just individual familial grief; it is about how communities are seeking to grapple with this, and that applies across the different communities. Bizarrely, there is a common bond that ties people together that goes way beyond individual families—it is societal. That is why this Bill is so inadequate and so dangerous, and that is the central issue we have to grapple with.
Let us look at some of the issues that have been raised today and pick up on the point about collusion, which touches on the role of the state. It would be seen as collusion were Operation Kenova now simply to be wiped from the face of the troubles, as the investigations under it have been so important in trying to establish truth, place it on the record and bring to prosecution those who were involved. In all quarters that would be seen as a form of state collusion. It would lead to the suspicions that already exist. We know that when Dr Michael Maguire was police ombudsman and he was looking at the investigation of what happened at Loughinisland, he discovered references on documents from the security services saying, “This is a slow waltz”; this was about slowing down the pace of investigation. All those things feed into the paranoia that collusion took place.
Then there was the Ormeau Road bombing, about which there is very little doubt. Again, the ombudsman was not provided with evidence by the PSNI; it came out through a civil case. The capacity of discovery through that court process meant that it was seen clearly that an agent of the state—I think it was Brian Nelson—provided weaponry to those who took part in those killings. The question of collusion is real. It does not go away because we skim over it through this new legislative framework.
Tony Lloyd
I will, although I am reluctant to, because the hon. Member has monopolised a lot of this debate.
Johnny Mercer
I apologise, but we have to be fair. The hon. Member is talking about collusion. If we dealt with different groups all over the world, they would all have their views about what have been termed collusive behaviours. Unless we get to a point where we actually prove stuff in court, what have we become?
Tony Lloyd
If the hon. Member had listened to me, he would know that the reference I made—the case of the Ormeau Road killings—was precisely that: a civil court process that revealed that collusion had taken place. [Interruption.] Well, it was a court process that led to the discovery; I am not sure where we go beyond that.
Ian Paisley
In the debate about the difference between murders that have occurred, and whether they have affected one section of the tribe in Northern Ireland or another section, I often remember often the words of John Hume, speaking from the Bench in front of us, when he once said that Irish Republicans killed more people in the name of Ireland and Irishness than all the other groups on our island put together. I think, whenever we get things into proportion, we see where the real killing fields were, and we should not allow any piece of legislation to distract us from getting those people to justice.
Tony Lloyd
I agree, particularly for this reason: killing is killing. We do not have a statute of limitations for murder more generally. It is hard to understand in this most brutal of backgrounds—when a whole society has been traumatised and continues to be—that we are now moving on. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I refer to the issue of collusion not because the state is any more guilty than others, but because every murder deserves the same proper and complete investigation, and we will not see that under this Bill.
I will make a couple of other points. I am seriously concerned that the new independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery simply will not have the powers of an inquest or the capacity of civil cases. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not intervening, but I think he is assuring me from a sedentary position, “Yes, it will.” Let me tell him this: if we go back nearly 20 years, the British Government—a Labour Government at the time, by the way—were taken before the European Court of Human Rights, and one of ways in which the Court concluded that our country’s actions were incompatible with article 2 of the European convention was on the inability of the process at the time to lead from investigation and inquest through to prosecution. That is a significant issue, because there is no capacity in which the new body can deliver that prosecutorial process. Therefore, in the same way we will be in default on our article 2 obligations here. That is a serious point about which we should be very worried.
Colum Eastwood
The hon. Member is making an important speech. I wonder whether he has heard that the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights has today said that the Bill
“raises serious questions about the extent to which the proposed mechanism…is compliant with ECHR standards on independent and effective investigations. The possibility to grant immunity…on a low evidentiary bar raises concerns that this could lead to impunity.”
Tony Lloyd
The only thing that I would disagree with there is “could”; the reality is that it will lead to impunity for people from many different backgrounds. This is not where we ought to be at this stage in our society.
Although I clearly support my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in amendment 116, which is a serious attempt, I wish we could recognise that the inquest process provides something valuable. The five-year inquest process that the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Declan Morgan, laid out was a very time-limited, credible process that itself was originally frustrated by the refusal to provide the finance to make it work. Had that been done, we would be massively further on than we are today. If we look across the piece at the obfuscation, and the sometimes deliberate attempts in the past to stop the justice process taking place, we can see why people are cynical.
The Minister said to us some moments ago, “Give these new processes a chance to work.” There are two problems with that. First, the real danger is that wiping away the existing mechanisms will mean that there really is no chance of getting properly to the truth that he seeks, with good intent, to create. That is why it is so fundamentally difficult to accept this legislation. Were the inquest process—the continuation of that which Declan Morgan set out in his five-year plan—to be completed, it would go a long way in taking us away from that concern. Secondly, the fact that civil cases are taken out from day one—not day one when the Bill becomes law, but day one when the Bill is published—is quite astonishing. We claim that we do not have retrospective legislation, but this comes desperately close.
I hope the Minister will think about that, because I can see he is moving in the direction of wanting to offer some concessions, whether in the Lords or elsewhere. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that even with those improvements, the Bill will still be bad legislation, and, as bad legislation, it will do nothing to move the reconciliation process further in Northern Ireland.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle).
As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have sat through countless evidence sessions and have heard evidence from victims’ groups across the communities, and what comes through above all else is a genuine desire for healing and reconciliation. People will naturally have different ideas about how we can get that, and it will be far from easy. However, there are common themes: people want justice, truth and closure. Those are the criteria against which we should measure the Bill, and, sadly, it is clear that it just does not measure up.
We have already debated how clause 18 will provide a virtually unconditional and completely irrevocable immunity for perpetrators of serious troubles-related crimes. Once immunity has been granted, any hope of justice for the victims vanishes. The review process under the ICRIR is completely inadequate and offers little hope of learning what truly happened to many victims, and much of what would be gathered would simply be the word of a murderer, who could gain immunity for the thinnest account possible. We cannot, as the Bill stands, have any confidence that this body will be fit for purpose.
Despite that, today we must now debate clauses that seek to end almost all other investigations into troubles-related crimes and force victims and their families to pin their hopes on the ICRIR as the only forum for investigation. One justification for that is that the current system of inquests and investigations is broken and offers little value, but that is simply not the case. Yes, those inquests and investigations might be imperfect. They can be slow, expensive and generally have little prospect of securing a prosecution, but there have been successes. These investigations have gathered enormous amounts of information that is of great comfort to the victims’ loved ones. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Hove, the Ballymurphy inquest demonstrates that perfectly. Joan Connolly, whose mother was wrongly declared an IRA gunwoman, spoke of
“the joy and the peace and the mixed emotions that my mummy has been declared an innocent woman.”
John Teggart, whose father was killed, said:
“We have corrected history today.”
That is the value of these inquests.
In her evidence to our Committee, Alyson Kilpatrick, chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, was clear that while there may be concerns with the current system, it is at least underpinned by the rule of law and is largely working as it should. She pointed out that most victims are getting a lot from the current system and that, if we want it to be more successful, we could better fund the existing processes and allow them to work.
Sadly, rather than helping communities heal, part 3 of the Bill will do the opposite. Let us take the case of Patrick McVeigh. Patrick was 44 when he was gunned down by the military reaction force. He was an innocent civilian who was murdered in the street by agents of the British state. His daughter, Patricia, has said that
“truth and justice mean so much to us.”
The clauses that we are debating today could end his family’s hopes of an inquest. Similarly, the Denton review, which was scheduled to be completed in 2024, could now be prevented from finishing, leaving the 127 Denton families uncertain as to whether they will ever get justice.
It is my belief that the Bill cannot be fixed. However, I shall support amendments 116, 117, and 118 as they seek to protect the valuable inquests that are already under way. Similarly, I want to voice my support for amendment 114, which seeks to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Bill from profiting from their crimes. From speaking to victims’ groups, I know that many are worried that their loved one’s killer will not only be granted immunity under the Bill, but, as we have heard, be able to write a book or exploit other ways to make a profit from someone else’s pain. Supporting amendment 114 would be a compassionate gesture from the Government, and I wholeheartedly urge them to make this concession, as they did on the issue of crimes of sexual violence.
Before I finish, I wish to register my opposition to clause 38, which, if allowed to stand, will retrospectively ban any civil action that was not begun before the First Reading of this Bill—a measure that makes a mockery of our legal system. As the human rights group Liberty has said:
“Another form of scrutiny cut off, another route to justice denied.”
I understand that the troubles are a difficult issue for any Government, and, indeed, it is an enormously difficult matter for the people of Ireland to deal with. However, although it is frustrating, it feels to me as if this Bill is the Government trying to force a conclusion with an incredibly blunt instrument. The healing process has not been prioritised as it should have been. We believe that this will only cause more hurt in the communities in Ireland, so I cannot support it.
Sadly, the Government seem intent on ripping up the rights of people in the UK—from our right to take industrial action to our right to protest, and now our human rights—and destroying the Good Friday agreement in the process.
Ministers should be ashamed that they are attempting to destroy the very backbone of the UK, and presiding over the destruction of our values and our access to truth and justice. Rather than giving families the answers that they have been waiting for for years, this Bill, in seeking to end almost all other investigations into troubles-related crimes, removes all possibility of them ever getting the full truth. Those who have unlawfully killed or committed torture will be handed immunity from prosecution in return for almost nothing. This is not a healing process. There is no justice, no accountability, and no closure for the victims of the troubles and their families.
I wish to end with the words of Alyson Kilpatrick, because they have stuck with me:
“When people say that things have been tried and failed, I struggle to see what has been tried. I see many things that have begun but not been allowed to complete”.
The Bill is being presented to us as a choice between this or nothing, but that is simply not the case. Let us work to improve the current system, or keep trying to find a better solution, because what is before us today will achieve little other than to let murderers sleep a little easier in their beds at night and ensure that their victims’ families get a little less rest.
Jim Shannon
I have spoken at some length on this matter. On the first occasion, I spoke about family members and illustrated the issues with the Bill. I have spoken in the past about those who have served alongside, and about the iniquities of a system that seems to let those who carried out the crimes get off scot-free. Tonight, I will do some of that again, but I also want to take an angle that perhaps I have not taken in the past, although I touched on it in an earlier intervention on the Minister of State. Members will know that I have spoken passionately on these matters, as all in this Chamber have done. The passion comes off the back of those we know, those who have given their lives and those who still seek justice across the Province.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am not speaking simply because I have been personally touched by the loss of loved ones and friends, although that is very important. I speak because I get phone calls to my office from serving personnel, highlighting the fact that matters are complex in Northern Ireland and extend further than many would think. Many Members have referred to the truth of the debate, but the IRA would not know the truth if it bit them on the end of their nose and hurt them. Indeed, they could not be hurt enough. The fact is that they have no morals and no understanding of the hurt they have inflicted on the people.
I have been asked to raise the question of whether this legislation extends to protecting those in the Irish Government who are accused of colluding to hide and protect murderers and bombers who sought to run and find refuge in the Republic of Ireland. I mentioned earlier that my cousin Kenneth Smyth and Daniel McCormick both served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, one as a serving member and the other as a part-timer. One was a Protestant and one was Catholic, but they were both murdered by the IRA. The people who carried out those murders ran across the border and took sanctuary there, and they were never made accountable for their crimes. You can understand, Mr Evans, why I feel quite aggrieved that this legacy Bill does not give us, as a family, the justice that we seek.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has raised the matter of collusion on a number of occasions. Last Friday, a gentleman came into my office and asked me to raise it again in the House, and I am doing so today. When we think about the Garda Siochana, the RUC inspectors who were blown up on the border and the people who murdered in Northern Ireland and then ran across the border, it becomes clear why I want justice not just for those—for example, in the IRA—who perpetrated crimes, but for those who colluded with them in the Republic of Ireland and the Garda Siochana.
Some 25 years ago this November, Raymond McCord’s son was murdered by the UVF. I represented my party, the DUP, at a cross-community group of victims—I would say it was probably a unity of victims—and we remembered that Raymond has not had justice for his son, almost 25 years on. I have not had justice for my cousin Kenneth or Daniel McCormick, 50 and a half years on.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a strong point. When he talks of people who committed crimes in Northern Ireland and fled our jurisdiction, he will know that on Wednesday amendment 98 was put before the Committee and tested by the Committee. He will also know that we said that for this legislation to allow somebody who ensured no justice for their victims to come home and retire with a level of dignity would be abhorrent. However, 271 Members of this House voted for that. What would he say to that?
Jim Shannon
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment over the amendment that he put forward. It grieves me deep in my heart when I think of those things, and I thank him for reminding us all in this House—those who are here and those who are not—of what it means.
There is an undoubted element of apparent collusion of those who were then, and possibly are now, in power. The question must be put: will the Garda Síochána and the Republic of Ireland Government be under an obligation to finally do the right thing when it comes to the victims—both Protestants and Catholics, including my cousin Kenneth and his friend Daniel McCormick—and release the information they have regarding the murders, disappearances and the alleged active role of the security forces in the Republic of Ireland in protecting and giving sanctuary to perpetrators and murderers?
Many of those people have hidden there for years. The murder of Lexie Cummings is a supreme example of that, because the person who did it ran across the border and is now an accepted politician in a certain party in the Republic of Ireland and holds a fairly high position. How does the Bill address that disgraceful element of the troubles, which people are all too quick to forget?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend is making a strong point. Of course, the UK Government cannot legislate for matters in the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic. Nevertheless, he mentions a number of incidents of a cross-border nature. Many murders occurred in the border areas and those operations were carried out on a cross-border basis. I am reminded, looking at our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches, of the incident at Narrow Water in Warrenpoint. I remember as a child sitting in my back garden and hearing the explosion at Narrow Water, because we lived not far from Warrenpoint. I remember the awful news coming through afterwards, and the failings in the Garda Síochána investigation to find, identify and prosecute the perpetrators of that horrendous act of murder against soldiers serving with Her Majesty’s forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, whatever the UK Government do on legacy—and we do object to this particular approach—it must be balanced by the Irish Government bringing forward their proposals to deal with legacy cases on their side of the border?
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am glad that that has now been put on record. In an earlier intervention on the Minister of State, I think there was some indication given that perhaps it is time that the Republic of Ireland looked at the role it had to play in legacy stuff. I’ll tell you what: there will be busy people down there looking after all the things they have been involved in, all the things they have disregarded and all the injustices they are responsible for. I look forward to that happening.
I am also minded, as others have said, of the glorification by some across Northern Ireland: the McCreesh play park in Newry is named after an IRA member and those in Gaelic Athletic Association clubs across the whole of Northern Ireland, while very few of them were involved, named their clubs after hunger strikers and IRA terrorists. Then they wonder why we get angry when we see those things happening. The issue of glorification needs to be sorted, because it will anger us all.
I mentioned in an intervention a recent piece quoting victim campaigner Kenny Donaldson in the Belfast Telegraph, but I will quote the paragraph in its totality this time. It reads:
“if immunity was granted in exchange for information, then terrorists would then be ‘emboldened to wax lyrical’ about their involvement in violence, which would be painted as ‘some form of romanticised resistance against tyranny’.”
Yes, they would glorify it—they would make it into almost a “Boy’s Own” story and make the rest of us, the normal people, sick as a dog when we think about it.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was speaking, I remembered James Ferris, who was injured in the Maze breakout and died as a result. His wife still lives in my constituency; James Ferris, his son and his family were among my constituents. Today there is just a wife left and the family are all away, but Mrs Ferris looks for the justice that was never given for the Maze breakout, and I do not see it.
At the same time, we have the glorification of what took place by certain high-level members of Sinn Féin and those who were at one time active in the IRA. I remember being made aware of something about a year ago, where ex-IRA members were going to bring themselves into a fantastic old boys’ club, where they could live and talk and have a drink and tell over the good times—their good times, when they were murdering people in these streets. Hon. Members will understand why we just get a wee bit annoyed by glorification. That is why amendments 107 and 120, put forward by our party, are so important.
I am aware of the abuse of the legal system and legal aid to rewrite the history of our Province. We need to stop the republican PR team from making it seem as though the La Mon bombing was only an atrocity because it did not kill the RUC men it was intended to kill, while the aim of killing the RUC men was legitimate, as they were evil, according to the republican IRA. Twelve innocent victims were murdered that night in La Mon.
Republicans often try to rewrite history, claiming that the Shankhill fish shop bombing was a mistake not because it took lives, but because the loyalists they had aimed at were not there—though the children, who were there every Saturday, were there whether or not the loyalists were upstairs. That cannot be excused because loyalists were bad and colluding with the army or whoever else.
The point I am trying to make, hopefully in a strong and firm way, is that those people carried out terrible atrocities against people across the whole United Kingdom, and particularly across the whole of Northern Ireland. Seeking to portray soldiers who made a difficult call and pulled the trigger as villains, and claiming that that makes it justifiable for three Scottish soldiers to be murdered in a honeytrap in north Belfast, is the aim of this relentless propaganda machine pushed by Sinn Féin, using publicly funded avenues and ably assisted by people in positions of authority. I understand that soldiers and service personnel await a knock on their door with dread as their PTSD has enabled them to block out days or weeks at a time and we pick at the scab of their healings. This needs to stop and I advocate for them, too. I understand this, and I can stand against it with my friends across the Chamber.
However, my issue is that good, honest people—my constituents in Strangford, the citizens of Belfast East, South Antrim, Lagan Valley, Upper Bann, East Antrim, North Down and everywhere else, including Foyle—want to know when justice is coming for them. They have waited their time for their investigation and are again treated as less worthy because they are not as good at PR as the shinners—as the IRA. They do not have a biased media slanted to producing documentaries based on supposition and connecting dots where there never were any, relying on the years that have passed and the deaths of witnesses to perpetrate a false narrative. They do not have the resources—my constituents and those across all of Northern Ireland—to push these cases. They have patiently waited for their time, over all these years—my family for 50 and a half years, for others longer and for others sometimes shorter—and now their time will never come, according to the Bill that we have before us tonight. That is disappointing. I speak for those people and family members among my constituents—the victims who are disregarded.
I understand probably more than most, with respect to everyone in the Chamber, the complexities of this awful predicament we are in. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber for what they are doing, but this must be got right. There are hon. and gallant Members here who have served this country—have served Northern Ireland and I appreciate that very much. I see them on both sides of the Chamber tonight. I ask Members to agree the DUP amendments. My hon. Friends the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) have taken the time to bring forward amendments—to engineer ideas to capture a way forward and not to bring forward legislation that does not help us. I would hope that tonight, by agreeing the DUP amendments, we will make the Bill better and more acceptable. I believe that we can protect service personnel without dousing the hope of victims. Let us send the Bill back for more work. Let us not put it through tonight unless the amendments that we, and other parties, have put forward can make sure that this is done in the right way. Let us get it right—not perfect, just right. Perfect is something that none of us in this Chamber are. Only one person is, probably, and that is the man up above, but nobody here. As that is the case, let us get it right, if not perfect.
Conor Burns
I thank all hon. Members from across the Chamber who have participated in this second day of the Committee.
As was said at the outset on both days, these measures are contentious and contested, but I hope that all hon. Members who spoke will agree that two reasonable people can perfectly reasonably reach opposite conclusions based on the same set of facts without each surrendering their right to be considered a reasonable person. As I said earlier, these measures are the fruits of two years’ work by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are an attempt not to draw a line or move on, because we cannot draw lines or move on from the hurt, harm and distress that have been done to people over the years of the troubles in Northern Ireland, but to try to help Northern Ireland to move towards a place where it is a society that accepts a past but does not live in a present defined by something called “the past”.
As the two days have gone on, and the Government have rightly been subject to scrutiny on the detail of the Bill, certain facts are emerging about what is in the Bill that perhaps were not as clear to Members in all parts of the Committee as when we began. The body that will be set up has the very simple aim of helping families to obtain information as soon as possible. The ICRIR will have access to more information than inquests and comparable powers to compel witnesses. It will be led by a chief commissioner of high judicial standing who will be able to preside over the findings in a manner similar to a coroner. It will conduct investigations for the purposes of providing answers for those who want them. It will provide immunity to individuals in exchange—transactionally in exchange—for providing truthful information about their role in the troubles and showing a genuine willingness to co-operate with it. We believe that that will create the incentive. It is worth saying that all the incidents that took place after 10 April 1998 will remain the investigative responsibility of the relevant police force and all potential perpetrators will remain liable for prosecution should sufficient evidence exist.
Tony Lloyd
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is trying to achieve in his amendment. If I were to lie before a court in a murder case and that was discovered later on, I would of course be brought back with the charge of perjury. Is it not possible to look at whether the same concept can apply to the ICRIR?
Conor Burns
Clause 20(2) makes very clear the obligations of the body to look at the totality of the information available to it, not solely to rely on the testimony—the account—of the individual who is appearing before it. As I just reiterated, it will be led by a judicially experienced figure. The team that that person will assemble will comprise people who are expert and professional and have had careers in investigation and information retrieval. They will be able to look at biometrics and other things as well. We therefore think it is highly unlikely that the commission could be duped by somebody who has come forward, particularly given that, as I said, there is an obligation in the Bill on institutions of the state to provide full information.
Gavin Robinson
The Minister is making a fair point, but it is not the right one for what we are considering. He is talking about the process of assessing the veracity of what is said, and neither I nor the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) are saying it would be incapable of assessing the veracity of what is put forward. We are asking him to consider the consequence for lying. Just as people lie to judicial figures in every court throughout the land, what is the consequence for lying? It is not about whether the assessment of whether they are telling the truth is right, but what is done when somebody does lie.
Conor Burns
The consequence for lying, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the first instance is that if the body determines that the account is false, the body will not grant immunity. I was referring to the amendments he has tabled to incentivise people to come forward and participate with the process, both in terms of the sentencing and the financial stuff, and I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that we have undertaken to take that away and look at it.
Conor Burns
I think we need to make some progress. We have talked about this extensively, and the Bill will move now beyond this place to the other place, and then we will have an opportunity. [Interruption.] We do not need any facetious remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). We are dealing with very serious matters indeed.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said that unless we investigate properly, we will never get to the truth. The point is that the commission will have full police powers and will be able to carry out article 2 compliant investigations. It has the power to compel witnesses. In response to something else that was said, it has the power to arrest and detain under clause 6(3). It has the right to use biometrics, but the primary purpose of these investigations will be to get information to the families.
Amendment 114 and new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) regard individuals profiting from the conduct for which they received immunity and the point around glorification. It is our view that the Terrorism Act 2006 already makes it illegal for the encouragement or glorification of terrorism, whether in the past, future or generally. Nothing in this Bill will prevent the prosecution of individuals deemed to have committed an offence under the 2006 Act, and it is incorrect to say that an individual gaining immunity through this body for a specific troubles-related event would then have immunity if they went on to commit a separate offence under the 2006 Act. It is very clear that section 1(3)(a) refers to any act that
“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts”.
That is clearly an offence under the law of the land, unaffected by the legislation before the House tonight.
We have had two days of intense scrutiny of the legislation so far. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have shown a willingness, a determination and a desire from the Front Bench to engage with parties across Northern Ireland. I accept absolutely that there are deep reservations about the Bill, but we have been clear in legislating that we will listen, and we are open to constructive ideas that improve the potential for this Bill to have a positive impact on the people of Northern Ireland. I note that there was some criticism at the beginning that we were not giving sufficient time for scrutiny in Committee, and I note that we look likely not to use the allocated time in full tonight. I thank the Committee for the courtesy and intelligence of the debates we have had.
Bob Stewart
I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. May I remind the House that actually, although we have not talked about it much, some of our soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, and who have repeatedly been dragged back to court, will sleep easier in their beds as a result of this Bill? Although I totally understand that people are really unhappy about aspects, that is one good thing about this Bill, which I fully support.
Conor Burns
My right hon. and gallant Friend makes an important point, and it might be the appropriate point on which to conclude the Committee’s examination of the Bill today. Thousands of people, like my right hon. Friend, served on the streets of Northern Ireland. They served with honour, and we express our deep gratitude to all of them and to the families of those who lost their lives. They were there on the streets of Northern Ireland, trying to uphold law and order as the IRA and others waged a vicious, evil, indefensible campaign of terrorism within Northern Ireland and within our United Kingdom. I hope that the measures in this Bill, when this body is up and running, will help the people of Northern Ireland put those dark, dark days firmly in the past and point the way to a reconciled, inclusive Northern Ireland that is focused on the future and delivering for the young people of Northern Ireland that bright, generous, optimistic, reconciled future for Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Grant of immunity: prohibition of criminal enforcement action
Amendment proposed: 114, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) But enforcement action may be taken against P to prevent P from seeking to profit from their conduct in relation to that offence (see section (Grant of immunity: criminal memoirs etc).’—(Peter Kyle.)
This paving amendment is linked to NC2 which is intended to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Act from profiting from the conduct which they received immunity for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Government manuscript new clause 1 and Government manuscript amendments 1 to 4 have been selected. They replace amendment 115 and new schedule 1, relating to sexual offences, which were agreed in Committee on Wednesday last week.
Manuscript New Clause 1
No immunity from prosecution for sexual offences
‘(1) This section applies if under section 18—
(a) a person (P) has requested the ICRIR to grant P immunity from prosecution,
(b) conditions A to C are met, and
(c) some or all of the identified possible offences are Troubles-related sexual offences.
(2) If all of the identified possible offences are Troubles-related sexual offences, the ICRIR must not grant P immunity from prosecution.
(3) Accordingly, section 18(1) and (7) to (16) do not apply.
(4) If some of the identified possible offences are Troubles-related sexual offences—
(a) the immunity requests panel must not decide under section 18(7) that P should be granted immunity from prosecution for—
(i) any identified possible offence that is a Troubles-related sexual offence, or
(ii) a description of offences that includes any Troubles-related sexual offence; and
(b) the ICRIR must not grant P immunity from prosecution for any Troubles-related sexual offences.
(5) Accordingly, section 18(7) to (13) have effect subject to subsection (4).
(6) In this section “Troubles-related sexual offence” means any Troubles-related offence that is—
(a) a sexual offence, or
(b) an inchoate offence relating to a sexual offence.
(7) For the purposes of this section “sexual offence” includes—
(a) rape;
(b) any offence committed by—
(i) sexual assault,
(ii) sexual activity, or
(iii) causing or inciting another person to engage in sexual activity;
(c) any offence relating to indecent images of children.
(8) For the purposes of this section “inchoate offence relating to a sexual
offence” includes an offence of—
(a) attempting to commit a sexual offence;
(b) conspiracy to commit a sexual offence;
(c) incitement to commit a sexual offence;
(d) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a sexual offence.
(9) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the meaning of—
(a) “sexual offence”, or
(b) “inchoate offence relating to a sexual offence”;
for the purposes of this section (including provision specifying offences which are to comprise, or to be included in, that definition).
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) are subject to negative procedure.’—(Conor Burns.)
This new clause provides that immunity from prosecution cannot be granted for sexual offences. It replaces the amendments made on day 1 of Committee of the Whole House by amendment 115 and New Schedule 1.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 2
The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Manuscript amendment made: 1, page 3, line 20, after “offences” insert
“other than Troubles-related sexual offences”.—(Conor Burns.)
This amendment reflects the exclusion of Troubles-related sexual offences from the immunity provisions by New Clause 1.
Clause 18
Immunity from prosecution
Manuscript amendments made: 2, page 17, line 7, at end leave out subsection (12A).
This amendment leaves out subsection (12A) inserted on the first day of Committee of the Whole House by amendment 115. It is replaced by New Clause 1.
Manuscript amendment 3, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) This section is subject to section (No immunity from prosecution for sexual offences).”—(Conor Burns.)
This amendment provides that clause 18 has effect subject to New Clause 1 (which provides that immunity from prosecution cannot be granted for sexual offences).
Schedule 4A
Exempt Offences
Manuscript amendment made: 4, page 66, line 26, leave out Schedule 4A.—(Conor Burns.)
This amendment leaves out the Schedule inserted on day 1 of Committee of the Whole House by New Schedule 1. It is replaced by New Clause 1.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I mirror the comments of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), in thanking our officials and all those with a role in bringing the Bill to this point. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend for his work in Committee.
This Bill will help the families of victims and the survivors of the troubles to get the answers they desperately seek, it will help Northern Ireland to look forward and it will deliver on our manifesto commitment to the veterans of our armed forces who served with such honour in Northern Ireland.
The establishment of a new independent information recovery commission capable of carrying out robust and effective investigations will provide as much information as possible to the families of victims as well as to the survivors of the troubles. Those who do not engage will remain indefinitely liable to prosecution. A major oral history initiative and memorialisation strategy will collectively remember those lost and ensure that the lessons of the past are never forgotten. It is important to understand where we come from when we make decisions about our future. I am grateful to the many stakeholders who have engaged with these proposals, and who have helped me, the Northern Ireland Office and my right hon. Friend to shape the Bill.
As has been said this afternoon, this is a difficult, complicated issue, and I recognise that it is still painful for so many. The Government have listened, and we are grateful for all the contributions made by Members of this House. I particularly recognise the heartfelt and powerful contributions that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has made throughout proceedings on the Bill. I thank all Members who have contributed with such dignity in Committee.
I hope colleagues are reassured by the commitments made from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend, and by the manuscript amendments made on Report to ensure it will not be possible for the ICRIR to grant immunity for troubles-related sexual offences. This is an example of an improvement made in Committee that the whole House is able to get behind.
As a Government, we remain open to constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, both in this House—including the Opposition and all the Northern Ireland parties—and across Northern Ireland, as we prepare for the passage of the Bill in the other place. We are resolute in our commitment to providing legislation that does all it can to deliver for those impacted by the troubles. The troubles were a painful period of our history, and they are still painful for so many in Northern Ireland. This Bill delivers a way forward and delivers on our manifesto pledge. In that spirit, I commend this Bill to the House.
Peter Kyle
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in congratulating everybody who has taken part in our debates and thanking them for their commitment to all stages of this Bill. We have had vigorous and sometimes difficult conversations, and we have heard some heartfelt explanations of how these issues have touched so many people’s lives.
However, the grinding reality is that, following Second Reading and the hours in Committee, the Bill still has no support from any Northern Ireland party, and it still has no support from any victims group in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a statutory body established as part of the Good Friday agreement, says the Bill is still unlikely to be compliant with human rights law. How can Ministers bring forward a Bill that fails stakeholders so comprehensively?
The Opposition have been responsible in trying hard to propose workable solutions. I hope Ministers will acknowledge that even when, last Wednesday, the Government could not carry the Committee of the whole House on a key amendment, we acted responsibly and worked constructively to try to solve that challenge with the workable manuscript amendments that are now part of the Bill.
Even though we have done our best to improve the Bill, we cannot agree with it as it stands on Third Reading. Our concerns are simply fundamental. The amnesty that the Bill gives to those who committed crimes during the troubles is too easy to earn. Amnesty is set above investigations, and the investigations are downgraded to reviews. Most fundamentally of all, the Bill gives more rights to people who committed crime during the troubles than it does to their victims. For those reasons, we will be opposing it on Third Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call SNP spokesperson Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, thank everyone who was involved in the passage of the Bill, both those behind the scenes, such as the Clerks and the researchers who have kept everything moving, and everyone who has contributed to the debate on the Floor of the House. I was struck by what the Minister said just now—that he hoped that the passing of the Bill would help to put the dark, dark days firmly in the past. I certainly hope that as well, but from what we have heard in the House during proceedings on the Bill, and from what we have heard from the victims and their representatives, I fear that is a forlorn hope. I certainly commend the Minister for the amendments that he did feel able to accept, but I remain of the view that this Bill is wrong in principle and cannot be amended into acceptability. Fundamentally, the Bill lacks support across Northern Ireland and it will leave many feeling that justice has been denied, without the prospect of truth coming to the fore. Although I have no doubt that the Bill was well-intentioned, I do not believe it will live up to the hopes the Minister has for it. Sadly, it did not have to be like this.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
On behalf of the DUP, I thank everyone who has taken part in our debates in Committee. As I did earlier, I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who have worked hard to hold this Bill to account, scrutinise it and table more than 20 amendments, four of which were taken to a Division. I thank them for their efforts. I echo the Secretary of State’s comments and thank my other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke powerfully, as did others on this side of the House, about the impact this Bill will have on the victims and survivors of our troubled past.
The Bill is described as the “Legacy and Reconciliation” Bill. As I said in this House when the Secretary of State first introduced the concept of the Bill, my fear is that the path to reconciliation is not made easier when we dispense with justice. I pay tribute to both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the work they have done in reaching out to victims and survivors groups. I know that that engagement has taken place, and the Secretary of State has referred to it. However, the Government will have heard a very clear message from many of those victims and survivors that they do not feel that the proposals are consistent with their desire to pursue not just truth and information, but justice.
As someone who served in the armed forces during the troubles in Northern Ireland, I have much sympathy with Conservative Members in their desire to protect the veterans of our armed forces from prosecutions that have been brought late in the day, after previous investigations have taken place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East explained, we have been active on this issue and pressed hard to ensure that where article 2-compliant investigations have taken place, there is no need to reopen those cases. He explained it very well in his exchange with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
I say to the Government that our responsibility extends way beyond veterans, many of whom are themselves victims and survivors. It extends to the entire community in Northern Ireland—a community that was left traumatised by those 30-plus years of violence. I stand with the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) in this House in representing parties in Northern Ireland that recognise that achieving reconciliation—we all want to move towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland—requires healing. My fear is that if we proceed with this process, it may get more difficult for many, although not all, victims to achieve the healing they need to move towards the reconciliation that we desire for our society. Therefore, having tabled our amendments and the Government not having accepted them, we cannot support the Bill on Third Reading.
We want to see an outcome on legacy and we recognise the Government’s desire to move the process forward, but we disagree with the proposed method and process. Although it has some merits in terms of seeking information and truth from people about whose capacity to tell the truth we may be sceptical, the Bill fundamentally falls down when it comes to justice, as the hon. Member for Belfast East said clearly. It is our strong view that a legacy process that sets aside justice will make the journey to peace and reconciliation more difficult. What we need is a process that grapples with justice, takes it head-on and seeks to deal with it in a way that commands broad support across the community in Northern Ireland.
As we have said in respect of other matters in Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement sought to introduce a new era in Northern Ireland that was based on consensus. Although I accept the criticism that has been made of all of us—that we have so far failed to take forward proposals that would bring about an outcome on legacy and put in place a process that commanded the support of people across the community—I do not believe that the consensus exists in Northern Ireland to support the measures proposed by the Government. As such, we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
Colum Eastwood
While a few MPs have had to sit through a few hours of debate about this issue, many victims have had to sit through decades of trying to comfort their loved ones after what happened to them. Only last week, we saw victims in Derry achieving a modicum of truth through the inquest process. That victim, Kathleen Thompson—a mother of six—was murdered in 1971. Those victims and families got some truth last week through the current system, as imperfect as it is.
What we are doing today is utterly shameful. It is a whitewash on a grand scale. It is an opportunity for impunity and would not be allowed to stand in any other part of the United Kingdom. It says an awful lot about the state of this state that we are quietly and coldly walking through the Lobbies to bring this about today. I, for one, will never support immunity for the soldier who murdered 12-year-old Majella O’Hare—shot her on her way to chapel. Equally, I will never support immunity for the IRA team who blew up Patsy Gillespie and killed five soldiers in the city of Derry in the early ’90s. That is what we are doing.
Somebody has to tell people what is happening. The way this Government have voted today has given a licence for impunity for what happened in our part of the world over many decades. If anybody really believes that this legislation will bring about truth or reconciliation, they are lying to themselves and to the victims out there, who are deeply, deeply disappointed and dismayed today. I will absolutely vote against Third Reading.
Stephen Farry
I join others in paying tribute to all the staff who have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes in processing this Bill.
I join my colleagues from two other parties in Northern Ireland to emphasise the simple point that the Bill does not have the support of the entire community in our region. Indeed, it does not have the support of victims’ groups themselves. Independent experts, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, have looked at the Bill and are very clear that it is not consistent with our human rights commitment and, in particular, with article 2 of the European convention on human rights.
I fear that this Bill will be a very expensive white elephant that will not be used by either victims or perpetrators, but it will make the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland that much harder. People are holding out for some sense of justice, even though achieving that is incredibly remote. We still have structures that are working, albeit in a very piecemeal manner. We can do far better than this. The process behind the Bill has been flawed, and, indeed, the Bill itself is unworkable and, in a broader sense, unamendable, and I fear that it will be counterproductive.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 5th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 July 2022 - (4 Jul 2022)
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 July 2022 - (4 Jul 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, as I rise to speak in this Second Reading, before I move to the Bill itself, I would like to put on record my thanks and gratitude to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and partners who, at this time and around the clock, are working to keep Northern Ireland safe and secure. I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the recent attacks in Northern Ireland on the rule of law, and condemn terror in all its ugly guises.
The period of what are sometimes euphemistically referred to as the Troubles in Northern Ireland has left a terrible legacy and an indelible mark on society. More than 3,500 people were killed during the Troubles, with an estimated 40,000 more maimed or injured. Families were shattered, businesses destroyed along with livelihoods, and society was torn apart by atrocities that for many of those who suffered are as vivid, raw and painful today as they were at the time they occurred. Widespread disruption, either as a result of terrorist activity or the security presence needed to counter it, was a daily fact of life. In this Government’s view, the main responsibility for this appalling legacy rests firmly with the terrorist organisations, both republican and loyalist, which between them caused some 90% of those deaths—or, more specifically, the 60% that were down to republicans and the 30% down to loyalists.
Of those groups, the Provisional IRA was the terrorist organisation responsible for more deaths than any other: approximately 1,700 people, including some 300 Catholics. That is more than the police and the Army combined—something, I suggest, that those who today think it cool to chant “Up the Ra” might wish to reflect on.
This Government are equally clear that none of the terrorist campaigns that took place in the Troubles could in any way be warranted. Terrorism was always wholly wrong. No injustice in Northern Ireland, either perceived or real, justified the taking of a single life and the violence of paramilitary groups. There was always an alternative to terrorism in the past, just as there is today. The terrorist campaigns caused untold misery and suffering, and this Government will never agree with a version of history that seeks to legitimise them, just as we will always reject any suggestion of moral equivalence between the security forces and those who carried out acts of terrorism.
Ultimately, of course, terrorism in Northern Ireland did not succeed. In our view, there are three main reasons for that: first, the sheer resilience of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland who rejected violence and would never bend the knee to terrorism; secondly, the determination of successive UK Governments of all parties that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent, which is enshrined in the 1993 Downing Street declaration and is such a key pillar of the 1998 Belfast agreement; and, thirdly, the extraordinary dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces.
More than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives during Operation Banner, the longest continuous deployment in British military history, while over 7,000 awards for bravery were made. Of course, I fully acknowledge that, at times, some might have wrongly acted outside the law and that mistakes were made, sometimes with deeply tragic consequences. We should always be prepared to admit that—I speak as one of the authors of David Cameron’s statement in June 2010 in response to the report of the Saville inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday—yet of the more than 250,000 who served, the overwhelming majority did so with exemplary professionalism, bravery and restraint, and without their efforts there would have been no peace process. So, this Government will always salute their service and their sacrifice, and we will always remember the debt of gratitude we owe them. As I said in this House in July, we will always resist a pernicious counternarrative of the Troubles that seeks to put the state at the heart of every atrocity, denigrate the record of the security forces and, as I said earlier, legitimise terrorism.
Terrorism did not succeed but the legacy of the Troubles, as I indicated at the outset, continues to cast a dark and long shadow over Northern Ireland. As we have seen all so vividly in recent years, legacy issues retain the capacity to poison and paralyse politics, divide society and, in certain circumstances, create the potential for public disorder. For all the progress we have seen over the past quarter of a century, education and public housing remain highly segregated in many areas, while so-called peace walls still loom large in a number of areas. Far too many still live with the physical suffering and mental scars of what happened, and the costs of division continue to place additional burdens on an already highly overstretched public purse.
Against this background, therefore, the Government have a responsibility to do what they can to attempt to tackle the legacy of the past. While I am the first to acknowledge that we will never agree a common narrative as to what happened, the question is whether we can find structures that will enable society as a whole in Northern Ireland to move forward.
Of course, there have been a number of attempts to do this since 1998. The last Labour Government established the commission chaired by Denis Bradley and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—who is in his place, I am pleased to say—which reported in 2009. In 2013, the Northern Ireland Executive invited the former US special envoy to Northern Ireland, Ambassador Richard Haass, and Meghan O’Sullivan to examine the issues of flags, parading and the past. In 2014 the Government reached the Stormont House agreement which, although motivated primarily by the need to address problems at the time around the Executive’s finances, contained far-reaching proposals to tackle legacy issues based on earlier initiatives.
Yet despite the best and very genuine efforts of many, over a number of years, none of these initiatives has succeeded in delivering for those directly affected by the legacy of the Troubles. I speak as someone who from 2010 to 2019 served four Secretaries of State and was intimately involved in trying to find ways forward on these issues. I participated in all 11 weeks of the talks leading to the Stormont House agreement, and then spent the subsequent four-and-a-half years in extensive and painstaking efforts to implement it—without success.
I know that some, including members of your Lordships’ House, still regard the Stormont House agreement as the best way forward. Yet as somebody who was there, it is clear to me that any broad consensus once held no longer exists, and it is easy with the benefit of hindsight to overplay the extent to which it ever did. Even in December 2014 it was not supported by all the parties, and in the months and years that followed what high-level support that had existed began to diminish as the Government and political parties sought to convert the paragraphs of that agreement into legislation.
Indeed, I recall in early 2015 Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness asking the then Secretary of State to take all the Stormont House agreement through Westminster, due to the difficulties of doing any of it via the Northern Ireland Assembly, even though most of it was technically devolved. I remember clearly in November 2015 Martin McGuinness vetoing any reference to the Stormont House legacy proposals in the fresh start agreement, such were the difficulties Sinn Féin had with them at the time.
Stormont House was eight years ago next month, and, in the absence of an agreed way forward, those affected by the Troubles continue to be left with processes that have largely evolved piecemeal and which for the vast majority will never deliver justice, information, accountability or any form of acknowledgement. That is why the Government have introduced the Bill before your Lordships’ House today.
Taking into account previous attempts to tackle legacy, the Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved when dealing with events that in some cases occurred half a century ago. It provides victims and survivors with information in a way that can provide some acknowledgement and some accountability. It has the potential to provide better outcomes both for those who suffered and those who served, and is able to help society look forward together to a more shared future, which I hope is the objective of all of us in your Lordships’ House.
The Bill seeks to do these things in the following ways. Part 1 of the Bill sets out for the purposes of this legislation the meaning of “the Troubles” and establishes its period as beginning on 1 January 1966 and finishing on 10 April 1998, the date on which the Belfast agreement was reached. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery—the ICRIR. I think the first prize in Committee will be for anybody who can come up with a snappier name. This will carry out reviews, mainly at the request of families and surviving victims, into deaths and incidents resulting in serious injuries that occurred during the Troubles.
More than two thirds of Troubles-related cases are now over 40 years old, and it is commonly accepted that the likelihood of prosecutions, regardless of resources, is extremely remote. The Government have therefore taken the view that better outcomes for families are more likely to be achieved by a process of information recovery, acknowledgement and accountability, and that is what the ICRIR will seek to provide.
The commission will be chaired by a former or serving senior judge and will be equipped with the same investigative powers as the police to carry out criminal investigations, as well as, like coroners in inquests, the power to compel witness testimony and documentary evidence from individuals. It will be able to use these powers in relation to any case to fulfil outstanding procedural obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the term “review” in the Bill is deliberately broad, the commission will be under a duty to look into all the circumstances of a death or incident, including criminal activity.
The commission will be fully operationally independent, while, for its part, the state will be under a legal requirement to disclose all relevant information to it. Written reports of the commission’s findings to the families and surviving victims who request a review will be publicly available. To encourage those who might have relevant information to share it, the commission will be able to grant immunity from prosecution, on a case-by-case basis, to an individual who acknowledges their role in a Troubles-related incident by providing an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. These accounts will be tested against information that is already in the public domain and information that is not—for example, from previous investigations and intelligence. Where an individual chooses not to engage with the commission, they will remain liable to prosecution in the normal way should the evidential test be met.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with ongoing and future proceedings within the current criminal, civil, inquest and police complaints systems. As the Bill is drafted, once it comes into force, no other body in the UK other than the commission will be able to take forward an investigation into a Troubles-related incident. Where a decision has already been taken to prosecute an existing case, this will continue. Any civil claims filed before the Bill was introduced will continue but no new cases will be allowed. Inquests that have reached an advanced stage by the time the commission becomes operational will continue; however, new inquests and those that have not reached an advanced stage will not continue but may be referred to the commission.
Part 4 of the Bill will build on proposals in the Stormont House agreement and provide for the establishment of an expert panel to devise a memorialisation strategy designed to promote reconciliation and greater understanding, as well as a major new oral history initiative.
I am the first to acknowledge that some of the proposals outlined in the Bill have met with far from universal acclamation in Northern Ireland itself. I fully appreciate that, for many, this legislation, despite some significant changes since the publication of the Command Paper in July 2021, remains deeply challenging. In being completely candid with your Lordships, I count myself among that number. I personally have found this legislation extremely challenging.
I have been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland for some 35 years, and worked in the Northern Ireland Office while the Troubles were still raging in the 1990s. Only weeks before he was murdered by the Provisional IRA in July 1990, I had lunch with the very great man, Ian Gow, in the Strangers’ Dining Room in the other place, where, with typical generosity, he offered to sponsor me for the Conservative Party candidates’ list. Indeed, one of my first jobs in politics was to take the minutes of the Conservative Back-Bench Northern Ireland Committee, of which Ian was chairman. I have probably spent more hours with victims and survivors than just about anybody outside of Northern Ireland, and have heard countless harrowing and heart-wrenching stories of suffering. So I am hardly immune to the feelings of those affected by the Troubles who find this Bill difficult and challenging.
At the same time, I am as conscious as anyone, based on experience, that we will never solve the past or bring, to use that horrible word, closure in every case. Equally, I am clear that no Government can legislate to reconcile people, though we can strive to promote it. However, we can attempt to provide better and realistic outcomes. It is because of this, and in fulfilment of a commitment I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in this House on 14 July, that, since late July, I have carried out some 25 legacy-related engagements and meetings, all but a couple in Northern Ireland itself. I have done so on the basis of being open to sensible and constructive proposals to improve the Bill—commitments I have also made individually and collectively to Members of your Lordships’ House.
As a result of my discussions, and of those between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and a number of groups within Northern Ireland, I intend to bring forward a series of proactive government amendments in Committee to address a number of concerns that have been raised. These will include amendments to underpin the Bill’s compliance with the ECHR, by making it clear that the commission will be able to carry out Article 2 and 3-compliant criminal investigations in cases where it judges them to be appropriate. We will strengthen the commission’s independence by making clear that the Secretary of State should consult named individuals before appointing the chief commissioner.
To make the information recovery process and the provisions around immunity more robust, we will create an offence for those who choose willingly to mislead the commission and give the commission the power to revoke immunity where individuals have been found subsequently to do so. We will disapply the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for individuals who choose not to tell the commission what they know and are subsequently convicted of an offence, so that they face a full rather than a reduced sentence, as well as increasing the fine for non-compliance with the commission.
I wish to work with noble Lords across this House to enable us to fulfil our important constitutional role as a revising Chamber and make further improvements to the Bill where possible as it proceeds. That is my commitment, and that of a Government who are prepared to listen. On that basis, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At the end to insert “but that this House regrets that the provisions contained in the bill do not command the confidence or support of groups and organisations representing the interests of victims and survivors of the Troubles, of Northern Ireland elected representatives, or of the wider community, including communities across the United Kingdom affected by the bill.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, to be helpful, I intend to speak to the Bill and my amendment at the same time rather than have two debates, and I do not intend to move to a Division on my amendment. I apologise to the House; I will have to leave the Chamber; the previous business started slightly later than anticipated and I have another engagement, but I will be back as soon as I can.
I am grateful to the Minister. Like other noble Lords, I am trying to register the late announcement of some possible changes to the Bill by the Government, but in the last Queen’s Speech the Government committed to bringing forward legislation to address the legacy of the past. They said then that that would provide better outcomes for victims, survivors and their families, giving veterans the protection that they deserve and focusing on information recovery and reconciliation. As the Minister indicated in his speech today, we all know that these issues are complex, sensitive and deeply emotional.
Your Lordships’ House is as one in condemning terrorism from whatever quarter, and we concur with the noble Lord on that. As a party we are proud of the role that we played in securing the Good Friday agreement. But in the 30-plus years before that agreement, the euphemistically named Troubles—which I always find an uncomfortable term—saw more than 3,500 people lose their lives, with thousands more injured and maimed. No community was immune. The scars on physical and mental health remain evident throughout Northern Ireland and beyond, as this impacted on communities outside Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that this week is the anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings, when 21 people were killed, 182 were injured, and six men wrongly convicted of those bombings served 16 years in prison before their convictions were quashed —so much suffering.
When I spoke in the Queen’s Speech debate in May, I made specific appeal to the Government about this legislation. It is not possible as Leader of the Opposition when speaking in the Queen’s Speech debate to refer to all proposed Bills, but I declared a particular interest in this one, as a former Northern Ireland Victims Minister, succeeding my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, and appointed by my noble friend Lord Murphy, who was then the Secretary of State.
I said then of the legislation:
“I appeal to the Government: please understand that this needs support from the widest possible coalition.”—[Official Report, 10/5/22; col. 13.]
It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment in my name today. The Bill as it currently stands does not have the support of the widest possible coalition. In fact, it is opposed by the widest possible coalition. That is quite an achievement; I think this is the only issue on which the Government have been able to unite every single political party in Northern Ireland, but it is deeply unfortunate that they have all been united against the Bill. The Government recognised the need for wider consensus in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, even going so far as to say that any UK Parliament legislation must have the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would be interested to know whether that commitment still stands.
So many of those affected by this Bill have come together to share with us their reasons for opposition, and how they would be impacted. I am sure they have listened to the noble Lord’s words very carefully. Noble lords may have seen an article in today’s Daily Telegraph, regarding a letter to the Prime Minister from Andy and Martha Seaman and Michael O’Hare. As a bereaved military family, and a victim of the Armed Forces, they have come together to express their concerns about the Bill, and in their letter say that it is not too late to do the right thing and scrap it.
I understand that that must be deeply disappointing to Ministers, but it was clear when this was debated in the other place that the consultation and the engagement with those affected was inadequate. I listened to what the noble Lord said about the additional meetings he has had since that time, and look forward to hearing more about those as the Bill progresses through Committee.
My noble friend Lord Murphy and I are grateful for the meetings we had with the Secretary of State and the Minister, who even though he had to join via Zoom, was nonetheless engaged. At that meeting, we asked that the Bill be withdrawn for further consultation and engagement. They were not willing to do that, but both said they were open to significant amendments, and that the Bill was now paused.
I am grateful for what the Minister said at the end of his speech, but I am disappointed that, since that meeting, we have had no response on what steps Ministers were willing to take. It would have been helpful to have had some response prior to this debate, to get a sense of what the Government intend. We want to work with the Government only on something that is workable. It would have been helpful had there been some engagement with those of us participating today—a briefing, a letter or something—and I regret that has not happened.
The Secretary of State has already said that he is open to significant changes. It would be helpful to know from the Minister whether the changes he has outlined, which we will take time to reflect on, are the limit of what the Government are looking at—he is indicating that that is not the case—or whether they would be prepared to listen to other suggestions as well. We have already been approached about the scheduling of the Bill, and it seems that the Government are going at some pace, with Committee indicated to be during the train strike week, which may not be the best arrangement.
Seeking to pass legislation that has no support from the political parties in Northern Ireland, or any party here apart from the governing party, is not the best way to deal with this issue. I am not going to suggest to the Minister that this is easy, nor that it should be put in the ‘too difficult’ box and only paid lip service to. I commend the Minister; we know of his personal commitment and he indicated, very honestly I thought, how difficult this Bill is for him, and we appreciate that there have been so many attempts to address this over many years. I pay huge tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and to the late, great Denis Bradley, who I thought were both courageous and powerful in the work they undertook. That report still stands the test of time, thanks to the effort, commitment and care that went into it.
In the Stormont House agreement, dealing with legacy issues was a key part of several rounds of talks between the then British government, the Irish Government and the political parties. The Minister seemed to dismiss that at the time, but the overarching principles of that agreement still stand as being some way to look to this issue:
“promoting reconciliation … upholding the rule of law … acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors … facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery … is human rights compliant; and is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.”
It is hard to see why those principles should not underline anything when looking forward.
The Government said in response to their consultation that
“new ways to address the legacy of the past will only succeed if the institutions can command broad support and trust from the community.”
At that time, they said that they remain
“fully committed to the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and it is essential that our work continues.”
Is the Minister saying that the Government are not now committed to the principles of the Stormont House agreement? I was unclear from his comments. It seemed he was saying that the Government do not now respect those principles and it is hard to see how this legislation fits in with them.
I will underline some specific areas of concern. Some of what the Minister said addresses some of these issues, but I am not 100% certain. First, on Clause 18 —the immunity test—in the Government’s response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the NIO said:
“Immunity must be granted where certain conditions are met, including that the person has provided a truthful account of their involvement in the death or incident resulting in serious injury.”
Those “certain conditions” are very limited, at present, to just two: one is an offence for which there could be a criminal investigation or prosecution, and the second that immunity is asked for. I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s comments and he seemed to be proposing something to address the issue of someone not telling the truth. He did not seem to be making a change to the conditions or to the fact that immunity had to be granted, but he might be able to respond on that in his wind-up.
I agree with the Minister about the less than snappy title of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
From my time as Victims Minister, I concur with the noble Lord’s comments: there were times when the emotions really cut through and I have very vivid memories of some discussions and conversations I had. So often, I heard that families and survivors want to know the truth. Truth can be painful and difficult, as noble Lords in the Chamber recognise, but, for many, that process of investigation was essential to fully understand what had happened.
It was not flagged up previously that the Bill has made a fundamental change from investigation to review. Can the Minister say if this implies a far less rigorous process of understanding? That is one of the great concerns that people have. Alongside those measures is a proposal to, in effect, cut off civil cases and inquests, which adds to families’ suspicion that it will be much harder to obtain the information that ensures that the truth is heard.
I am glad the Minister said something about the ECHR, because just saying that the Bill is compliant does not make it compliant. I think he implied that he will bring forward measures to ensure that it is compliant, and I am sure he will work with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to ensure that that is the case, because it said it is “gravely concerned” about the current draft.
As the Bill progresses, we will hear more of the detail, but we may need to look at the depth and breadth of where the opposition comes from and how it can be addressed. From my time in Northern Ireland, I was struck, when talking to those who lived through that period, by how the pain and memories do not just fade away, over time. Many still experience what I might describe as the aftershocks from what happened to them, their loved ones, friends, co-workers, neighbours and the community as a whole. As those of us who attended some briefings for victims in your Lordships’ House were told, so often that damage is passed on to and through future generations. That means that all sides have to acknowledge and be accountable for their actions.
When Brandon Lewis spoke at the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, he was passionate about the protection of veterans from the RUC, the Armed Forces and the Security Service. So many served with honour, courage and great distinction. Hundreds lost their lives.
A particularly sharp memory I have is from meeting a group of RUC widows. While impressed by their dignity, I was shocked by how little support they felt they had and how difficult their lives and their families’ lives had been. The acts of terrorism, the killings, reached into every corner of Northern Ireland and beyond its shores: from those RUC widows to the families of those killed at Ballymurphy—it was not until the coroner’s report 50 years later that their killings were officially found to be “without justification”—from organised attacks of terrorism to random acts of violence, and from the accounts of great courage to those who lived in fear, and the trauma of the families of the disappeared, it is not hard to understand why a legacy of pain, hurt and mistrust remains.
I fully understand the frustration of Ministers who feel that they have created a way forward, only to find that they have not taken people with them and that few agree. Passing the Bill without significant amendment might create a structure that will establish the new commission, but unless it has the understanding and support of those who have a direct interest, it will not make any difference. The tragedy is then that the legacy of the past will linger on.
We want to play our part in addressing the issue—to reflect and hear more about the proposed amendments the Minister has suggested today and discuss them with him. But until those very real concerns raised are taken on board and addressed in legislation, and until there is real work with those impacted, any legislation will just be words on a page. I beg to move.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the Minister about the recent escalation of tensions and the attempted murder of two police officers in County Tyrone last Thursday. There is never any place for violence or terror in resolving the issues of the past. The current increase in tension, however, does demonstrate the fragility of the peace achieved since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, nearly 25 years ago. It also serves to remind us that this is a process that requires constant care and attention: it is not something that can, or ever should, be taken for granted. The process of reconciliation and dealing with the legacy of the past is not something that can be achieved through legislation alone. It is vital to allow people to feel that the events of the past are recognised and acknowledged. We need to acknowledge that the time available for this to happen is becoming short.
As Ian Jeffers, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, put it so aptly in a letter to the Telegraph earlier this week:
“As a civilised, just society we owe it to victims, survivors and their families to support them and find a shared way that we can address the legacy of our past.”
That brings me to the Bill we are debating this afternoon. I welcome the Minister’s tone and approach in his Second Reading speech. It was a very personal speech—indeed, an emotional speech—and that is to be welcomed. The Minister knows that so many people feel uncomfortable about—indeed, strongly oppose—several of the key elements in the Bill. Some have suggested that its very title is wrong, as it achieves so little in terms of bringing about reconciliation.
In the conversations that I—and I am sure many other noble Lords—have had with victims and their families, it is the removal of the hope of seeing justice that the Bill represents that has been so devastating to so many of them. There are many points I could make about the Bill, but I shall limit myself to five key areas where I believe that substantial amendments should be made.
The first, of course, is compliance with Article 2 of the ECHR. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights states in its summary:
“Our concerns reflect a view that despite the good intent, the operation of the bill as drafted would come into conflict with the government’s legal obligations and as such, risk frustrating the intended objectives.
We have serious doubts that this Bill as drafted is compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
I very much share the assessment of the JCHR that the conditional immunity scheme is likely to breach the UK’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3. We urge the Government to remove Clause 18 from the Bill, or at least significantly amend it. I am sure we shall return to these issues in much greater depth in Committee but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his concluding remarks, say a little more about how the Government intend to amend the Bill in Committee to ensure that it is Article 2-compliant.
A second substantial area of concern is that of the clear lack of consent for this Bill, as currently drafted, by key stakeholders. The parties in Northern Ireland, the victims groups, some of the victims, human rights organisations as well as wider society in Northern Ireland have all expressed very grave concerns about the Bill. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, has stated that the has stated the “strength of opposition” risks undermining the Bill’s stated aims of dealing with the past and promoting reconciliation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also said, there has also been a general lack of consultation with key stakeholders prior to the drafting of the Bill. Given the complexities of these issues, this is precisely the kind of legislation that would have benefited from some form of pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps particularly at a time when, tragically, there remains no functioning Assembly or Executive in Northern Ireland.
I know that the Minister has had many recent meetings with victims and other groups. Again, I am grateful for his reporting on that. He is very aware of their concerns about the Bill, so would he agree that continuing with it unamended because of a Conservative Party manifesto commitment would be unhelpful at this time of heightened tensions in Northern Ireland?
A third area of concern, which has also been highlighted by the Constitution Committee, is the very substantial increase in regulating powers that the Bill grants to the Secretary of State, and the subsequent concerns that this will have regarding the genuine independence of the ICRIR.
A fourth area of concern is something that the Minister touched on, which is the use of language. Throughout the Bill, the terms “review” and “investigation” are used interchangeably. These two terms have a distinctly different impact on the legal process. It is welcome that he has indicated that he will consider bringing forward amendments in this regard but, again, I would like a little more information on that if possible in his concluding remarks.
Finally and most importantly, the fifth area of serious concern is that, although the Bill claims to be victim focused, it is clear that this is very far from the case. In particular, the closing down of civil cases and inquests, as proposed by the Bill, has caused huge concern and upset to the victims. The victims I have spoken to all say that what they want is the truth and justice, through information and acknowledgement. What they do not want is the removal of that hope.
I therefore ask the Minister, who, with all of his experience, understands the complexity of the situation so well—I believe that he is someone who listens and will stick to his word of speaking to us all and moving forward together on amendments—to take on board the strength of feeling that he will hear on behalf of the victims and their families in the debate. They have already waited so long already. Surely the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is the time to give them back that hope.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully support the last two speeches from the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I rise with a certain degree of concern that I have no experience of Northern Ireland; many of my colleagues on the Cross Benches will speak on these issues. I do, though, have some experience of terrorism and terrorism offences in England.
Although I deeply sympathise with the Minister’s personal position—who can avoid being sympathetic with him?—and I share everything he said about the courage, dedication, commitment and the years of service we have received from the security forces, I am just a little worried that we do not fully appreciate what the Bill actually amounts to. We are being asked to legislate that men and women who are guilty of murder should be exempted from prosecution. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, they will literally be getting away, or will have got away, with murder. They will have got away with some of the most deliberate and cold-blooded killings that we have known in this country.
We cannot avoid that that is the consequence of this Bill. Before we enact it, we really need to know whether we are prepared to create an environment in which laws that betray the families of the victims, the victims themselves and society’s desire for peace and abhorrence of killings, among others, should be ignored.
The Title of the Bill is very misleading. I will not identify every word that is misleading, but the Title contains “Northern Ireland Troubles”, the Explanatory Notes say,
“prepared by the Northern Ireland Office”,
and Clause 1 is
“related to Northern Ireland affairs”.
It would be unacceptable anyway if it was so limited, but I have read it and I think this is a correct analysis: it applies to troubles associated with the Troubles in Northern Ireland that manifested themselves in this country.
That means, for instance, the IRA’s attempt to blow up the British Cabinet, in which many received catastrophic injuries and many died. If fresh evidence emerged demonstrating that two people who had not previously been suspected were involved in that dreadful offence, the Bill would apply to them. The Bill, and the exemption from prosecution if they went through the processes, would mean that they would not be prosecuted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the Birmingham case and the number of casualties there. If further evidence emerged demonstrating that A and B, or Z and Y, were involved in those killings, is it really right that through this Bill we should provide a means by which, although there is a very good case against them, they too should escape prosecution? These are the issues with which we are dealing.
However much we address the issue in general terms about the necessity of eventually achieving a peaceful outcome and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, these offences matter greatly to people here in England. I have one question for the Minister, apart from all the other questions that have been asked. How will this new commission, which is what I shall call it for today’s purposes, investigate offences committed in England or Wales?
Beyond the difficulties of the Bill, there is a certain illogicality that troubles me too. It applies to murder but not rape or a serious sexual offence. Rape is a foul crime—so is murder. Let us take an example. I do not know whether this ever happened, but it might have. A man decides to rape the daughter of a member of Sinn Féin as an act of revenge to counter some murderous Sinn Féin atrocity. The rape is associated with the Troubles. He could be prosecuted for the rape—the exemption provisions would not apply—but the Sinn Féin people responsible for the atrocity would be able to seek the exemption. To take the example a little further, if having raped this unfortunate girl the man then used a knife to kill her, we could have the absurd situation arising in which he could be prosecuted for the rape but seek exemption for the murder. If that is what the Bill means, there is an absurdity about it that has to be recognised. I am not offering a solution to it; I am simply pointing out the logical problem with some parts of the Bill.
I am also concerned that we are allowing ourselves to put overmuch emphasis on the length of time that this all goes back. Not very long ago it was proposed, and enacted by this Parliament, that any of those who served in Nazi concentration camps who could be proved to have been involved in those horrors could be prosecuted here. We saw men in their late 80s and early 90s being tried. There is no limitation position in our criminal justice system. Of course, there are safeguards for those who are charged with offences committed long ago. There is an abuse of process argument that the defendant is too old even to comprehend what is going on, or that there would be witnesses who have died. All that is a well-understood part of our criminal justice system.
To the extent that this legislation is concerned with those who served in Northern Ireland as part of the security forces who are alleged to have committed violent offences of their own, juries perfectly well understand that in the heat of battle, as for some of them it must have seemed, there is no time for detached reflection. Mistakes are made and things are done that are not intended. You can rely on a jury to try to appreciate this—they usually do, and they would be very sympathetic with a young man faced with some of the problems that faced some of our young men in Northern Ireland—and to return a true verdict according to the evidence.
We need to understand what the Bill actually proposes. That may be fine, and Parliament may decide that it will enact the Bill, but it must do so knowing what it will be enacting.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I start by remembering the thousands of innocent victims of terrorism who died or were injured in the decades of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—ordinary people going about their everyday lives who were cut down by terrible violence—the families and loved ones left behind to grieve and the survivors left with life-changing injuries. We should not forget the heroic efforts and sacrifice, as have been mentioned, of the tens of thousands of people in the security forces without whom many more innocent people would have died at the hands of terrorists. Hundreds of police officers and soldiers laid down their lives in serving the cause of peace and security.
Just recently the Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O’Neill, in remarks that have sickened victims and all right-thinking people, stated that there had been no alternative to all this wanton carnage and bloodshed. Terrorism was never justified. There was always an alternative to murder and the destruction of the livelihoods, hopes and dreams of generations of people in Northern Ireland, no matter who they were or what background they came from.
One would think that in speaking of victims today there would be at least a degree of reflection or self-examination on the part of those who spoke for terrorists during the Troubles and who now apologise for them even 25 years later, but no. Virtually every day we are subjected to the glorification of violence and the eulogising of terrorist murderers by leading Sinn Féin figures. This is happening in 2022, 25 years after the Belfast agreement, not in 1972. Fifty years on and still the innocent victims are being traumatised.
There are many valid criticisms that can be made of this deeply flawed Bill. Many of the innocent victims of terrorism whom I have spoken about feel deeply aggrieved, and understandably so, but their anguish is compounded by the sight of these apologists for terrorism pretending to defend victims’ rights in their attacks on the Bill. The victim-makers who slaughtered thousands of people over 30 years are busy whitewashing their own crimes, selectively singling out certain crimes for condemnation while celebrating their own violence. They have actively encouraged the now toxic atmosphere where many nationalists feel it is okay to chant “Up the Ra”, even in the face of IRA victims. These people do not speak for victims.
The criticism of the legislation which we have heard here today and from outside the House is widespread. This is not the first piece of legislation which has done victims a grave injustice. They have already had to endure seeing people who were convicted of some of the most brutal and heinous crimes given early release after serving only two years in jail. That was and remains a terrible injustice for many victims. It was, of course, opposed by some of us at the time but many in the other place and in your Lordships’ House who now vehemently oppose this piece of legislation vigorously backed that injustice. In my view, many of those people who were released after two years literally got away with murder.
A previous Government secretly handed out letters of comfort to IRA terrorists on the run. It is estimated that about 300 such letters were given out. One was famously used by John Downey to escape prosecution. There would be no harm if this Bill included a provision that these letters could not be used to evade future prosecution. We are assured that this is the case, but a specific provision to make it absolutely clear and certain would be helpful to victims. Some 365 royal pardons have been handed out over the years to people convicted of terrorist-related offences. It would be good to know exactly who received these letters of comfort and the royal pardons. In his reply, maybe the Minister can agree to furnish us with all the details. The 2006 definition of a victim is widely felt by innocent victims to be defective in including the perpetrators of violence. A move to bring forward a proper, up-to-date definition would be helpful to victims.
We have heard the concerns of the Irish Government about the Bill. For decades, they allowed their territory to be a safe haven for IRA terrorists who crossed the border. If there had only been the same desire over the years to put victims first and at the centre of our concerns, both here and in the Irish Republic, perhaps we would not find ourselves in this place, facing this piece of legislation. The cause of justice should never be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. No matter how difficult or challenging the situation, people should have the right to expect that, if there is evidence, all possible avenues of investigation will be explored.
I fully accept the argument about the current one-sided nature of the approach to legacy. People are tired of it. Soldiers and police are being harried and harassed into court. It is coupled with an industrial-scale propaganda effort to besmirch and denigrate the Army, the UDR, the RUC and the PSNI. We have had large, costly inquiries into Bloody Sunday and many others against the state. There has been no inquiry into the Enniskillen and Teebane atrocities, La Mon or Narrow Water or into the role of leading republican politicians in terrorist acts.
The approach taken by this Bill is wrong and an affront to justice. It would extinguish the flame of justice for countless families. It would draw a moral equivalence between terrorists intent on bloodshed and those who served our communities with dedication and professionalism. The way to address legitimate concerns about vexatious investigations against veterans who served in Northern Ireland is not simply to impose a wholesale restriction on historical investigations or prosecutions. It is to restore balance, ensure that investigative activity is proportionate and bring an end to the growing culture of politically motivated actions against those who served in uniform. Closing down routes to justice arbitrarily would not be tolerated for hate crimes or gang crimes in Great Britain. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, it has not been tolerated in relation to war criminals. It should not be deemed acceptable in relation to victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom.
As we consider this legislation going forward in your Lordships’ House, changes need to be made to tackle some of the worst excesses of the Bill. It has to be said that even if accepted, those changes will fall short of making its overriding aims justifiable or honourable.
I welcome what the Minister has said today about his willingness to be open to considering some changes, and about there being no incentive in the Bill as drafted for perpetrators to come forward or any material consequences for their failing to engage. In fact, the Bill incentivises not engaging. Under the current arrangements, people can be convicted and serve two years, but under the Bill, if a person stays quiet and does not co-operate, under Schedule 11 there will be no possibility or prospect of any kind of prison, whether they engage in the process, seek immunity, tell the truth or do nothing. I welcome what the Minister said about looking at that again, and I look forward to examining the detail.
We need to look at the issue of people who have evaded prosecution in this jurisdiction and fled elsewhere. For them to be eligible for immunity under the framework of the Bill is perverse. It would encourage offenders to return to Northern Ireland to live out their final days, in close proximity to those they terrorised, because there is no stipulation that anyone previously subject to a warrant, arrest or charge and who subsequently fled Northern Ireland would be prohibited from claiming immunity.
There are a significant number of active PPS files under threat from the sunset clause on criminal enforcement proposed by the Bill. This has undermined previous decisions by the Government to establish far-reaching investigations into Troubles-related activity, including Operation Kenova. Those files need to be processed and should be allowed to take their course.
There needs to be something to deal with the glorification of terrorism. As I mentioned earlier, right across the entire community in Northern Ireland people are tired of and sickened by the continuing glorification of violence by Sinn Féin. I know that the victims’ commissioner has raised this with the Government and pointed out the great hurt felt by many who served in the security forces, and by innocent victims. There needs to be something that deals with this open and public display of glorification, the commemoration of murder, in Northern Ireland in the 21st century. To expect people to continue to put up with this, given that we are now almost 25 years on from the Belfast agreement, is something the Government have to address. I welcome what the Minister said about a mechanism for revoking immunity where individuals are proven later to have lied or not co-operated properly with the commission.
There are many issues here, and I am sure that we will go into many more of them in detail in Committee—the definition of a Troubles-related offence, the investigation review and so on. However, the fundamental point is that innocent victims must continue to have hope and the prospect of justice. That is all they seek, and it would be wrong for this House, and Parliament, to take that away from them.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn. I remember well that I was with him on the night when the IRA attempted to assassinate him. He was visiting his sick son, who is no longer with us, in hospital. I think of that night, and I know that the whole House will join me in appreciating the full force of his analysis and the sentiments he just expressed.
I also express appreciation for the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Caine, and for the longevity of his commitment to and interest in these matters. How appreciated it is that in these times, the Minister still uses the word “terrorist”, because it is not present throughout all the discourse on this subject in this era, including in the media, including the BBC. That goes to the heart of my remarks today.
In this context, I welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, also used the T-word—terrorists. Again, it seems important that we retain some moral boundaries, because they are not always visible in discussion of these matters, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I support the principle of the Bill, not least because of the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment in the last general election. I will particularly focus my remarks on Part 4, the section on “Memorialising the Troubles”. In May this year, when the Bill was introduced in the Commons under the then Secretary of State, he stated that it would launch
“A major new oral history initiative”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 185.]
It was hailed as one of the most “ambitious and comprehensive” approaches to oral history that has ever been attempted in such situations. It sought to draw on “international models” and concentrate on collating “lived experiences and testimony” and setting them within the appropriate historical context. Putting that into effect, Part 4, on “Memorialising the Troubles”, is designed to provide a pathway for societal healing and perhaps even, we hope, reconciliation. But, as we all know, in the context of Northern Ireland, the Troubles are being refought the whole time through the rewriting of history.
Commendable as the proposals for an oral history are—like many others, I welcome that this history will be guided by international best practice—it is possible that it will also be politicised and enrolled in an ongoing effort to retell the history of the Troubles from an anti-state perspective. I note that the Bill and Explanatory Notes state that one of the purposes here is to ensure that groups that have not had a sufficient voice in telling their history of the Troubles have a greater say. It is a great irony that the British state has been one of the most disfranchised groups. Perhaps it has disfranchised itself in this respect, in terms of an official history, but I will go on to say more about that later.
Thus, history is one of those battlegrounds that are often described as the fulcrum of culture wars and the politics of identity. This has of course been prominent in Northern Ireland for many decades, including during the Troubles, but it has come increasingly to the fore, as other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have noted. This may have been referred to in another place, but the notable recent poll by LucidTalk stated that 65% of those from the republican nationalist community now believe that
“violent resistance to British rule during the Troubles”
was the only option, with a mere 25% disagreeing. This is of course utterly at variance with where that nationalist community was for much of the Troubles, hence the fact that Sinn Féin did not become the majority party within the nationalist community until 2003. A precedent is the sad and unfortunate recent episode of the Irish women’s football team making pro-IRA chants.
All of these developments in historical narratives will make the task of restoring the institutions in Northern Ireland harder, as an ever more rancid grievance culture comes to the fore. As I say, the mistelling of history is damaging to communal relations, making reconciliation and the building of social solidarity harder. The promotion of these relentless historical grievances continues to embitter the communal mood and makes the restoration of those institutions harder.
In particular, I draw attention to Part 4, particularly the bits that have been criticised for being governed by the Secretary of State, for it gives a central role to the United Kingdom research and innovation councils, specifically the Economic and Social Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Research cited previously by Dr Cillian McGrattan of Ulster University demonstrates how funding from these councils has
“fostered and supported an effective monopoly in Northern Ireland as regards the policy area of dealing with the past for many years.”
The funding councils have financially supported and promoted the work of a small group of “transitional” academics at Queen’s University Belfast. A significant part of this group includes academics who are also directors of the Committee on the Administration of Justice—CAJ—a lobby group that is focused overwhelmingly on state-perpetrated violence and abuse. These academics have also come together with key CAJ staff to form what is known as the Model Bill Team to campaign against the Bill.
I wish to give now—this why the T-word seemed to me so important earlier—a taste of the CAJ’s position from the introduction to its annual report reflecting on its own origins at a conference in 1981. It describes 1981, perhaps one of the key years of the Troubles as
“one of the worst years of the Troubles, with 117 people dying, 10 of them on hunger strike and seven through being hit by plastic bullets. Many of the others were victims of armed groups of various kinds”;
in other words, there was no use of the T-word for terrorism; rather, a euphemistic reference to victims of armed groups of various kinds.
I mention this, of course, because the definitive work on the Troubles—Lost Lives, by David McKittrick, Brian Feeney and others—notes that 18 Protestants and 33 Catholic civilians were killed. Some of the latter were killed by republicans as suspected informers. Twenty-two RUC officers and RUC Reserve officers were killed, along with 24 Army and Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers. Six republican paramilitaries were killed and 10 died on hunger strike; three loyalist paramilitaries were killed and a further two others died. More than half the dead—64 people—were killed by republican paramilitaries, 14 by loyalist paramilitaries. The Army and the UDR killed 14 people and the Royal Ulster Constabulary three. This is hardly the picture presented by CAJ’s annual report. It demonstrates a failure to contextualise the relevant facts. Contextualising within the historical context is, however, one of the key aims that the then Secretary of State set out in the House of Commons in May.
The CAJ report goes on to say:
“Most shocking of all are the proposals for a total amnesty in regard to the Troubles, which are contained within the government’s Command Paper on legacy (published in July 2021). These would not only provide for an end to prosecutions, but also ban all recourse to law of any kind in relation to Troubles ‘incidents’. We have yet to see any draft legislation, but the Government’s clear intention is to provide for total impunity for state agents, completely contrary to the rule of law.”
This annual report by the CAJ effaces the crimes of loyalist and republican terrorists and their role in policing the ethno-religious divides and oppressing and terrorising entire communities, particularly working-class communities. The focus of the Committee on the Administration of Justice—and its central concern—is on anything it sees as state violence. What is alarming in the context of the Bill is that UK funding through the UK’s research and innovation councils has focused on a group of academics who form a large part of the executive of this organisation and who are working so closely with that organisation through their joint work on the Model Bill Team.
The funding councils are thus being given a major role in the funding of “Memorialising the Troubles”, the title of Part 4 of the Bill. This is problematic, given their role over the last 15 years in funding just one group of researchers with over £3.5 million of research funding, and creating what Dr Cillian McGrattan has called
“a monopolistic capture of legacy ideology and policy within Northern Ireland.”
Not only are non-violent unionist and nationalist voices and their collective memory downplayed but the voices of those who were oppressed and manipulated by the terrorist gangs in their own neighbourhoods are unlikely to be sought, although they are, of course, among the most affected of the communities here.
Given these problems, it seems to me that Part 4 of the Bill risks being placed and built on insecure foundations, and the devil is very much in the detail here. I note some of the attempts in the legislation before us to ensure balance, but it does need to be pointed out—given the contested nature of so much of this history and the issues associated with the current research programmes funded by the funding councils—that in this context, they are simply not good enough.
There is nothing to stop the entire exercise being divorced from the historical record and being used to rewrite history, to shape views and attitudes as a means to a political end, one that might well turn out to be far removed from the reconciliation that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement envisages. One of the problems here may be that the Economic and Social Research Council and the Humanities and Arts Research Council require research to make impacts beyond academia, including disseminating their findings through third parties and engaging with stakeholders. There is a danger that academic research engages through one ideological and community relationship alone, but can still point to high levels of engagement, dissemination and impact. That is unlikely to provide robust academic work, let alone to progress reconciliation.
With this ideologically driven monopoly already established in the field of legacy in Northern Ireland, this problem is now made all the greater. The relevant legislation here should ensure that those funders who helped to create and sustain that monopoly are also now required to exercise a degree of judgment that has, it seems, so far been singly missing and that they can properly be held to account now for doing so. The existing monopoly and ideology around remembrance needs to be robustly challenged in this House at this stage of the Bill and beyond. Experience to date suggests that this exercise may well not deliver what the Minister intends.
As I say, I support the Bill in principle, but I urge the Minister to look closely at strengthening Part 4 to ensure that government funding and UK taxpayers’ money goes into projects that will support reconciliation and not drive sectarianism and support extreme or politicised interpretations of Northern Ireland’s history. I am reminded of the exchange between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the White House on the night before the President resigned. Kissinger said to him, “What will be the verdict of history on us?” Nixon replied, “It all depends on who writes the history.” That is at the very heart of our deliberations today.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I was 11 in 1969, when the Troubles started. I lived in an area of Downpatrick in County Down which was largely unscathed by terrorist violence. However, that changed in 1994, just before the ceasefires, when six of my neighbours were brutally murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. None of those people was ever involved in any political act, apart from voting, and none ever espoused violence. Whenever I visited those families, one little boy said to his granda and his mum after the murder of his father and his uncle that night, “Am I now daddy?” I found those words terribly evocative, but to me they bring back what this is all about: the violence, the terrorism and the dirty war, which I totally reject, had an enormous impact on ordinary families throughout the island of Ireland and also here in Britain, and we must never forget. We must never go back to those days.
The Minister referred to the violence of the last six or seven days in Strabane and Derry. Those acts of violence are also wrong and those people should be getting off all our backs and leaving us to live in peace and harmony. For those reasons, we need the restoration of political institutions, but this legacy Bill is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped. There was an alternative, and I have heard the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, refer to that. Yes, there was an alternative. I was part of that alternative in terms of democratic Irish nationalism and as a member of the SDLP, and very proud to be so, because we espoused non-violence and respect for political difference and we rejected all forms of violence. We wanted to see the three sets of relationships addressed in the Good Friday agreement.
The Bill is not supported by victims, international organisations representing victims’ groups, political parties in Northern Ireland or wider society and it is contrary to the provisions in the Stormont House agreement, in which the Minister was deeply involved.
Closing off criminal investigations and reviews such as Kenova, civil cases, inquests and police complaints relating to the Troubles will deny justice to victims and families. I have only just learned today that the police review of the Loughinisland case, to which I referred earlier, cannot continue because there is insufficient money in the legacy branch of the PSNI to do that work. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the need to fund the PPS, and that is critical to allow the Kenova cases to come forward, because they deal with investigation and review. The replacement proposed in the Bill, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, is entirely inadequate and will be too closely controlled by Westminster. The provisions granting immunity from prosecution for Troubles-related incidents will see people who have committed the worst acts imaginable granted irrevocable immunity in return for partial and self-serving testimony that may already be entirely in the public domain.
The Bill stands to breach the UK’s obligations under Article 2, the right to life, and Article 3, freedom from torture, of the ECHR, and threatens the Good Friday agreement’s requirement for complete incorporation of the European Commission. Undoubtedly, addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past demands great care and sensitivity, but it is not served by the Bill, which is unworkable, undemocratic and in breach of our international obligations. Victims and families right across the community, some of whom I know and some of whom we have all met—I am thinking of Mr Raymond McCord’s video, shown in 1 Parliament Street some weeks ago—deserve truth and justice, but the Bill will not provide for that. I believe there is a deliberate attempt to cut down truth and justice for other means and ideas.
I have talked to various people and we are faced with the worst of outcomes—an outcome that benefits and best serves state and paramilitary-vested interests, whatever the claims to the contrary. They have a shared interest and common agenda. This has been a fundamental fault line in legacy discussions over the years, as the Minister will be aware, having been involved in many of those discussions. State and paramilitary elites, both republican and loyalist, do not seriously wish to comprehensively address the past, or would do so on self-serving terms, and do not intend to offer forthright answers to searching questions. That is what motivates this obscene legislation and I believe it should be totally cancelled.
It is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. A recent joint report by Houses of this Parliament decried this legislation and recent developments at the Council of Europe support these concerns. The Council of Europe has the responsibility to support and safeguard implementation of the ECHR. In a decision of September 2022, the Council of Ministers expressed its ongoing risk concerns regarding the UK’s departure from the Stormont House agreement to the present Bill, and stated that any legislation must be in full compliance with investigative duties under the ECHR. I ask the Minister: how will that issue be addressed? The Council of Ministers also expressed serious concern about the lack of formal public consultation on the Bill, ECHR compatibility and the “minimal support” for, and public confidence in, the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Swiss Government state that the UK should ensure that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is in line with the Stormont House agreement and the necessary means are provided to carry out independent and impartial investigations.
Reference has already been made to the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which has been working in this area in Northern Ireland for many decades, and the Model Bill Team, which is based between the CAJ and Queen’s University Belfast. One of those working on it is a neighbour of mine and I know her very well; I think she is a person who will believe in truth and justice. Amnesty International and the international rights and solidarity committee, formerly known as British Irish Rights Watch, have indicated that the Bill is unacceptable.
In abandoning the Stormont House agreement, the Government are in breach of commitments in the UK-Ireland New Decade, New Approach agreement that restored power-sharing in 2020. As far as I know, the Irish Government were never consulted about the Command Paper and the Secretary of State’s Statement of 18 March 2020. What about the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, the British and Irish Governments? Surely, in very sensitive matters such as legacy and victims, they should have been involved.
New Decade, New Approach committed to legislating for the Stormont House agreement within 100 days. It is now three years later. The Bill also conflicts with the Good Friday agreement over both the duties to ensure incorporation of the ECHR in Northern Ireland law, with direct access to the courts and remedies for breaches, and the framework for the devolution of justice. I cannot stress clearly enough that victims need access to truth and justice. The PPS in Northern Ireland needs to be adequately resourced. The legacy branch of the PSNI needs to be adequately resourced to carry out the outstanding inquiries required. We need issues to do with state collusion and the use of agents, which led to so many deaths of innocent people, to be fully investigated. I am aware of many reports from the Police Ombudsman’s office, not least that into Loughinisland, which show levels of state collusion. There is consensus within the human rights community that the legacy Bill is not fit and, in some instances, they say it is unamendable. It is definitely not compatible with international human rights standards.
I take no great delight in saying that I honestly feel that the Bill should be scrapped and scrapped now. We should revert to the Stormont House agreement and involve all parties in discussions to deal with these very vexatious issues to do with legacy and victims. In my mind, violence and terrorism were never, ever justified. The killing and maiming of people and the destruction of property, in the name of a cause, were never, ever justified. I say to the Government that what they are trying to do—to grant immunity from prosecution to certain groups, such as veterans who may or may not have committed illegalities and serious crimes—is wrong. In that vein, the Bill should be abandoned and scrapped.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, whose stand on terrorism and violence, and what she has done for many years, I admire very much. I do not necessarily come to the same conclusions as her on everything, but she is fully aware of that.
I appreciate, from Northern Ireland’s point of view, the amount of effort that is going into trying to do something about the legacy, especially from the Government Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the Liberal Democrat Benches. We must all be grateful for the amount of effort they are putting into this. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, went into the depths of the trauma, and I would like to follow up a little bit on that.
I declare an interest: my wife and I were both in the home-based security forces in Northern Ireland, and my wife looked after the families of those who were suffering from terrorism. We also host a veterans’ mental welfare charity at our home.
Whatever you think about the Bill, it is giving a form of indemnity to people, and we should look at why we are here. Is this setting a precedent in Ireland? It is actually not, because in August 1923, the Republic had an indemnity Act for its own forces and then an amnesty for all prisoners in 1924. In 1961—this is a relatively little-known fact—there was an amnesty in Northern Ireland, passed by the Northern Ireland Government when my grandfather was Prime Minister, for those people who were involved in what was called the “50s trouble”. This is not a precedent way out on its own.
We have to note how and why we got here. We are here because the state and society have failed to convict terrorist criminals over the period of the Troubles. If that had been possible, we would not be here at all. First, we had internment, which failed—as we are all fully aware of—for a lot of reasons. That was a disaster. Secondly, we had the Diplock courts, where we could not run trials with juries because of intimidation, so the trials were decided by one judge, or three judges on appeal. Although Sinn Féin and the terrorists, and the so-called loyalist terrorists, objected to Diplock courts, by their very nature they were slightly less unfriendly to them, because a jury convicts beyond all reasonable doubt, but the judges had to write down why that person was guilty. For those people who say—it has been said here before—that the Diplock court convictions were roughly level with other types of courts and so on, that may be so. However, I am fully aware of some of the particular cases which arose from Fermanagh, and the police and the investigators could not bring them forward because they knew that they would fail in a Diplock court. That was a slight appeasement to the terrorists.
We have heard about letters of comfort. I believe that when the Government, who were talking to Sinn Féin/IRA, got the list of people, they then checked with Northern Ireland investigators whether they had evidence to bring to court. They quite clearly did not, otherwise they would have done so by then. However, their reply went something along the lines of, “Currently we do not”. In the Chinese whispers, “currently” got lost, yet we are all fully aware that forensic science moves on, and convictions and cases—even more civilian-type cases, if you like—suddenly get new evidence, which comes from new forensics and various other things. So, this was an omission that was simply not acceptable, but it happened.
On the decommissioning of weapons, the terrorists decommissioned the weapons they wanted—presumably the ones with the most forensic traces on them—and got rid of them. That was an elimination of evidence.
We then have—it was not brought out for them—in this country, as compared with most modern countries, inadmissible evidence, which comes from telephonic and intercepted sources. We have discussed this in other Bills. As a result, we have quite a good idea of information, which is not evidence, that adds up to the fact that people had actually committed these crimes. However, that evidence is inadmissible.
Then, of course, we also had the release of prisoners.
People may think that the terrorists were discriminate —no, they were not. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has already mentioned the number of people who were killed from both communities. When I was in the regular Army in Belfast, we had come-ons the whole time, where somebody left a device—whether it was a proper device or a hoax—and then a cordon was put in while the real bomb was some distance away. Most of them were IRA, I have to say, and because of the nature of Belfast, the chances of Roman Catholics from west Belfast going past them were incredibly high—and they did go past, and the terrorists never turned a hair. Then, of course, they had to disappear. We should not give much credibility to these terrorists, I am sorry to say.
Under the Bill, the commission must grant immunity on three conditions, which your Lordships are all aware of—I am not going to waste time going through them—but apparently this is unpopular and unacceptable to all parties. Somebody with a certain amount of intelligence said to me the other day, “Don’t you think that that’s not very true? This is a smokescreen by Sinn Féin.” Public relations-wise, Sinn Féin has to continue to hope that some members of the security forces will be brought to court for things that they should not have done. That is what its PR position is. However, Sinn Féin is very practical about this, and the numbers of terrorists we are talking about—I admit that there were loyalist ones as well—far outnumbers those people; we are talking about a multiple of 100, 200 or 300. However, the Bill is here and it will probably go through—QED, Sinn Féin gets what it ultimately wants: a clean sheet for all those people.
So, we must be aware of the effects of the Bill in giving immunity. Is the bar on this evidence going to be high enough? If somebody admits to driving a car and being part of an incident—there were sometimes 20 or 30 people, especially on border incidents—are they going to be obligated to give the other names? Where do we go from there? This is going to rattle down the thing. I cannot see how somebody making an admission of what they did could avoid giving the names of their fellow conspirators. What is going to happen here?
What we really have to look at are the ordinary people and the families, and what it was like. I will focus on the families of security forces, prison officers—people who contracted for the Government. We lived with constant tension and threat every minute. We had bomb detectors on our cars and alarm rockets on our houses. We were armed at all times, whether it was going out to dinner, going to church, or whatever. Some of our houses were seriously targeted, where SAS or covert people were even put into them. It may sound funny, because it is more like “Yes Minister”, but there were gas mask drills for the families. It went to that extent.
These were serious times. Down with us, a policeman was being covered by the very best of soldiers, but they were withdrawn when the threat had supposedly gone down, and he was shot the next night. We did pattern of life studies for all our soldiers and everybody we connected with so that they could be covered. The bin lorry, with two soldiers on it, was covered 24 hours a day by a plain clothes patrol. They were called “pixies” by some. Bus drivers were also covered—it was everybody who had a routine. From my point of view, when I was lambing ewes at three in the morning, there would always be a police car somewhere locally for the same reason. That is what people were living under, and it did not produce anything other than an awful lot of stress.
Soldiers, victims and the community suffer from intergenerational trauma. We have heard about that, but we should look at it. Perhaps overidentification with victims causes trauma—the term used is vicarious traumatisation—among people who are so close to the victim. It is not just families; it is also friends. If one of your friends came to the attention of terrorists, it would affect you too. So, this goes much wider than just the victims. According to Children in Need, PTSD in parents translates into very much higher rates of ADHD in children. We have instances in our charity where the trauma has gone down to grandchildren—this is serious. People also say that when parents are stressed, babies and children lack bonding in their formative years because their parents are not smiling. This is serious stuff. It is not just the victim but an ever-increasing cascade of traumatised people. It is vast.
There was a study published in the National Library of Medicine in Maryland on its intergenerational effects. It says:
“Intergenerational transmission of memory is a process by which biographical knowledge contributes to the construction of collective memory—
which we have been talking about—
“(representation of a shared past).”
Participants were children from Croatia and were asked to recall the 10 most important events that occurred in one of their parents’ lives. Approximately two-thirds of people from eastern Croatia, where there was more conflict, and one-half of people from western Croatia, where there was slightly less violence, reported war-related events from their parents’ lives. War-related memories impacted the second generation’s identity to a greater extent than non-war-related ones, so it is totally out of proportion with all this violence.
From our area, I knew three brothers who were soldiers. Jimmy was ambushed when he was going to work on a school bus in the morning. Luckily, he was only wounded. He was then shot months later in Derrylin on a school bus, in among all the children. Ronnie was shot delivering vegetables for a shop, about eight months or a year later. Cecil had married across the community and was killed on the doorstep when visiting his wife’s family in Donagh. Their sister Hilary who joined up—and the ladies were not the fighting part—was killed in a hit and run accident while serving her country on a VCP. Look at the trauma and look at where it all goes.
Then, of course, you have Enniskillen and the Omagh bombing and enough said about them—but there is never enough said about them. Therefore, the effect of the Bill is to give terrorists a get out of jail free card while yet again doing little or nothing for terrorists’ victims, their wider families and their friends. The mental trauma continues. Why are people, especially Sinn Féin, allowed to glorify terrorism? We have heard about it almost daily. This is psychologically induced, perpetuated trauma, which is an issue and an effect. It is also far too commonly believed that knowing more will help give closure to the victims. I am not suggesting that it may not help but, when I talk to the bereaved and injured, they say this will not give closure. What they want is some form of accountability for what has happened.
There is virtually no glorification of the successes of security forces by themselves or by the peaceful majority. That does not happen and would be totally unacceptable among our peaceful communities on both sides of the religious divide. I would just ask that when we talk about the hurt and lasting feeling of injustice, people understand that it is not a skin-deep protest. This is real and the grief is normally dealt with privately—and most people like to deal with it privately—but it becomes public when tormented by glorification of terrorism and the constant appeasement of those groups.
I hope we will see that this Bill might work with amendments that will come through and I thank the Government for being prepared to accept them.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I find it a special privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. Next April will mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. I say “mark” rather than “celebrate” because, from my own perspective as someone who was there on Good Friday 1998 when that deal was done, a wish to celebrate was not in the forefront of my mind.
There was a feeling of great relief. There is no question about that. After almost 30 years of death and destruction, was this really the end of the violence of the Troubles in Northern Ireland? No one knew for sure but, in the immortal words of my late noble friend Lord Trimble, it was about giving the people of Northern Ireland a chance. David Trimble was right about that and I do not regret for one moment what he did to help the citizens of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am very proud of that.
However, reaching agreement that day did not come without an incredible amount of pain, particularly for those individuals and families who lost loved ones over the previous three decades, or who suffered life-changing injuries. I lost many friends, as did other noble Lords taking part in the debate. As an Ulster Unionist, I thought of the Reverend Robert Bradford, the Member for Belfast South in another place, gunned down by the IRA in 1981 at Finaghy Community Centre, along with the caretaker Kenneth Campbell. I also recalled the vicious murder of Edgar Graham, a rising star of the Ulster Unionist Party, shot dead by the IRA in 1983 in the precincts of Queen’s University, where he was a law lecturer. I could go on and on.
The main problem for me with the Belfast agreement, as it was for most law-abiding people across the political divide, was the early release of terrorist prisoners. It was a bitter pill to swallow but one which we hoped would lead to a much better, healthier future for everyone living in Northern Ireland. That is why I find this Bill so distasteful and why I shall be opposing its passage in the Division Lobby.
Back in 1998, I had been around long enough to know that the Belfast agreement could not ultimately be the end of the story. In the Ulster Unionist Party we knew there would be twists and turns as well as inevitable betrayals from the United Kingdom Government to this day. The issuing of on-the-run letters and secret royal pardons to terrorists certainly falls into that category. Introducing this Bill, which is opposed by all Northern Ireland’s political parties and His Majesty’s Official Opposition, does so too.
As your Lordships will be fully aware, more than 3,600 people lost their lives in the Troubles: 90% of the killings were at the bloody hands of terrorist groups—two-thirds by republicans and a third by loyalists. Some 10% of the Troubles-related deaths were attributable to the Army and the police, which, in stark contrast to the terrorists, operated within the law and had to justify their actions. His Majesty’s Government holds detailed records of who within the security forces was deployed in Northern Ireland, when and where, and what they did. The republican and loyalist terrorist groups have no such paperwork. This inevitably leads to a distorted process that focuses on the security forces alone, coupled with a parallel Sinn Féin/IRA campaign to rewrite history and whitewash the crimes of the brutal terrorist killers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, alluded to, we have witnessed graphic evidence of this in the past few weeks with Sinn Féin/IRA vice-president Michelle O’Neill claiming that there was no alternative to the IRA’s campaign of cold-blooded murder and Sinn Féin/IRA president Mary Lou McDonald arguing that there is no comparison between the Provos and gangland criminals. Both could not be more wrong, and their attempts to romanticise the actions of IRA killers have real-world consequences, particularly in the minds of young people with no first-hand experience of what Sinn Féin/IRA—or indeed loyalist terrorists—did. As the noble Lord, Lord Godson, mentioned, a video recently shared on social media of the Republic of Ireland women’s football team singing “Ooh ah up the Ra” after a victory was one disturbingly awful example of what can indeed happen.
Have I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, correctly? She felt that the Irish Government should be consulted and she was totally correct. In the context of a discussion about legacy, there is often a lack of focus on one key actor throughout the Troubles: the Irish Republic. We hear a great deal of noise from across the border about what His Majesty’s Government must do, what they must reveal from their files and so on. However, many people in Northern Ireland would like to know more about the files held by the Dublin Government—and there is no shortage of questions that demand an answer.
For example, did the Garda Siochana agents in the IRA know in advance of numerous high-profile terrorist attacks, and when did they pass this information on to their handlers? What knowledge did the Irish security forces have about IRA training camps in the Republic, and what action was taken to eradicate them? What operations were launched to intercept the importation of terrorist weapons into Irish ports and, if not stopped there, to halt their journey and stop their use in the murder of innocent citizens in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Why, for so many years, did the Irish Republic allow itself to become a safe haven for IRA terrorists escaping back across the border after carrying out numerous attacks on targets in Northern Ireland? How much intelligence was there about the network of IRA safe houses south of the border? Why was there such reluctance to extradite terrorist suspects to Northern Ireland?
I could go on and on. Put simply, we must never forget that, when it comes to resolving legacy issues, the silence from Dublin continues to be somewhat deafening. Perhaps the Minister could update us in his response about any discussions that His Majesty’s Government are having with the Irish Government about receiving answers to these questions.
On the substance of the Bill before us, it is important to place on record that the Ulster Unionist Party did not support the legacy arrangements contained in the Stormont House agreement of 2014, believing them to be imbalanced. Victims want truth and justice. Some want both; others focus on one. Justice means different things to different people. The terrorists have already had their amnesty. They sleep in their beds at night knowing that they have got away with it—got away with murder. They have their comfort letters. They know the outcry that Sinn Féin/IRA will generate if any “good Republicans” or “friends of the peace process” are questioned, let alone charged.
What we now see is an attempt to go after the police and the Army—sometimes 50 years after the event—aided and abetted by Northern Ireland’s well-financed and self-appointed guardians of human rights, who claim a desire to hold the state to account but have little interest in the abuses perpetrated by the terrorists. I pay tribute to the bravery and restraint of those who served in uniform in Northern Ireland, such the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. They stood between the terrorists and the terrorised. They defeated the IRA’s terror campaign.
The Ulster Unionist Party believes that those who broke the law should be held accountable to the law, no matter who they are—terrorists, police officers, soldiers, civilians or politicians. We have always opposed the idea of an amnesty. Victims and their families have a right to retain the hope that, one day, they may get justice even though they realise that, with the passage of time, that prospect becomes ever more difficult.
I shall vote against this misguided legislation receiving a Second Reading.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and something of a burden to follow three distinguished Members from Northern Ireland: the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Of course, I cannot begin to claim the detailed knowledge that they have, but I was with Airey Neave the night before he was assassinated. I knew very well Robert Bradford, who had an office next to mine in the Norman Shaw building and was murdered at his surgery. When she was acting as a secretary for me, my wife shared an office with Ian Gow’s secretary; I shall never forget when I received the news of his death.
I got to know Northern Ireland well when I had the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place. We had a true all-party committee, with four parties from Northern Ireland represented, only one other Tory and seven Labour Members. We worked together. All our reports were unanimous. I enjoyed the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, when he was Secretary of State, and that of his successor, Shaun Woodward. From time to time, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, would ring up and discuss Northern Ireland affairs. I not only got to know the Province but grew to love it and its wonderful countryside, its quite remarkable people—in both communities and, at its best, with one community.
In 2006, we published a well-received and unanimous report on organised crime in Northern Ireland. I learned so much from the evidence, all of which had to be taken in camera; it was, I think, unique for a Select Committee to have all its sessions in camera because those people who came to speak would not otherwise have been able to open up in the way they did. We heard some terrible and grisly stories from them. When we published the report, which we did in Armagh with a special session, we had to get the permission of the chief constable, Sir Hugh Orde, because all previous reports had been published in Belfast, mostly in Stormont. However, he was very encouraging and helpful.
I then had the great privilege of getting to know one of the most remarkable men in Northern Ireland in recent years, who is deservedly a member of the Order of Merit and a Member of your Lordships’ House. I am of course referring to the right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, a former Primate of All Ireland, who, along with Denis Bradley, produced that remarkable report; I had the great privilege of being able to discuss it with both of them. He did a great service to Northern Ireland.
The other vivid memory that I have of terrorism and crime was addressing a meeting in Crossmaglen village hall. I was told that I was the first Conservative politician to do such a thing since 1906, but it was because a brave couple—the Quinns—came to see me; I then introduced them to my committee. The murder of that young boy, Paul Quinn, was one of the most dastardly murders in the Troubles.
So I approach this Bill as one who has some knowledge of, and a great deal of concern for, one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom; indeed, I want it to remain so. However, we must face up to the fact that legacy can be both a poison and paralysis, and can become a cancer in the body politic. I pay great tribute to my noble friend Lord Caine, who made what I thought was a very moving and powerful introductory speech. It was one of the most honest speeches I have heard from a Minister on the Front Bench in either House because he actually said to your Lordships, “I don’t much care for this Bill. I’m troubled by it. I shall be bringing in some amendments.” We should all reserve our final verdict. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan; I know why he said what he said, but let us give the man a chance. Let us see what the amendments are like. There are other amendments, some of which I have signed, which are to be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Let us try and see what we can do with this Bill.
We must remember that there will come a time, and it is fast approaching, when almost everybody involved in the Troubles, in whatever capacity, will advance into real old age and within a decade or so, a very large number of them will be dead. We have to ask ourselves the question—it is a painful one, but it would be dishonest if we did not ask it in this debate—is the proper answer a statute of limitations? We have to be very careful to distinguish between those who died in the course of duty and the innocent civilians who were murdered by terrorists, and the terrorists themselves, who sometimes lost their own lives, mostly by accident—they did not go in for self-immolation. We have to face up to these questions as we debate this Bill in Committee.
I was one of those who, in another place, spoke out and voted against the War Crimes Bill, which was rejected in your Lordships’ House, one of the main arguments being that as time passed by, memories faded. Let us be honest: they sometimes become distorted as well. Therefore, I did not think it right, in the 1990s, to be passing a Bill dealing with crimes committed in the 1940s. Of course, very few people have come to trial. There have been a few in Europe, but nobody has been sentenced in this country.
These are painful questions that we have to face up to. But I want to end on a note of hope that is my most remarkable memory of my time as chairman of that committee. Ian Paisley and I entered the House of Commons on the same day. I got to know him perfectly well. I liked him, though I did not agree with him on many things. At the service to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the death of Sir Thomas More, I was the steward who escorted Ian Paisley out of the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft when he got up to protest.
When he became First Minister, he asked me to see him. The Secretary of State made his study available at Hillsborough. When I went in, he said, “I want you to know something. Martin McGuiness has a spiritual dimension.” You could have knocked me over with the proverbial feather; but he meant it. When Ian Paisley stood down as First Minister, I had the honour to be at the dinner at Hillsborough, hosted by the Secretary of State and attended by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Taoiseach. The panegyric to Ian Paisley—for it was nothing less—was delivered by Martin McGuiness, to his “friend and mentor”. As we all know, they were known as the Chuckle Brothers in the popular press. If those two men could come together in that way, then we need people of stature to come together now. We need Stormont reactivating. We need an Executive that will look after the affairs of Northern Ireland for its people, rather than refusing to do so because of a disagreement on a wholly different political issue.
I very much hope that in Committee, we can come to an agreement across your Lordships’ House, send back to the Commons a Bill that is much better than the one it sent to us, and move forward; and that, at the same time, those who have been elected to Stormont can realise the proper obligations of the elected, come together for the people of Northern Ireland and work together for them, both Executive and Members of the Assembly. This is the challenge. We must see that it is achieved if we possibly can. All those of us who care about the future of the United Kingdom in general, and the future of Northern Ireland in particular, have a duty in this.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose care and concern for Northern Ireland has always been exemplary. I thank and commend the Minister for the last part of his speech, which I hope signifies a complete rewrite of this Bill, not just tinkering amendments. To his great credit, he was pretty transparent that it would not have been his Bill; obviously, it was drawn up by others higher up the government ladder. It needs rewriting completely if it is to pass this House.
I ask the Minister when he replies to answer this question on the record. Did I understand him correctly in saying that the only way immunity can be revoked under this Bill is if the perpetrator lied, not if evidence is uncovered showing that the perpetrator was guilty of, let us say, murder? I would be grateful if he could clarify that.
The word “Reconciliation” appears in the title of this Bill, and there is a cruel irony in that, because it is not about reconciliation and, if enacted, would not aid reconciliation. In essence, it is saying to victims and survivors of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, “What happened to you and your loved ones no longer matters”, and to the perpetrators of some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, “What you did no longer matters”.
What is set out in this Bill is utterly shameful, and I cannot support it. I will give your Lordships a worked example. On 10 August 1996, John Molloy had nearly reached his home in north Belfast when he was confronted by a group of young men and women. He was repeatedly stabbed in a frenzied attack and was left to bleed to death on the pavement. He was just 18 years old. Can the Minister explain to the House and, more importantly, to John’s still grieving parents, Linda and Pat, what precisely the difference is between the sectarian murder of John in Belfast and a racist murder in Leeds?
My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State raised this case in the other place but got no direct response. I hope that the Minister, who cares deeply about Northern Ireland, will respond tonight. Saying that Northern Ireland is a place apart just will not wash. It seems that with the protocol, Northern Ireland must be as British as Finchley, but when it comes to the life of a young man in Belfast, the Government’s legacy proposals in this Bill put Northern Ireland closer to Pinochet’s Chile.
This Bill, if passed in its current form, would offer the thug who murdered John the chance to seek a kind of legal absolution—indeed, it would encourage it. All that is required under this Bill as it stands is for the perpetrator to tell the story of that night to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. “I murdered him because he was a Catholic”—and that will be it. The perpetrator will be free to walk up to Linda and Pat Molloy and laugh in their faces. Perpetrators can boast about it to their friends and the world at large if they so wish, because Clause 18(14) of this Bill says that once granted, immunity cannot be revoked except, possibly, if a lie is discovered, no matter what they do subsequently. Are the Government seriously asking this House to sign up to that? Will we really sink so low, just because the Commons did so when the Government rammed it through, in the name of so-called reconciliation?
When the noble Lord responds to the debate, perhaps he could also explain to the House what comfort he thinks this process will bring to the Molloy family, or to the families of those murdered because they were Protestant while singing hymns in the Darkley Pentecostal Church in 1983; or to Jean Caldwell, whose husband Cecil was blown up by the IRA along with seven workmates at Teebane in January 1992. The Bill puts the interests of the perpetrators over the needs of victims and survivors at every turn. Perpetrators are given choices denied to victims and survivors. If any come forward, they will control the narrative: it will be their version of events, “to the best of” their “knowledge and belief”, as the Bill specifies.
The Bill is sold as protecting veterans and other servants of the state from investigation and potential prosecution where their actions have resulted in deaths which are contested. I should like to make some observations on that. The first concerns the number of references from the Government Back Benches in the other place to “vexatious prosecutions”. I am not a lawyer but I am not aware of that as a legal concept. Perhaps they mean “malicious prosecutions”. In any event, I have yet to hear anyone from the Government Front Bench take issue with it. In which case, when the Minister responds, will he tell the House which part of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system the Government hold responsible for these “vexatious prosecutions”? Is it the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service, the judiciary or a combination of all three? Perhaps he could tell the House how many vexatious prosecutions there have been in Northern Ireland since 2010.
My second observation is on the line of attack—again, particularly from some elements on the Government Back Benches in the other place and expressed at Second Reading—that anyone opposed to this legislation is therefore hostile to those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Armed Forces. That is specious nonsense—indeed, worse: a vile calumny. Those of us who had the privilege to serve as Ministers in Northern Ireland, as my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lady Smith did, had the privilege of doing so under the close protection of the RUC, then the PSNI and the Metropolitan Police. We were always aware that those officers would be prepared to put their lives in danger to protect ours. We worked with successive chief constables and we fully recognise and salute the role of the police, who, often in the direst of circumstances, served to uphold the rule of law and protect the people of Northern Ireland.
Equally, former Secretaries of State for Defence and distinguished noble and gallant Lords who served at the highest level in the Armed Forces know first-hand of the professionalism and bravery of those we put on the front line in Northern Ireland. That is not to say, however, that they could do no wrong. The unqualified Bloody Sunday apology made by then Prime Minister David Cameron, for the behaviour of soldiers that terrible day, underlined that. The Minister explained his role in drafting it. If the authors of the Bill have their way, Lord Widgery’s cover-up inquiry—for that is what it was—would have been the final word on Bloody Sunday. Those killed in Ballymurphy, including a priest and a mother of eight children, would have remained a gunman and a gunwoman. The truth that emerged through that inquest would have remained hidden and the reputations of innocents been trashed forever.
Those who argue the veterans’ case also stress two other points. First, they do not want equivalence with those who brought murder and mayhem to the streets of Northern Ireland, to our cities here and beyond. The Bill does not differentiate because, as much as the Government might want to, they know it cannot.
Secondly, they say that if someone in uniform has broken the law, they must be held to account. Who can argue against that? It is what those who serve with honour want and deserve, but the Bill does not deliver that. It is specifically designed to close down all routes to justice and accountability, including civil proceedings and inquests. As the Bill stands, there will be no proper criminal justice investigations, merely reviews into the balance of probabilities standard. We must presume that a Bill coming before us has been drafted with great care. We must presume that the words used express precisely what the Government intend to be enacted —and we all know the difference between investigation and review.
To say that this could lead to the prosecution of anyone who refuses to take advantage of the immunity process—in effect, an amnesty—is disingenuous at best. A Director of Public Prosecutions could not put a case before the court on the basis of a balance of probabilities review. The effect of this legislation will be to make some of the most heinous crimes simply disappear. It is an insult to victims and survivors and an affront to the rule of law, which, as parliamentarians, we are all committed to uphold. Among other things, it will create the bizarre and absurd situation whereby someone applying for a job with an unspent conviction for shoplifting would be required to tell his or her potential employer but a self-confessed mass murderer would not. As the Bill stands, once the low-bar immunity is granted, it cannot be revoked, even if it subsequently transpires that the perpetrator has misled the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, or indeed has re-engaged with a proscribed organisation.
There are so many fundamental flaws in this legislation that it may be that, as the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Alyson Kilpatrick, told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it is not capable of being amended. As she told the committee in a devastating critique of the Bill:
“It is clearly in breach of the Human Rights Act”
and it is
“not going to be possible to remedy this Bill, certainly not without very significant redrafting such that it would change the whole nature of the Bill.”
I am flatly opposed to the Bill and, given the opportunity, will vote to kill it. Meanwhile, any amendments proposed must fundamentally address the perpetrator, victim and survivor imbalance in this legislation currently before us.
I have heard it said that throughout the peace process, compromises on the rule of law were made and that this is simply another one. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill of 2005-06, which I introduced as Secretary of State, has been cited as one example. There is no doubt that it was difficult and controversial legislation, but it came nowhere near to granting the amnesty that this current legacy Bill explicitly does. Anyone who went through the offences Bill process would have had to appear in a special court. They would have emerged with a criminal record. They would have been required to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to the police and, crucially, any benefits they gained could have been revoked if they committed further crimes.
The last Labour Government worked towards the goal of inclusive power-sharing in Northern Ireland, including the devolution of policing and justice powers. We achieved the first part in 2007, when I was Secretary of State, and completed the process in 2010 under my successor. This legislation attacks that settlement to reassert the primacy of the Secretary of State—something else wrong with it. The chief constable will be instructed by the Secretary of State which cases can and cannot be investigated. The courts will be told which cases they can and cannot try. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister, the Northern Ireland judicial system and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, all central to the devolution settlement, will be overridden by the Secretary of State. Whether this is an intended or unintended consequence, it is a massively retrograde step by any measure. Indeed, the powers of the Secretary of State to control the whole legacy process run right through the Bill and that is deeply concerning.
My thinking on legacy matters has evolved over the last number of years. Those of us who have grappled with them know that these are difficult matters. The Minister has tried to grapple with them honestly as best he could over many years. In 2018, I and other noble Lords with a close interest in Northern Ireland, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who signed the letter, wrote to the then Secretary of State about pre-Good Friday agreement prosecutions. I believed then, as I do now, that there was little to be gained by devoting precious police resources to cases where there was little prospect of a successful prosecution.
The Historical Enquiries Team completed work on 1,615 cases involving more than 2,000 deaths, yet only three resulted in prosecutions and convictions for murder. I still believe that the PSNI should be focused on keeping the population of Northern Ireland safe in the here and now and into the future, rather than precious police resources being diverted to legacy cases. I have put these points to the Minister in terms of the amendments that I, with cross-party support, intend to table tomorrow.
A key point is that there is now an alternative to the less than satisfactory arrangements we have been criticising. Operation Kenova, headed by former Chief Constable Boutcher, is a working model of the way to deal with legacy that provides the information that many victims and survivors desperately want, and at the same time leaves open the route to justice where the evidence reaches the necessary threshold. For the last two years, more than 30 files referred by Kenova have been sitting with the under-resourced Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and he was quite right to do so.
It is quite wrong, however, for Secretaries of State to criticise Kenova for failing to deliver any prosecutions when they knew full well that none had been put before the courts by the PPS, because it is under-resourced. Kenova, under the leadership of former Bedfordshire Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, has widespread support from the families who work with it. It is a model that can be upscaled and at a lower cost than current strategies, and it would release the PSNI from the burden of legacy cases. As I said, I will be tabling amendments to try to introduce this into the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept them, because I think they will create a consensus around the Bill that is palpably lacking.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for the opportunity to intervene. It was merely on his point about Operation Kenova which, as he said, has gained widespread support. It included four investigations and one review. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned Operation Denton, which I believe is reviewing 93 incidents and 127 murders. Whatever happens with this Bill, it seems important that that review continues and is not interrupted by what the Bill delivers. The prospect of that being stopped would be a terrible thing for all the families who believe that progress is being made because of Chief Constable Jon Boutcher’s good work.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful for the intervention, particularly as the noble Lord has long experience of policing, and he makes telling points. In short, Kenova is the way in which we can get consensus in this House to proceed with the Bill, heavily amended. I have suggested some amendments that have cross-party support. The Minister has seen them privately and, if the issues are only technical, I am willing to discuss them with him to try to reach agreement.
In conclusion, we frequently refer in this House to the need to develop consensus in Northern Ireland on a range of issues, not least on dealing with the legacy of violence. With this Bill, the Government have contrived to create a consensus: it is opposed by every political party in Northern Ireland and by all victims groups. When the 2006 offences Bill faced that kind of opposition, I withdrew it. The Government should follow that example with this ill-conceived Bill. They must think again before they do irreparable damage to victims and survivors who have suffered so much already.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, it will not surprise the House, bearing in mind that Peers from Northern Ireland have lived through and experienced the events that have been referred to by virtually every speaker, that this is an extremely emotional occasion for me. The years of my adult life have almost totally been lived out in the years of the Troubles, and the jobs I tried to do all centred on people. They centred on the bereaved, the injured, the devastated, on those who committed terrible deeds and on those who were encouraged eventually to find a better route.
I have listened carefully to each speech tonight and have tried to put together the jigsaw of people referred to in my mind. Then I looked around the Chamber and saw many of my fellow Peers who do not live in Northern Ireland but who have taken the trouble to identify with our lives and experiences. I thank them for that. Then I looked across and saw the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In each case, memories flooded back of working with those with responsibilities for the government of Northern Ireland, as they had, and I am grateful.
At this moment, however, I think most of the houses in which I have stood, the bedsides besides which I have knelt and the families, particularly the young people, whose futures were devastated by the Troubles. So I make no apology for being personal in what I will say. It will not take long, for virtually everything that I feel needs to be said about this Bill has been said, and by people of such expertise as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—lawyers, people with human emotions, politicians from Northern Ireland and people who have endured some of the emotional stress of these past years.
When I heard the title the Government had chosen for this Bill, I was encouraged, as “reconciliation” has now found some structure in legislation. Then I read the proposed Bill and began to ask whether all the years of work and in seeking agreement were useless. Were all the tears shed and pains shared useless and unproductive? I could find nothing in the Bill that would increase the human expectation or realisation of true reconciliation; rather, it will add to the hurt and uncertainty, and to the dismal prospect of that hurt being endured for generation after generation.
My next reaction was to scrap the Bill totally, as it will not serve any useful purpose. I have sympathy with Members of the House who said, “Start from scratch. Start again”. But my memory goes back to Denis Bradley and me, and the Consultative Group on the Past, which made the first attempt to deal with legacy. We made many mistakes. We learned as we went along and society made its judgment, because we were at the wrong time. Society was not ready to look at its legacy. But, as I listen and read what has happened since, how many aspects of that report continue to surface? Put different labels on it, use different words, but the thoughts are there. There must have been something that was worth saying.
That led me to my second conclusion: we do not need to scrap the Bill totally but, as it goes through this House, must give it the sort of scrutiny that leaves no stone unturned so that we get to what is needed for the Northern Ireland of the future. That will mean questions about the work of the proposed commission, about its control and the control of it. It will raise questions about whether Westminster will be too involved and exercise too much control that could be exercised in Northern Ireland. It will ask questions of jurisprudence, which has not been mentioned tonight. My memory goes back to many years ago, when I tried to teach jurisprudence to reluctant law students. If there is one memory I have of those days, it is the knowledge that there is a sense in which the definition of justice is what must emerge at the end of any process dealing with legacy, wherever it is. I honestly believe that the Bill in its present form is totally guilty of running a horse—and, dare I say it, a hearse—through the nature of justice.
I believe that we must look at the Bill and not totally scrap it but take it to pieces and see which Lego bricks should remain. Many things have been said tonight about ways in which we can improve our approach. To conclude these brief remarks, I believe that the new legislation we seek must be centred on the victims, and on the suffering of the people who suffered most in our Troubles—above all recognising their claim to justice and to a better future—and on a generation of young people who deserve far more than my generation has been able to offer them. If we cannot do that, we need to move away from looking at the disaster on the decks of the “Titanic” and have a look at what caused the iceberg.
Finally, I say this to the Minister. I think we are getting a sense tonight of what he personally has gone through and is going through regarding this Bill. He deserves genuine tribute for his honesty in his introduction to this session. I say this to him: he knows Northern Ireland; he knows what we are like; and he knows where we have come from. I beg of him, in the face of his colleagues and those who wish this Bill to continue, to pause, and have the courage to say some of the things that he has heard said tonight, and realise that there is a future but it is a different sort of Bill.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there are many parts of this Bill that I find not just problematic but actually quite dangerous. There are also some parts of it that I agree with, and I am very pleased indeed that the Minister made it clear that he was prepared to look at a number of amendments. There is probably no other Minister with his knowledge and background that could actually succeed in making something out of this Bill, if that is what your Lordships’ House decides.
It is important to look at how we got here. The Stormont House agreement of 2014 has been mentioned before, but let us not forget that not every party in Northern Ireland supported that agreement and it is not an international agreement, despite what some nationalists have been trying to claim. The Stormont House agreement’s 200-page document—which included the new non-crime crime of historic police misconduct, to be directed at retired George Cross RUC officers—is a draft that is now nearly a decade old. I am pleased that it has been dropped and superseded by this Bill, even with all its problems.
The second thing in this history was the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto commitment, as has been mentioned, which read:
“we will introduce new legislation to tackle the vexatious legal claims that undermine our Armed Forces and further incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law.”
We saw that legislation enacted in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, but crucially it omitted Operation Banner veterans who served in Northern Ireland. The result has been the continuing prosecutions of soldiers for alleged crimes committed in the 1970s, some 50 years ago. More are possible, following the papers submitted by Operation Kenova to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. So we see that lawfare, in its many forms, has continued unabated.
It is worth reminding your Lordships that, as some have already made mention of, some 300,000 Army and police served in Northern Ireland during those years, 1,000 of whom were murdered. Their ECHR Article 2 right to life, which we hear so much about, was colossally violated.
I proposed an amendment in April 2021 that the overseas Bill’s effect should depend on a report being made on
“progress made towards equal treatment of veterans of operations in Northern Ireland since 1969”.
In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said only that Northern Ireland was “a different issue”, while adding
“we will not allow our brave service personnel who served in Northern Ireland to be forgotten.”—[Official Report, 13/4/21; col. 1187]
The noble Baroness said very little else on that, but let us be clear that the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act was not an amnesty. It introduced several new evidential hurdles before a prosecution could be mounted when there had been a previous investigation and if no compelling new evidence was available. It insisted that the public interest in finality was paramount.
That Act was a far better vehicle than this Bill, which has had unworkable—or more precisely, never likely to be worked—immunity arrangements tacked on. They corrupt the law and need to be improved. We all need to be honest: the law has already been corrupted by the many amnesties and mini-amnesties deemed politically necessary in the 25 years since the Belfast agreement.
The question of compelling and credible new evidence is one where this Bill fails badly, and strong amendment is needed to Clause 11, titled “Requests for reviews: general provision”. Unless narrowed to include a phrase such as “compelling new evidence”, it means that the new investigation body, the ICRIR, simply becomes a one-stop shop for nationalist and other lawyers, who have now given themselves the grand title of legacy practitioners. It will replace, and perhaps even streamline, the current options of fresh inquests, civil suits and compensation claims—1,000 of which are now in the Belfast courts, as I heard in an answer to a Question—plus PSNI and Police Ombudsman reinvestigations.
The third way that we have got here is, of course, the understandable desire of bereaved families for access to the details of their relative’s death, the documentation available and memorialisation. Crucially, they also want justice, which is, I am afraid, in terms of convictions of terrorists, no longer deemed likely. This was even stated by police investigators, such as Jon Boutcher of Operation Kenova.
People also talk about truth. We know that prosecutions, other than those of soldiers, will not happen after such a passage of time. Terrorists in particular cannot be brought to court because evidence sufficient to convict is not there. The IRA kept no paper records, and recently harvested DNA alone will not suffice. Millions of pages of state documents are promised and that is welcome, but they are only part of the truth and will need assessment by lawyers and historians. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Godson. We hope these will not just be the monopoly group of Queen’s University academics, currently funded by UK research councils to the tune of £4 million, who seem to concentrate entirely on anti-state issues rather than real victims of terrorism.
The Government should be much more up front about the fact that human rights law—the ECHR and the Human Rights Act—will necessitate the removal of large portions of text, especially from MI5 files that refer to individuals, both good and bad. Unconvicted killers cannot be named, nor must informants be, so amendments will need to be tabled, which I hope the Government can accept, to strengthen the Bill’s human rights dimensions in terms of the neglected safeguards in the ECHR—those on the right to a fair trial and the right to a reputation. Too many people think the phrase “Article 2 compliance” covers the whole convention, but there are 18 articles that we need to comply with, especially Articles 6, 8, 10 and 17. I know that the Minister said that he wanted to put Article 2 into law. We should look at the other articles as well.
To look at one county in Northern Ireland, Fermanagh, which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, knows very well, 115 people were killed during the Troubles, over 90% of whose deaths were caused by the IRA. Sixty-five of the dead were members of the security forces and 40 were civilians. There were only five killings by loyalists and two murders by rogue soldiers; in other words, our security forces, at colossal cost to themselves, protected both sections of the community. I fear that not many legacy practitioners will draw attention to that noble achievement or the contrast in numbers.
Another group that upheld justice was our judges and magistrates, who took a terrible toll in death and injuries as a result. We rarely hear their names: Martin McBirney, Judge Rory Conaghan, Lord Justice Gibson and his wife Cecily, Tom Travers and his daughter Mary, Judge William Doyle, William Staunton, and Judge Eoin Higgins, who was targeted, with Robin and Maureen Hanna, and their six year-old son David, instead being murdered. Their Article 2 right to life was drastically breached.
I will say another few words about amnesty, because there has been some slight hypocrisy about that in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, mentioned a few of the amnesty agreements, but in the Belfast agreement and since a series of amnesties were put into legislation or operated administratively. Most happened under the premiership of Tony Blair and three Labour Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland: the noble Lords, Lord Mandelson and Lord Reid, and most notably the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who I am sorry is not in his place at the moment. As he mentioned, he tried to put through the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill 2005. That never made it into law because it was scuppered by Sinn Féin, which decided that it would not support it because it would give amnesty to soldiers as well as terrorists.
Just for the record, these part-amnesties were all agreed with the Irish Government, who are now making great play about this Bill: the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, with its early release of hundreds of terrorist prisoners after two years served in jail; immunity from prosecution, called an amnesty in law, for evidence discovered on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons; the request in 1999 by Bertie Ahern for the UK to discontinue current and future extradition proceedings, acceded to by Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson; royal prerogative of mercy grants, issued silently in hundreds of cases and whose paperwork, I discovered, when I asked questions, had oddly gone missing; immunities regarding the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, and the Hamill, Nelson, Wright, and Breen/Buchanan inquiries; immunities regarding evidence recovered from the bodies of the disappeared; and the so called on-the-runs, which have been mentioned already, a secret administrative scheme only for IRA members supposedly hiding in the Irish Republic, which operated contrary to the advice of the Attorney-General. At least 187 IRA men were granted OTR letters of comfort promising no prosecution, John Downey being the most famous one. I hope none of those are now in the mandatory coalition Government that the people in Northern Ireland were forced to endure.
Above all, we have to push back against the rewriting of history through the development of this moral equivalence between those who died defending our country, who saved lives in border areas out in the dark in the middle of the night, protecting people at the expense of their own lives, and those who set out deliberately to murder. The Government should change the definition of a victim. It is absolutely disgraceful that, in Northern Ireland, the definition of a victim, unlike in Great Britain, treats the bomber, if he injured himself, as a victim. How can we have such a moral compass to support amnesty for murder?
I will just mention Aileen Quinton, a very brave woman whose mother was murdered by terrorists, blown up at the war memorial on Remembrance Sunday 1987. She is now a volunteer with SEFF, one of the excellent victims’ groups. She wrote to tell me:
“Of course it is wrong that veterans who have been guilty of nothing but brave service are hounded but that is no excuse for putting them into the same bracket as the very few who have disgraced the uniform. No one should be subjected to unfair persecution and hounding but that is an argument for protecting the innocent and not letting off the guilty. Some innocent men get accused of rape and that is dreadful but that is no excuse for a blanket amnesty for rape.”
She mentions the Graham family, who have already been mentioned: three brothers and one sister, picked off one by one. After each murder, the others continued to serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment, standing by the law until they were slaughtered by the IRA. The sister was killed in a hit and run at a checkpoint when she was on duty as a UDR Greenfinch. If the forces of law and order could not save them from terrorists, the least they should expect is that they would seek proper lawful justice for their deaths.
I have one final thought for all your Lordships from Aileen:
“I did not become a terrorist when my mother was murdered. Now my government is more or less telling me that I should have. Far from leaving no stone unturned to bring her murderers to justice, my government is cementing those stones down unturned.”
If we are really going to move on, we need to accept that there is opposition across the board to this Bill in Northern Ireland but that it comes from very different angles. The idea that everyone is against it for the same reason is just not true. The difficulty that we have in your Lordships’ House is in recognising and separating what is genuine opposition and what is opposition for opposition’s sake to continue the sort of lawfare that many people in Northern Ireland seem to want, just to attack the state forces. I am very keen to see that amendments strengthen the Bill to ensure that we do not allow the innocent victim to be ignored at the expense of those people who just want to attack our state forces.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I do not stand before your Lordships as someone from Northern Ireland and I have never been a victim of terrorism, but I care very much about Northern Ireland’s place and people. I am very concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland is too often treated as somehow outside the mainstream of UK politics, as if only people from Northern Ireland may speak about the situation in the Province.
Secondly, there may be a little cynicism in my remarks about the Bill, but they in no way reflect my opinion of my noble friend the Minister and his commitment and expertise. Already today we have heard his commitment to listen to noble Lords and the people of Northern Ireland, and to try his very best to improve the Bill.
James Hughes wrote a chapter entitled “Reconstruction Without Reconciliation: Is Northern Ireland a ‘Model’?” in the 2015 academic book After Civil War. While we may have a model reconstruction and end of violence, I am afraid that on reconciliation we are on less sure territory. After almost 25 years of trying to grapple with this issue, we are now faced with a Bill that, at first sight, seems far from creating the consensus that Northern Ireland requires around such sensitive issues.
However, despite its flaws the Bill can be worked on. It would have been far more satisfactory if it had evolved as part of the long process, as we have already heard this evening, going back to prisoner release in 1998; the work by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on the Consultative Group on the Past in 2009; the Stormont agreement; and even the New Decade, New Approach agreement of 2019. One starts to wonder whether, when such good work was being done by Ministers who are now Members of this place and the other place and people on the ground in Northern Ireland, there was—I think my noble friend Lord Cormack obliquely referred to this—a feeling within Whitehall generally that this problem would go away through time and that legislation to address it was not necessary.
However, we have had to respect and recognise the significant change that has taken place since 2019, first of all in the response to the Command Paper in 2021. The slow burn of codified and state-sanctioned reconciliation that should have been the natural path from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was a necessary symptom of that agreement. It is unfortunate—but the reality—that the fundamental political structures of Northern Ireland were more easily addressed in 1997 and 1998 than the reconciliation necessary to deal with ongoing legacy issues. That is not in any way to criticise the way in which an end to the Troubles was sought or the bravery shown by all those involved, but it did leave a need for further structure, thought and work.
The kind of instrumental reconciliation that was carried out in Northern Ireland, bringing both sides of the political elite together, was the necessary step before the socio-emotional reconciliation of finding peace that then needed to follow. It is not a reflection on those who have sought to do so that it has taken 20 years for us to get here.
It has been extremely disappointing, and has contributed greatly to the negative press the Bill has suffered, that all too often it has been seen as a Bill driven by a debate outwith Northern Ireland—a debate about veterans and the internals of the Conservative Party over the last two years, rather than what was best for the people of Northern Ireland and the veterans who served there. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is not to say that the rights of veterans of our armed services should not be protected and respected, but it seems to me that it will be the judgment of many in Northern Ireland that the Bill has come about only because of a media debate in Great Britain that had nothing to do with Northern Ireland.
The Government had the opportunity to build far more upon the foundations of the previous attempts in 2009, 2015 and 2019, to which I have alluded. In each of their arguments, they created a degree of consensus around certain elements and went some way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, just said, to there being different elements that can be pulled together.
However, given that this Bill is now the vehicle, it is incumbent upon us to ensure we have a Bill that gives more confidence to the victims of the Troubles and, for those who wish it, a means to get to the truth. There are now opportunities to do that, but significant changes to the Bill will be required. I am slightly more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that we will be able to achieve these.
I recognise that the answer to some of these suggested changes may well be that the independent commission, or whatever the name ends up being, requires more resource, but to deliver what it says on the tin, we will need to be willing to meet the challenges of victims, or else the Bill will be a meaningless act. In fact, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, it could be counterproductive.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister responded to and further reflected on the following reasonable demands from victims’ groups, beyond those he mentioned in his opening remarks. First, in Clause 1 there should be a broader definition of harm to allow a greater range of victims to come forward to make use of the independent commission, and to reflect the experience of Northern Ireland society as widely as possible. This new definition would reflect the UK Parliament order and definition of victims as of 2006, including those who have suffered psychological as well as physical harm.
Secondly, victims must feel part of the process, and I support calls for them to be able to respond to draft reports from the commission before actions are taken. I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to looking at stronger penalties for those who choose not to co-operate or to lie to the commission, and I look forward to those coming forward in Committee.
Victims must not have equivalence with perpetrators in this process but should be the dominant voice as we move towards reconciliation. When it has completed its progress, the Bill must clearly differentiate between victim and perpetrator; I fear that it does not at the moment. I will leave it to noble, and indeed learned, Lords to opine on the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, I hear my noble friend the Minister’s commitment to look at the robustness of the process to ensure that concerns over rights to life and remedy are properly addressed.
We must also be realistic about the concerns and lack of co-operation with and community support for both the Historical Enquiries Team and subsequent PSNI initiatives. If this new independent commission is to be effective and to have public confidence, we need every single assurance over its membership and the independence of its members. If it is to have a lifespan of five years, what assurances will my noble friend give that it will be properly resourced to ensure that victims’ requests for investigation are not timed out?
I welcome the change in the Bill from the original Command Paper, making immunity at least conditional. I recognise that many in this Chamber and the other place are concerned about any immunity evading justice. I see the earned immunity as important in ensuring that there is a process through which all can be judged and have an opportunity to make a choice. Yes, the reality is that from the early release scheme onwards, and its further extension through this Bill, we have probably come to the end of the road for imprisonment for pre-1998 offences. This is very difficult for many of us to accept, but it is a clear evolution of previous positions and it is probably correct that it be incorporated in the Bill.
It is clear from all that has come before that there is still a desire in Northern Ireland for a formal process of reconciliation. The Bill may not have come about for the correct reasons or been a natural successor to the other attempts that have taken place, but it is the Bill we have. This process must not become the traditional zero-sum game of any one side feeling dominance over a process or being able to be portrayed as such.
If the Bill is about legacy and reconciliation, it is important that its clauses reflect a well-resourced plan to bring about reconciliation and deal with the painful legacy of the Troubles. To do so successfully, it must have at its heart a victim-focused and Northern Ireland-focused process intent on truth.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege—and a coincidence, which I will explain—that I should rise to speak after the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. I am very pleased that his opening remarks made the case for those of us who are not Northern Irish, or indeed Irish, although I have extended family in Northern Ireland, to contribute to these debates.
I shall explain why that is particularly the case for both him and me. For those who do not know the geography of Ayrshire, Kilwinning is a really important railway hub. It is the point at which the train from Glasgow to Ayrshire splits and goes north and south all the way down to Stranraer, where it is a gateway to Northern Ireland. As it goes north, it comes to a town called Stevenston. I was born and grew up in Stevenston and was educated in Kilwinning.
Interesting as all that is, the important point here is that the demography of that part of Ayrshire is the mirror image of Northern Ireland. It is not the only part of Scotland that is the mirror image of Northern Ireland in that sense, but it is a part of Scotland that, through all of my young life and, I am sure, much of the noble Lord’s life, there was persistent cross-fertilisation between that part of Scotland and Northern Ireland—not all of it positive and enhancing, I have to say; quite a lot of it criminal; and at times, I have no doubt, some of it terrorist.
So, far from saying that we are entitled to participate in this debate, I think we both have a duty and a responsibility to participate in it, and we should declare an interest. If the legacy issue for Northern Ireland can be dealt with and reconciliation achieved, that will be reflected in our communities, which will be massively enhanced by that having been achieved. There are victims of the Troubles in the communities that we grew up in who are not counted in any of the arithmetic we have been discussing today. I do not intend to speak for victims; there are people in this debate much better qualified to do that than I am.
I respect and admire the Minister for a number of reasons. His honesty and the way that he introduced the Bill are only a part of it. I admire him for his persistent contribution to finding a way to deal with these and other issues for Northern Ireland. He merits our support, and nothing that I say—and I will be significantly critical on one theme of the Bill—is in any sense a criticism of him.
I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office for a period and had responsibility for victims and criminal justice matters, so I do not underestimate the difficulty or complexity of what the Government are faced with, but I do not think the Bill is the answer. I wholly adopt an element of my noble friend Lord Hain’s speech and that of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames: this needs to be substantially reworked. Others have made the same point. The willingness of the Government to rework it may or may not produce a workable piece of legislation; the jury is out in respect of that.
I pay tribute to those planning to table and support amendments that seek to palliate some of the problematic provisions of this legislation; indeed, I may do so myself. I am minded to table amendments that will deal with one part of it, though not nearly the most challenging part. Those amendments that have been proposed by the Law Society of Scotland, whose consistent advice about legislation in this House has been of the highest quality over the time that I have been here. They will deal with the Bill’s provisions to the extent that they limit the Lord Advocate’s constitutional position as the head of the system of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. The system of criminal prosecution and civil liabilities are matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In my view, the Bill’s provisions engage the legislative consent convention, the Sewel convention, and therefore require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
To the extent that I have the capacity to do so, it is my intention to participate where I can and where I think I can make a contribution to the debates on other amendments, both in Committee and on Report. However, in these remarks I shall focus on those faults of the Bill that are intrinsic to it and which cannot be removed without making it a wholly different, and not guaranteed to be better, piece of legislation. I therefore support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, because it encapsulates many of those.
I regret that I have to say this but it would be difficult even for the most Panglossian optimist to contest the view that the UK’s reputation for adherence to international law has been degraded by the actions of successive Governments since the Brexit referendum. The Secretary of State has declared his belief that the Bill is compatible with our obligations under the ECHR, but others have raised significant doubts as to whether that is the case. For example, the European Commissioner for Human Rights and two UN special rapporteurs in relevant areas have raised concerns that the legislation threatens a de facto breach of our obligations. Nearer home, the JCHR and the Select Committee on the Constitution—the latter in a commendably short and accessible five-page report—persuasively explain why the Bill, as drafted,
“is unlikely to comply with the Convention”.
The aggregate of this convincing cacophony of concern is that the measures set out either are incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or create a risk of incompatibility. Either way, the effect of the Bill will ultimately be more litigation before our courts or, if the present Government deploy their overwhelming majority in the other place to secure the Bill of Rights, before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because applicants who will then not be able to enforce their rights domestically will be more likely to take their cases to the ECHR. That will be directly contrary to the UK Government’s ambition to bring an end to litigation; in my view, it will significantly increase the possibility of it.
Of particular concern is the fact that the new ICRIR will be given wide discretion in deciding whether actions should be referred for prosecution and in setting time limits for future criminal and civil actions. In addition, by creating a limited immunity scheme, potentially barring certain civil claims and affecting existing and potential future inquests, the Bill potentially undermines the rights of victims in significant ways.
I think we all received the same email yesterday from the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner. In it, he urged me—as I read it—
“to keep the victims, survivors, and their families at the front of your mind.”
Earlier in the letter, he explained:
“Since the Bill started its passage through Parliament on 17 May I have met with many victims and survivors including the Commission’s own Forum, to fully understand how or indeed if, the Bill could work for them. The cold reality is that no-one I have met believes that the Bill is going to help heal or reconcile.”
That environment is not likely to bring us to one of the fundamental objectives that the Government have set themselves here—of bringing an end to this litigation —and which other noble Lords have spoken in great detail about the necessity of achieving.
Article 2 of the ECHR requires that:
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”
In that light, it is incumbent on the Government to explain how the proposals for the ICRIR, which is created to recover information about a death or serious injury but does not provide any legal remedy, are compatible with their ECHR obligations under Article 2.
This is a point that I do not think anyone else has made, but it is an important and serious one that we should make in the current conditions: while the risk of the UK breaching its obligations under international law is serious in and of itself, it is perhaps exceeded in seriousness by the fact that it compromises our ability beyond these shores to challenge other nations when far more serious and fundamental breaches occur.
Those hostile to human rights in authoritarian states are watching. So too are human rights defenders in other states who substantially depend on us. How will we be able to insist that, for instance, Russian commanders are held accountable for atrocities in Ukraine? We are presently and properly investing millions of pounds in collecting the evidence of those very possibilities. The retort is dismally predictable. How can we insist upon accountability under the rule of law when we have exempted potential offenders of our own from just that mechanism?
If accountability is to mean anything, this basic principle must be maintained: that crimes, when proven, are punished and that victims receive justice. While I sympathise with the desire to draw a line under the Troubles and focus on reconciliation, it is an uncomfortable and regrettable truth that justice cannot conform to a politically expedient timetable. More than 1,000 killings remain unsolved. Although I accept that the chances of prosecution diminish with every passing year, the granting of immunity in exchange for information will be seen by many—nay, all—victims as an attempt to achieve present harmony at the price of their past and enduring distress.
Greater unity in Northern Ireland is desirable, although I suspect that unifying the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Féin in disapproval of this measure is not quite the spur to unity that the Government had in mind. How can imposing a set of measures that have attracted disapproval from all communities and shades of political opinion possibly heal the fractures that remain in Northern Ireland?
I applaud those who are seeking to amend this legislation and to improve it, but I have fundamental concerns about the direction of travel represented by the Bill. In her foreword to the 2018 consultation document, Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past, the then Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, wrote:
“We … continue to believe that any approach to the past must be fully consistent with the rule of law. Conservatives in government have consistently said that we will not introduce amnesties or immunities from prosecution.”
What has changed in the four years since to cause this Conservative Government to jettison what was apparently an immutable principle in favour of this new approach? The answer is clear: either it is not a fixed principle practised by Conservatives in government, or this legislation does not do what it appears to do. I look forward to the Minister clarifying which of these two interpretations is correct.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this debate will adjourn and resume not before 8.15 pm, to allow us to move on to Report and Third Reading of the Counsellors of State Bill.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 July 2022 - (4 Jul 2022)
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I acknowledge and applaud the integrity with which the Minister introduced the Bill, and the way he articulated the problems that exist. Given the range of amendments apparently to be introduced by the Government, though, it is difficult to understand why we are actually debating this difficult and challenging Bill.
In starting my words, I pay tribute to all those with whom I have worked over the years. For 25 years, in one way or another, I have been in this business of investigating and overlooking the Troubles. I pay tribute to the people who came to me, particularly when I was Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, because that took a lot of courage. I remember one mother who came to me and was terrified; she knew the name of the person who had murdered her young son but was too afraid to tell me his name. As she sat at my table, I ran through the names of IRA men whom I had identified as working in the area until she nodded. That seemed to open some sort of gate, which enabled her to talk to me.
I think of the victims, including the police victims: people such as Constable Colleen McMurray, Detective Sergeant Joseph Campbell and Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, the last soldier to die in Northern Ireland. I think of all the victims of all the shootings and bombings. The first I dealt with in some detail was Omagh, where 29 people and two unborn children died, which was really traumatic and went to the heart of what the Bill is about. One of the problems we have is that although most people who were in the security services and the forces in Northern Ireland served with great distinction and integrity, not all did. We have a significant problem in relation to many agents of the state. I think of people such as Stakeknife on the one side and those in the UVF on the other, who were engaged in terrible crimes.
Noble Lords have referred to the extent to which the Bill has been rejected by people, organisations, statutory organisations, former police officers and soldiers, including veterans who served honourably and have stated that criminals who served alongside them should be prosecuted. It has also been rejected by numerous independent and distinguished human rights lawyers and other experts, the UN committees, the European Commissioner for Human Rights and so on.
However, at the heart of this, as we have heard tonight, the legacy of the Troubles lives on in the hearts of all of us who have been affected by them. I include all those affected by the deaths which occurred here in Westminster; I think of Airey Neave and of all the bombs that there were here in England. They live in my heart for my lost baby, who died before he was born in a bomb explosion; they live in the dreadful and murderous sectarian attack on my son when I was police ombudsman, which left him with terrible injuries. There was an investigation but we always knew that it would go nowhere, because people were so afraid of the loyalist paramilitaries that nobody would come forward to give evidence.
That is the legacy and reality of life in Northern Ireland, and it lives on still. On Saturday night, I will go to a place called Oristown in County Meath, where they are trying to recover the bodies of the remaining disappeared. There were three of them: Columba McVeigh, who was 17, Joe Lynskey and Captain Robert Nairac. It lives on in all our hearts and all our souls.
I did a search to find out how these new provisions will promote reconciliation. The word “reconciliation” is used in the Bill on 168 occasions, some 167 of which are in the titles of the Bill and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. There is one other reference to “reconciliation”: Clause 44(4) provides for a study of memorialisations and requires that there must be consideration of
“how … memorialisation activities currently, or will in the future, promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland”.
That is the sole provision aimed at reconciliation. Can the Minister explain whether the Government intend to amend the Bill to provide mechanisms by which they might promote reconciliation?
The Bill does four very important things, which are being articulated here. It terminates existing criminal investigations into Troubles deaths, including the Kenova investigations, with which I am involved. It provides for review in limited circumstances, which may lead to prosecution but is very unlikely to. It terminates civil actions from 17 May this year, and there will be no Troubles inquests after May 2023. I hope that the Government will not come back and tell us that they will allow it to be May 2024, which would be an insult to people in Northern Ireland. All inquests currently under way but that have not reached the stage of substantive hearing must be terminated by the coroner. The Bill also provides for conditional immunity for those involved in the Troubles, as we heard.
Earlier proposals included roles for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, but the Bill makes no provision for any involvement of any of the devolved part of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is even responsible for making decisions about memorialisation projects. Does the Minister not agree that, like so much in the Bill, this should be a matter for the devolved Government rather than the Secretary of State?
The Bill makes the commission the only body that can examine legacy cases throughout the UK. As noble Lords have said, the structures will lack operational independence. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be changes in how the Chief Commissioner will be appointed. However, the Bill provides for extensive involvement by the Secretary of State in operational matters, including giving guidance to a whole range of bodies, including the commission, about the exercise of its function; proposing cases of death or harmful conduct for review; determining resources—we all know that the way to render a new institution impotent is to limit its funding and powers, and there is scope for both here; determining applications for immunity; monitoring the work of the commission; and guarding access to information.
The Secretary of State can rule that information is
“protected international information … which … if disclosed generally might, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, damage international relations.”
The Constitution Committee observes that Clause 4(1) prohibits the commission doing anything that might “prejudice … national security”. There is no provision for the review of any national security claims made by the Secretary of State.
Clause 2 provides for the work of the commission. The language of Bills is normally very carefully chosen. As has been said, the need for proper investigations of Troubles-related deaths was previously acknowledged, and the language has changed in the Bill. The functions of the commission include the review of deaths and harmful conduct and the production of reports on the review of each death. Reviews are not investigations; they are conducted to help a senior investigating officer who is investigating a crime, or is proposing to investigate an unsolved crime, to detect that crime by identifying lines of inquiry. There is national best practice for how to do a review so that it is thorough, is conducted with integrity and objectivity, looks at all investigative opportunities and makes recommendations for further investigation. Reviews are there to assist investigation, not to substitute for it. They should result in further investigation, not just final reports. I do not believe that it is an accident that the word “review” has suddenly appeared in the Bill.
One of the requirements under Article 2 for investigating the crimes of the Troubles, especially those crimes in which a state agent or actor has been involved— although many served with honour, there were hundreds of these crimes—is that the investigation be independent. Taken together, the structures created by the Bill restrict and inhibit the operational independence of the commission. The right to independent investigation is guaranteed, not only through the convention on human rights but through the Good Friday agreement and, most recently, Article 2 of the protocol, which provides for no diminution of our human rights. Your Lordships have been debating with great interest the effect of Article 2 in the protocol debate.
International bodies and eminent experts do not accept that the structures created in this Bill will satisfy the UK’s international and legal obligations. The powers available to the commission do not even appear to include unfettered use of police powers—the powers of the Secretary of State seem to extend even to the use of those powers. This Bill does not provide the existing right of access to information held by state bodies. There is an obligation on state bodies only to provide information and documents that are “reasonably required”. As Police Ombudsman, I had a right to all information held by the PSNI. In other cases, I had to seek information from state agencies such as the MoD, MI5 and GCHQ. Sometimes they were helpful; on other occasions they were not. More recently, as a member of the international steering group for Operation Kenova—I have been there for nearly seven years—investigating the activities of the republican state agent known as “Stakeknife”, I have seen the difficulties experienced by this investigation, which was commissioned by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is not a new problem. The language of this Bill will make the work of information retrieval from the state much more difficult.
Under the Bill, in addition to his other powers, the Secretary of State gives guidance as to the identification of sensitive information. Sensitive information includes anything held by GCHQ, MI5, the MoD, the Army, the PSNI and any British police force. The Secretary of State can issue regulations on the holding and handling of that information. Those regulations may create criminal offences. The Constitution Committee has said that this provision is constitutionally unacceptable because criminal offences should be created in the Bill itself, not by negative resolution, where there is no provision for amendment. In addition, the holding and handling of such information can be regulated by the Secretary of State, and they can even provide for biometric information to be destroyed.
The decision as to reasonableness—the Bill refers to information that is “reasonably required”—will be made by the state agencies, not by the commission. In many cases, I am sure that the MoD, MI5 and GCHQ will decline to provide access to much of the information they have. They will say this is necessary because the material is secret, or its disclosure may put lives or methodologies at risk. I have seen material classified as secret which should not have been. I saw that most recently when I was investigating the Metropolitan Police. The European Court of Human Rights has found that determinations of national security threats must not be arbitrary and must contain sufficient safeguards to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference. I have seen methodologies protected that are no longer relevant. It is most unlikely that the commissioner will get access to what they need for review, or even for investigation.
We must add to these difficulties and restrictions the fact that the commission must grant immunity to a person who has requested it, and who has given an account of their own conduct that formed part of the Troubles that was true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Immunity is not possible for Troubles-related sexual offences. Both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee have said that the power given to the Secretary of State to define sexual offences should be removed from the Bill. But what sort of regime prohibits immunity for sexual offences but grants immunity to murderers?
The Secretary of State can issue guidance on making a request for immunity or determining whether an immunity applicant’s conduct falls within the legislation and is criminal conduct, et cetera. The Delegated Powers Committee says that the statutory guidance should be subject to parliamentary procedure. The Constitution Committee suggests that your Lordships may wish to consider whether the guidance should be incorporated in the Bill. There is no requirement to inform victims or family members of a request for immunity or the outcome of that request. Victims, family members or interested persons cannot provide information to inform the commission’s immunity decisions. In many cases, the families of murder victims have gathered vast amounts of information about the murder of their loved one which they could provide to the commission, as they have in the past provided it to me, and which might demonstrate that the applicant has not told the whole truth about his or her own criminality.
The Government, in response to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, said that they would expect the commission to inform families and that
“information about the granting of immunity should also be included in the published family reports”.
The whole immunity process will be vested in secrecy. There will be no transparency and no accessible accountability for the decisions made.
We also know that accounts given to members of families by those who were involved in the murders of their loved ones are very often inaccurate and sometimes wrong. The harm caused to families by inaccurate information cannot be overstated. There is no penalty for an offender not telling what they really know, although this may change. Where there cannot be a prosecution of an individual because they have immunity, that will impact on the ability to prosecute others for that offence, just as there have been difficulties in prosecuting pursuant to the operation of the current arrangements for assisting offenders under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
Even if the commissioner were to get access to information, to attempt to deal with the complications involving a request for immunity and to proceed to a review using police powers with a view to making a submission, there are very restrictive provisions as to the disclosure which may be made by the commission. In particular, paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 permits disclosure to a range of persons—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Lord Advocate, a member of the police force, coroners, judges—but the Secretary of State must be notified. What is the purpose of notifying the Secretary of State? What is the Secretary of State going to do with the information? Why should case-sensitive information be disclosed in this way, rather than, for example, being dealt with under the normal rules for disclosure in prosecutions?
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 requires that proposed disclosure be notified to the Secretary of State, and he can then give consent for disclosure or withhold it if it would prejudice national security. Again, there is no clarity as to how this might impact on disclosure to the defence or, indeed, the prosecution in any criminal trial. What will be the impact of this provision? Can the Minister reassure the House that this will not have the potential to result in prohibition of the disclosure of material relevant to a prosecution? More importantly, what will the perception be of the victims?
These are not normal provisions. They build in delay. The Secretary of State has up to 60 days to make his first decision and 60 days to make his second decision, and that is for one piece of information. I can tell noble Lords that there are multiple pieces of sensitive information involved in any case. The power of the commissioner to submit a case for prosecution will be severely compromised by these provisions.
I have a few final points. The commission is charged to produce a historical record of the remaining deaths—those which it did not investigate. How will this record be created when there is no investigation? We already have that wonderful book, Lost Lives, which so many of us have used, which tells the story of every death of the Troubles. Will this process add anything to that work? Given that the commission’s work can be concluded or shut down
“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the need … has ceased”,
the question must be, can the Minister confirm that the commission will be funded until its work is completed and that the work of the commission itself will not be terminated after five years? Cases will run on after the five years.
Our history is very complex. Somehow, a situation evolved in which the police, the Army and MI5, having successfully infiltrated terrorist organisations, lost their way. There grew a time when many of the agents of the state currently under investigation were allowed to carry on their involvement in terrorism to preserve them as agents. People died because of this, and it should not have happened. Even when they admitted their crimes to their handlers, they were just sent back on the street. As this emerged, as people began to realise that their loved ones had been murdered by people such as informants—agents of the state who had not been dealt with—there grew an ongoing sense of betrayal in both communities.
There were of course also cases in which members of the police and Army were involved in crime. I emphasise that I know that most officers served honourably. I dealt with so many of them in my time; I lectured them. I remember giving evidence to a Diplock court against an IRA man who had been gathering information against judges and police officers, with a view to a spectacular shooting. That was a difficult thing to do, but it had to be done.
All I want to do in my work on this Bill is to try and help noble Lords to ensure that it will provide justice and enable hope for the people who, like so many of our noble colleagues, have suffered so much through the Troubles.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the moving and forensic speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
I hesitated before putting my name down to speak because I cannot claim the knowledge of Northern Ireland that other noble Lords can. Having had the privilege of being a member of the independent Opsahl commission that considered the future of Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and having visited numerous times subsequently, I took very seriously the passionate opposition to this Bill voiced in a number of quarters. I apologise for any repetition, but I hope it will serve to reinforce the case against the Bill.
I intend to make just two general points, relating to human rights compliance and to the failure to listen to the virtually unanimous opposition to the Bill in Northern Ireland, reflected in my noble friend’s amendment. These two fundamental concerns support the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government should “reconsider its whole approach”. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which I thank for a very useful meeting the other week, argues that the Bill requires
“immediate and thorough reassessment, which should take place through meaningful engagement. The result should be victim-centred and human rights compliant”.
Its view is that
“this is not delivered by the present Bill”,
and nor can it be simply by means of a few amendments. This is a pretty damning conclusion from the official body established to advise on human rights matters in Northern Ireland.
On human rights, the JCHR voices its agreement with stakeholders that the Bill is unlikely to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It expresses serious doubts as to its compatibility with Articles 2 and 3, but also with Articles 6 and 13—the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy—despite the former Secretary of State’s statement that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. One of those stakeholders, Amnesty, describes the Bill as a “flagrant breach” of human rights obligations. The NIHRC expresses grave concern and focuses in particular on what it considers to be the Bill’s incompatibility with Articles 2 and 3, and by extension suggests that the Bill contravenes the Belfast/Good Friday and Stormont agreements. It suggests that there is “little evidence that expert views on human rights compliance were meaningfully considered.” The Minister’s welcome, conciliatory speech offers some hope that they have, to some extent, been so now, but as colleagues have said, we need to see the detail, and it is not just about Article 2 compliance.
A briefing from Freedom from Torture and Survivors Speak OUT warns that the Bill “provides impunity for torture” and in doing so breaches the UK’s obligations under multiple international treaties, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It quotes the Committee against Torture, which has made clear that in order to ensure that perpetrators of torture do not enjoy impunity, state parties must
“ensure the investigation and, where appropriate, the prosecution of those accused of having committed the crime of torture, and ensure that amnesty laws exclude torture from their reach.”
The briefing explains: “We know as torture survivors that seeking justice helps recovery by affirming the unfairness of what we endured, restoring some control”, yet the Bill “silences victims and survivors”. Liberty makes similar criticisms and dismisses the attempt in the ECHR memorandum to the Bill to argue that it is consistent with the UK’s obligations under the convention against torture.
The Constitution Committee echoes concerns raised about the Bill’s implications for the UK’s international obligations and the rule of law, and it quotes criticisms voiced by two UN special rapporteurs and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has urged a fundamental rethink of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie pointed out.
The Constitution Committee also notes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said,
“the strength of opposition to the Bill—particularly by victims—which risks undermining its aim of addressing the past and promoting reconciliation.”
That is such an important point. In his letter to Peers, the Minister stated that “the Secretary of State engaged widely and listened to many different views”, but this is not how those affected see it. To the extent that the then Secretary of State did engage—and that is disputed in relation to the drawing up of the Bill itself—he may have listened, but he certainly did not take on board what he must have heard.
According to the NIHRC,
“the Bill does not reflect the views of 17,000 consultees who engaged with the NIO on the previous legacy bill and is staunchly opposed within NI, including among victims, survivors and their families.”
It suggested that public confidence is lacking due to the Government forging ahead with the Bill without “meaningful consultation”. As far as I can tell, apart from possibly a small group of veterans and the Malone House Group, no organisation or political party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill. I acknowledge that veterans—whose views are reported by the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner—tended to be more equivocal and show what the commissioner terms “begrudging acceptance”. Nevertheless, he also makes clear that veterans
“do not want an amnesty”.
Indeed, an invitation to a meeting with bereaved families of British Army soldiers said that they feel “deeply aggrieved” that the protection of veterans is said to be the justification for the Bill.
The Constitution Committee warns:
“It is constitutionally inappropriate for such a significant measure to pass without consent”,
which is clearly lacking at present, regardless of whether or not the Assembly sits.
Could the Minister explain why the Government are railroading the Bill through despite such widespread and fundamental opposition? This opposition calls for more than the few improvements that the current Secretary of State himself acknowledged are needed when answering Oral Questions a couple of weeks ago, and which the Minister has suggested would lead to amendments being tabled before Committee. Welcome as that acknowledgement is, I am not sure that it reflects an understanding of how fundamental the opposition to the Bill is.
Surely the Government cannot believe that reconciliation can be achieved by imposing it in this form on an unwilling population. Reconciliation requires treading carefully. As the then Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill’s Second Reading in the Commons, it concerns the
“most difficult and sensitive of issues.” —[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 176.]
The Bill may have succeeded in uniting Northern Ireland’s political parties and civil society groups, but unity in opposition to the denial of justice and internationally recognised human rights does not offer a path to genuine reconciliation.
Could the Minister explain why the Government, in drawing up the Bill, have ignored the advice of bodies established to provide advice on human rights issues? In this context, could he respond to the request made by Simon Hoare MP, chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, at the Commons Second Reading that, in order to assure the House that the Bill is Article 2-compliant without “setting a precedent”, the Government give
“active consideration to putting Treasury counsel’s advice on this matter in the Library”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 195.]
The then Minister of State did not respond in his summing up and it seems that we are expected to accept a simple assertion that the Bill is compliant, despite all the advice we have received to the contrary from the JCHR, NIHRC and others. Indeed, he ignored the whole issue of human rights, despite concerns raised by the former Secretary of State, Julian Smith, who I know earned considerable respect in Northern Ireland.
The Minister’s letter to Peers claims that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past through providing better outcomes for victims, survivors and their families, giving veterans the protection they deserve, and helping Northern Ireland’s society to look to the future, which I think was reflected in his speech today. These are admirable aims, but I do not know of anyone outside of the Government who believes that this Bill achieves them.
The JCHR, the NIHRC and the Northern Ireland Victims and Survivors Commissioner have asked the Government to think again. Informed by the view of victims and survivors, the commissioner expresses deep unhappiness and warns that the legislation is
“fundamentally flawed, and is not victim and survivor centred.”
In a letter to me, he explains that
“no-one I have met believes that the Bill is going to help heal or reconcile,”
and in a recent letter to the Daily Telegraph he states:
“A draconian Bill, designed by one party in splendid isolation, is not the way forward, and it is not what our victims and survivors need.”
The JCHR spells out what alternative legislation would need to look like. It would ensure first that
“investigations are independent, effective, timely, involve next of kin, and are subject to public scrutiny; (ii) perpetrators of serious human rights violations are held to account; and (iii) that all possible avenues for the pursuit of justice and the provision of an effective remedy are available to victims and their families.”
Many in Northern Ireland believe that it should reflect the Stormont agreement which, while not perfect, I believe commanded sufficient support to offer a way forward, despite what the Minister said in his speech.
While I welcome the fact that the new Secretary of State and the Minister are engaging in a way that should have happened before the Bill was drafted, I can think only that they will have heard a clear message that it is not fit for purpose. It will not achieve the Government’s aims, but it will create considerable resentment and unhappiness among those it purports to help. It should be withdrawn—or at the very least, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, should be paused—so that the Government can go back to the drawing board and return with a Bill that is human rights compliant and can command support among victims and survivors of the conflict. They deserve no less.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I want to say some words in favour of this Bill. One might assume that we had a situation at present that was viable. I very much sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others who have looked at the word “reconciliation” and said that it is tossed around in the Bill in a way that is not entirely convincing, to put it politely. I absolutely understand that, but the truth is that we have an entirely rancid situation in Northern Ireland. The continuation of lawfare is just a contributory to what is perfectly obvious to anybody who pays the most casual attention to public opinion in Northern Ireland: there is an increasing mutual contempt between the two communities. There is a reason why the Government are trying to introduce this Bill. I fully accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, that in part it is to do with a manifesto commitment and the issue of veterans, but it is also to do with the fact that the status quo is simply not tolerable, and in our discussions I think we should acknowledge that.
I was very impressed by the introduction to the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Caine, not just because of the careful and calibrated way in which he spoke and acknowledged the difficulty, even the anguished way he spoke, but also the precise way that he spoke. But he did not really have much effect on the broader tone of the debate. As the debate went on, we learnt that the Bill was obscene and again and again it was said that it was depriving people of hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, talked about Pinochet’s Chile. Perhaps it is because I was at Cambridge with people who suffered under Pinochet, I thought that was a slight stretch. I accept that the noble Lord was a remarkably effective Secretary of State. He has made it clear tonight that he is on a journey and that he has now modified some of the positions he previously held on this matter in the light of his hopes for what might come from the Boutcher inquiry. I must say, as someone who knows Jon Boutcher, that that is a big wager; it is a Pascal’s wager of a big sort that that inquiry will somehow challenge the terms of this debate, for all the brilliance of his police work. Everybody who knows about his career in London knows that he was—indeed, still is—a very fine policeman.
This language is striking and so different from the tone that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, adopted in an attempt to be precise and face up to difficulties. Again and again tonight, reference has been made to the fact that there were sexual crimes. In fact, the Government have tried to move on this; it is there, but you would not know it from anything that been said in the past two or three hours.
The crucial thing, above all, is that I find myself thinking again and again about the friend of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, at the time of the initial report, which he has talked about so eloquently tonight. Everybody knows that his friend, Denis Bradley, is no particular friend to British Governments. When this Bill was published and it was clear that the Government were going to act in this way, did Denis Bradley talk about “obscene”? Did he talk about depriving people of hope? No. He went into a television studio and, to the annoyance of people who expected him to use that sort of language, he said, “There is no realistic hope. Politicians are merely playing a game if they try to defend the idea that there is hope somehow. They are making a public display. They are actually misleading people.”
It is important to remember the tone with which he spoke at that time. He said, “We cannot deliver more justice now, but we may be able to deliver more truth”; again, that is part of the thinking behind the Bill. That is what Denis Bradley said in the immediate aftermath of this Bill’s publication—quite different from the tone of so much of what has been said tonight, but at least it respected what the Government are trying to do. I am absolutely certain that, if he were here tonight, he would say, “There are loads of things in this Bill that I really don’t like,” but that is a different point. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, has already acknowledged that there are problems in the Bill and creative work will have to be done to sort it out. However, given the tone of what we have heard, it is worth remembering Denis Bradley’s initial response.
Again, the reason why I am sympathetic to the sceptical talk about reconciliation is that I was a historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday tribunal. As historical advisers, we all thought, “This is it. The Government’s great failing is that they won’t fess up to the things they or the state did wrong. We will put a line under it.” When the report came in, David Cameron made a fine speech, partly drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, fessing up to what the British state had got wrong. The hope was, “Well, that’s it. That’s a dividing line. People will accept that we’re not afraid to criticise ourselves or our state’s performance.” The hope was that things would move on and the mood in Northern Ireland would change, but the mood did not change at all. It is as simple as that. I accept that it was a fine industry for the lawyers who worked in it, but the mood of the people did not change at all and the impact that David Cameron was aiming for in his speech ultimately amounted to zero. I am prepared to accept that it would have been worse had he not given that speech. But that is why I accept the talk that it is going to be difficult to achieve reconciliation and why I respond so sympathetically to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said.
However, it is important to understand that the status quo is radically unacceptable, defective, and helping to create an increasingly rancid and divisive public mood in Northern Ireland. At this point, the Bill has unified both communities, but it is a false unity. They each simply want the terrorists of the other community to be brought to law. The unity disclaimed against the Bill is not a real unity.
What has surprised me most this evening is how the Supreme Court ruling in the McQuillan case in December 2021 has not been discussed in any serious way. It has a very significant impact. The headline in the Times law report on 10 January stated that the Supreme Court had said that Northern Ireland police are not required to reinvestigate incidents from the Troubles. That is not being said by the Minister or the British Government, and nor is it a clause in this Bill. It is a very firm statement of Supreme Court policy.
I am sure that there is debate about this, and that many do not like or accept it, but it is a Supreme Court—
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that the Times headline writer might not have been quite accurate, and that the judgment in the McQuillan case might have been slightly more complicated than that?
Lord Bew (CB)
It is no more inaccurate than any other headline that I have seen. I accept that it is a complex ruling. However, the Northern Ireland police force issued a statement after the judgment:
“The Police Service welcome the clear legal ruling that there are no legal obligations arising from Article 2 ECHR to investigate these cases. We will now carefully consider the judgments and their impact on the legacy caseload.”
The Government have been attacked for depriving people of hope but, at the minimum, fairness requires us to say that the Supreme Court is depriving people of hope. Only this week we have had an attempt to assassinate two policemen, and serious business with loyalist paramilitaries. Anyone who thinks that the Northern Ireland police force does not look at that ruling and think it significant—and significant enough to be mentioned in this debate—is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Yet apparently, no one thinks that because it is better to say that this Bill is obscene, is depriving people of hope, et cetera.
I am insistent because we have a problem. The public debate in Northern Ireland now—the way that lawfare operates and the way that these cases are now exhumed on a regular basis, which the Government are responding to—does not relate to what happened in the Troubles. To give a very simple example, the RUC, as was, suffered 309 deaths. It killed 53 people, including 10 of its own in error, carrying heavy weapons in police cars and so on. RUC officers were killed at five or six times the rate of their killing. This is very crude but factual. The killings committed by the republican movement were something like five times the rate of their own deaths, but no one would know that if they looked at the cases running through the courts in Northern Ireland, and at how lawfare was operating. No one would consider that to be the balance of killing and of suffering. Nobody would know that.
That is the problem that we are trying to address with this Bill and why I am willing to give it a degree of support. It is not in doubt that there are problems with the Bill. The Minister has made it clear that the problems are significant. The House can do a lot of work to improve it. Yet everyone must remember that the Bill does not exist on its own but alongside a Supreme Court ruling that unquestionably moves the dice—moves the balance. There is no question that it does that. It may not move it 100%. There may be requirements for other developments, but it certainly moves the discussion in a way that we have not acknowledged in several hours of debate tonight.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, perhaps I should declare my position as a former Times headline writer, from which I am able to confirm that the headlines very often do not reflect the nuance of a story—or, indeed, quite often the facts.
I rise to make a modest and short intervention in this enormously powerful debate. One of my chief reasons for doing so is to reinforce a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, in her presentation of her amendment. The noble Baroness said this Bill is
“opposed by the widest possible political coalition.”
My remarks today come after a close consultation with the Green Party of Northern Ireland. The words are my own, but I received from the Green Party of Northern Ireland a very clear message, as reflected in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that this Bill should not go forward.
That is also the message I have personally received here in meetings with victims’ families in Westminster. I also note that, while we are focusing on the Bill, we are debating an amendment to a Second Reading. In my three years in your Lordships’ House, I have taken part in many debates—something the Whips often comment upon—but I have never seen this form before, and I think that is a reflection of the general feeling of the House.
I will acknowledge, as have many others, that the Minister has approached this debate in a conciliatory spirit and has clearly expressed his personal position, and I think the House collectively has thanked him for that. But that does not get us away from the fact that the Government are putting before us an unacceptable Bill. That is the view that has been expressed around your Lordships’ House and, indeed, around Northern Ireland.
An amnesty is not the answer. There is no appetite for it in Northern Ireland, from victims, veterans, political parties or former police officers. An amnesty is the negation of criminal and civil liability. Linking the avoidance of prosecution to any truth recovery body or mechanism undermines the credibility of that body.
The problem is not the awkwardness of its title, much as the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is indeed a terrible mouthful, but, again, speaking as a former journalist, often when you see awkwardness in expression and explanation, that is an indication of underlying problems with the whole approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, says that this is a Bill that allows murderers to get away with murder. I am going to speak personally here, as I am still recovering from and processing in my own mind a visit last week to Ukraine: to Kyiv, Bucha and Irpin. That is where I saw unmistakeable evidence of war crimes and atrocity. To be absolutely clear, I am not making a comparison between the conflicts but I am making a comparison between two societies with a burning desire for justice.
In Ukraine, the international community and the Ukrainians themselves, even in the midst of an attempt to wipe their state off the face of the earth—something we have seen with increased hideousness even today—are making strenuous efforts to document crimes and collect evidence, to ensure that there is a possibility, however distant, for future justice.
The UN assistance mission told me at the weekend that it had reports of 47,700 potential war crimes. That desire for justice—to ensure full legal acknowledgement of what has happened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, put it—is a reflection of the impact on ordinary families and people’s lives. That cannot be forgotten, no matter how many years have passed.
I was particularly taken by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, when she was talking about the impact of family loss on a six year-old boy. On the sleeper train back from Kyiv I shared a compartment with a Ukrainian family with a boy of about that age. You could see the impact that the war had had on that child’s life, and that will obviously continue right through his life. That is what we are looking at in the Northern Ireland situation today.
I also bring that in because it is important that we consider that we are operating in an international context, in which the rule of law and human rights are under concerted attack. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and many others have said, independent sources have judged the Bill to be in breach of Article 2, “Right to life”, and Article 3, “Prohibition of torture”, of the ECHR.
It is not my place or, I suggest, that of this House to propose alternatives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, the way forward must have the support and full input of those affected. Moreover, the solution should be co-created with them. It has been said to me in these discussions that, if I am going to oppose this, I have to provide a solution instead. I do not think that is something that your Lordships’ House can do. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that the Bill needs to be completely rewritten. I agree with the sentiment, but I propose that this is not something that the Government are in a position to do, particularly now. It needs much broader and more democratic input.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady O’Loan provided an analysis of the Bill in granular detail. We have heard remarkable speeches from Members of all sides of your Lordships’ House and particularly from Northern Ireland. We have heard from noble Lords, and will hear from others, who have held high office in Northern Ireland. My noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames said that he was glad that some who are not from Northern Ireland spoke in the debate. We just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and before her from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Now, I hope the House will listen to a few words from me.
For the best part of two decades, I represented a constituency in the city of Liverpool, which some wags refer to as the other capital of Ireland. Liverpool has a history of sectarianism but, in recent times, it has a different story to tell of reconciliation. My friend the sculptor Stephen Broadbent made a remarkable statue called the “Reconciliation Triangle” and two more, one in Glasgow and one in Belfast. Why did we do that? It was to explain something of the tarnished divisions that had disfigured the stories of our and other people’s cities. It was an attempt to understand one another’s stories and to stand in each other’s shoes.
My interest in British-Irish affairs has its antecedents in my origins, as is the case with thousands of people who live on this side of the Irish Sea. My father was one of five brothers who served in the Armed Forces in the Second World War. One was in the Royal Air Force and was killed. My grandfather served in the First World War, but my mother was from a Gaeltacht, an Irish-speaking area, in the west of Ireland. Irish was her first language. Growing up in family that had to live across the religious divide and across different traditions, I had some experience of the way in which it would take several decades for the old prejudices of the early 1950s to dissipate.
The need for reconciliation was also something I saw throughout my years as a city councillor and as a Member of Parliament for the city of Liverpool, when sectarianism was still part of its politics. It took patience, time and commitment to make progress. Some called it the “Mersey miracle”.
In the 1980s, as Irish affairs spokesman in the House of Commons for the SDP-Liberal Alliance, I worked on the alliance report What Future for Northern Ireland? with the late Baroness Shirley Williams of Crosby and the late Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Hunt of Llanfair Waterdine—the conqueror of Everest. We travelled together to Northern Ireland in the course of preparing that report. In it, in 1985, we were unanimous in trenchantly advancing the arguments for devolution and power-sharing. That is the issue I most want to talk about in my brief intervention.
In a leading article in 1985, the Irish Times said that the report was
“one of the most important documents published on the Anglo-Irish question in recent years … it shows signs of hard work, rigorous thinking, and a commendable attempt at objective analysis. The report set out in detail how power sharing could work and was forthright in defence of civil rights and the rule of law including the conduct of justice.”
We published that report believing that power-sharing and devolution were the only way we would ensure that the hopes, fears and aspirations of both parts of the community could be met. Short-circuiting devolution and power-sharing by pushing on with yet another Westminster Bill is simply disempowering of devolution. It is emasculating of power-sharing. It is disrespectful of opinion in Northern Ireland and those represented, most especially the victims who should be at the heart of the Bill. I strongly believe that there should be no Committee stage of the Bill until the Assembly in Northern Ireland is restored, and until it has first considered this Bill, providing for the pause that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames mentioned in his earlier remarks. Bypassing Northern Ireland does not represent progress: it is retrograde and unwise, and fundamentally diminishes the principle of devolution.
In introducing the Bill today, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, in his candid, measured and very honest remarks said that you cannot force through reconciliation via legislation. But that is exactly what we are in danger of being asked to do. It is why the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors has asked us to reject these proposals. It is not just the use of the word “reconciliation”; even the words “Northern Ireland” are inadequate and insufficient. They do not recognise the nature and extent of what are also euphemistically called “the Troubles” in its title. God knows that, at its worst, the hatred and violence that we have been recalling today disfigured, maimed and caused extraordinary suffering and anguish throughout these islands.
Some 3,720 people were killed as a result of the conflict and 47,541 were injured. There were 36,923 shootings and 16,209 bombings. Who will ever forget Bloody Sunday in 1972 or the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre in 1987? As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, rightly reminded us, there are still those who glorify violence and those who perpetrate it. Yes, the Bill is entitled the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but the ramifications and consequences of three decades of unspeakable violence have been felt by individuals, families and communities way beyond Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will recall the deaths, injuries, and millions of pounds’ worth of damage in 1996 at Canary Wharf and in the Manchester shopping precinct, or the Provisional Irish Republican Army’s attempt in 1984 to murder the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and members of her Cabinet at the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Five were left dead and 31 injured, among them our noble friend Lord Tebbit and his wife Margaret, who was left paralysed from the chest down. I am privileged to share an office with the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who has been here for most of this debate today; of course, an attempt was made on his life, too, in 1972. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, referred to the death of Ian Gow, with whom I served in another place, but in 1979, just 24 hours after I was elected to the House of Commons for that Liverpool division, Airey Neave, the shadow spokesman for Northern Ireland, was murdered here, within these precincts, when a bomb was fixed underneath his car by the INLA.
In my maiden speeches in both Houses, I reflected on the futility and unacceptability of such violence and was able to point to long, and ultimately successful, attempts in Liverpool to lay to rest sectarian ghosts and learn the art of respecting difference. It was why, on taking up my responsibilities as a spokesman, I spent a lot of time with Northern Ireland MPs, whom I enormously admire for their commitment to finding non-violent ways forward. I echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said earlier when he referred to his visit to Crossmaglen. It was a place I visited with Seamus Mallon, the SDLP MP for Newry and Armagh, who played such an important part with John Hume and David Trimble in bringing about the Good Friday agreement.
The defining moment for me—and, I suspect, for John Major, when he was Prime Minister—came in February 1993, when we both attended the funeral of the boys murdered in Warrington after the Provisional IRA left bombs in the high street. Fifty-four were injured and a 13 year-old and a 12 year-old boy, Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry, were killed. Out of that tragedy, Tim’s father created a peace initiative to promote greater understanding among all communities affected by conflict and to deepen understanding between Great Britain and Ireland. Out of it also came new initiatives from Sir John Major, on which Tony Blair was able to build after 1997.
Not all of us will be able to find it in our hearts to seek reconciliation, or offer forgiveness like Gordon Wilson did in the aftermath of the murder of his daughter at Enniskillen—or, for that matter, like Her late Majesty did in 2011 when she set aside the 1979 murder of the Duke of Edinburgh’s uncle, Lord Mountbatten, to seek with President Mary McAleese a different context for our future relationships. No Act of Parliament could have legislated for that, and no Act of Parliament will ever be able to legislate for reconciliation or forgiveness.
That is why I believe that issues such as those contained in the Bill should first be debated in Northern Ireland and that its elected representatives should be given the first say in what should happen next. It is simply not good enough for Westminster to emasculate devolution, as it is inclined to do, by taking to itself decisions which were intended to be settled by Stormont. The continuation of that process will destroy devolution, not expedite its restoration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said, we need to tread with great care and re-engage the institutions of Northern Ireland.
I have just one more thing to add. If this Bill goes further, I think many of us will feel forced to table amendments and, in effect, oppose it. That is not in anybody’s interest at this time. I recall the way in which leaders from both parties in both Houses worked with one another to bring about the Good Friday agreement. This is a moment to stop and to exercise some wisdom, rather than try to rush pell-mell with legislation which, as we have heard today, is resisted by people right across the divide. It might be, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, that this is not something about which the detail is agreed. People are opposed to it. We have to work with the grain. That requires us to endeavour to work with those in Northern Ireland by giving them the first say and to work for the restoration of the institutions there before pressing on with this legislation.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, two or three times a year I attend, for reasons unconnected with this Bill, human rights meetings of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The committee’s function is to supervise the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Its members are neither lefty lawyers drunk on the elixir of judicial power nor campaigners for human rights—far from it. They are the ambassadors of the member states, representatives of the Governments who routinely have to respond to human rights claims brought against them, either in their domestic courts or in Strasbourg. As potential defendants themselves, each has a strong interest in ensuring that any measures required for compliance are practical—there but for the grace of God go they.
The committee’s workload, brought from 46 countries, is immense, but it has chosen to make this Bill, in the context of the McKerr judgment, one of its very small handful of top priorities. It has been debated anxiously and at length in successive quarterly meetings. This September, the committee urged the Government to amend the Bill, including by—I quote its decision—ensuring that
“the ICRIR is independent and seen to be independent; ensuring that the disclosure provisions unambiguously require full disclosure to be given to the ICRIR; ensuring that the Bill adequately provides for the participation of victims and families, transparency and public scrutiny”.
The committee also urged the Government to reconsider the scheme for immunity and expressed “serious concern” about the arbitrary way in which ongoing inquests are dealt with. It will debate the Bill again next month.
The committee’s decision represents a consensus that Articles 2 and 3 as interpreted by the court require the Bill to be substantially amended in precisely the respects that have been identified by a wide spectrum of opinion, and not only legal opinion, here at home: consultation, independence, disclosure, participation, transparency and immunity.
Those concerns are close to those of the Commission for Victims and Survivors and reflect the principles that have been deployed to such good effect by Operation Kenova. Jon Boutcher’s remarkable work, and its legacy to date of more than 30 cases awaiting the decision of prosecutors, is proof that effective independent investigation can take place in a fully human rights compliant manner.
I invite the attention of noble Lords to the independent review of human rights compliance conducted last year for Kenova by Alyson Kilpatrick, who was my special adviser in Northern Ireland when I served as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and is now the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Ms Kilpatrick concludes of Kenova:
“without any hesitation, that in so far as Article 2 ECHR compliance is concerned, it is the exemplar of what such an investigation should, and can, be”.
So human rights compliance is attainable, even to the satisfaction of somebody the noble Lord, Lord Hain, rightly described as an exacting judge.
From these Benches, I can only guess at the political pressures the Minister is facing. He was an invaluable guide to me when I first started to visit Northern Ireland, he is engaged with us and he has given an impressive and heartfelt speech today. But this is not a happy time for the protection of human rights in this country. We somehow seem to be sleepwalking into a depressing world in which legal obligations are there not to be simply followed but rather to be taken into account, and in which Downing Street sources can be quoted as saying that the proposed Bill of Rights
“would allow UK courts to ignore European case law more often”—
as if departure from the international norms that we have done so much to create and to export across Europe is some sort of badge of honour.
In Northern Ireland, of course, the European convention is central to the political settlement and is understood by all communities in a way that is not always the case in England. If an excessively relaxed attitude to legal requirements cannot be eradicated from our political culture, let us at least ensure that it is excluded from the Bill.
We owe a great debt to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its constructive work on these issues since the Bill left the Commons. The Constitution Committee has referred approvingly to its concerns. It was good to hear that the Government have sympathy with some of those concerns, though not, on the basis of what we have heard so far, those relating to the most fundamental issues in Part 3 of the Bill. In that connection, I hope the Minister will agree to reconsider the arbitrary distinction drawn between inquests in which a substantive hearing has or has not begun.
The elephant in the room is the issue of immunities for criminal investigation and prosecution for unlawful killings and torture. The McQuillan case is of course relevant to that issue, but not conclusive of it. I believe it is perfectly realistic to suppose that decisions to charge for Troubles-related crimes may be possible in England as well as in Northern Ireland and perhaps elsewhere.
I recall that even the overseas operations Act 2021, which caused your Lordships a good deal of unease and was substantially amended in this House, provided only for a presumption against prosecution, not for immunity. That Act affects the prosecution only of British forces. This Bill, as we have heard, will predominantly affect the holding to account of terrorists for their crimes. There seems to be something not quite right there. The Minister has indicated flexibility, and it sounds as though he may need it.
Let us turn over the stones that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, mentioned in his moving speech. The current situation is far from ideal, and the Bill too will not be ideal—but I hope we will end up with something we can live with.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, today we have heard from many noble Lords of their personal experiences of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. We have listened to the long list of the atrocities carried out by terrorists, leading to death, injury and suffering of innocent persons. I could add to that list, but the point that victims deserve justice has been well made.
For much of the past 25 years, there has been an erosion of justice when it comes to dealing with the troubled past in Northern Ireland. For many innocent victims of terror in Northern Ireland, there has been a hope of justice, but for many justice has only ever been a repeated word, as this word has not brought results alongside it. Regrettably, this began with a process whereby terrorists were being released from prison. That was followed by comfort letters, which offered no comfort to the victims of terror. Since then, due to the slow pace of this process, many innocent victims of terror have continued to suffer and have asked of many of us the question: when will I see real justice for the murder of a loved one?
Today we are addressing the legacy of more than 30 years of violence, and of 25 years since the drafting of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. These matters deserve our fullest attention, and they deserve respect and time to consider carefully. I trust that that will be the case when the Bill reaches Committee and Report.
It would be wrong to view the Bill as the answer to the question of how we deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s troubled past. Regrettably, the Bill does not provide the answers to these outstanding matters. In my view, the Bill as it stands would in fact do much more harm than good to the fragile and delicate balance that exists in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, since 1998 there has been a failure to address these incredibly sensitive matters, and innocent victims have watched on as there has been an attempted rewriting of history in some very clear and obvious instances, as the noble Lord, Lord Godson, vividly illustrated in his excellent speech.
Many victims’ groups and individual victims continue to express real concerns about large parts of the Bill before us. They are understandably concerned about a process that could offer an amnesty to the victim-makers. A blanket amnesty would further add to their suffering, as it would continue to deny them the justice they seek. Across Northern Ireland, many people realistically accept that there is a limited possibility of a successful prosecution and meaningful jail term for those who carried out atrocities against their loved ones. Many innocent victims accept the harsh and regrettable reality that, 20 or 30 years on, the possibility is only very limited that they will receive justice. However, the Bill as drafted would remove that possibility altogether. There would be no possibility of jail time for bomb-making, murder or attempted murder, nor jail time for maliciously wounding a soldier. I could give examples. Because of the Bill, the limited possibility of justice would evaporate. The Bill is therefore unacceptable to victims.
In addition to the concerns over an amnesty, there is also concern about some other aspects of the Bill. Terrorists and victim-makers would be rewarded regardless of whether they stayed silent or told the truth. Surely, as a bare minimum, prosecution should be the alternative to not fully co-operating.
While every person in this nation should absolutely be equal and equally subject to the law, an opportunity has been missed to make a definitive distinction between the victim-maker and the innocent victims of their actions. For justice, there needs to be a clear definition of a victim. When no such definition exists in legislation, the danger is that we equate direct victims of terror with those who have been injured as a result of their own actions in carrying out acts of terror. Those who would be granted immunity for Troubles-related crimes or those injured by their own hands must not be defined as victims for the purpose of remembering the past. In the Bill as drafted, a blanket amnesty is set above investigations. Perhaps the most important, fundamental point of all in the Bill is that it gives more rights to the people who committed crimes during the Troubles than to the innocent victims of their crimes.
The Bill before the House today is described as a legacy and reconciliation Bill. In the eyes of many victims of terror-related offences in Northern Ireland, reconciliation remains a deeply challenging ask when the prospect of any sort of Troubles-related amnesty looms large. Many victims have said from the outset that they will struggle to support any legislation that falls short of delivering accountability and true justice. Large swathes of the Bill are inconsistent with the desire to pursue justice. If the Bill succeeds, many of those who have openly evaded the authorities for years will seemingly be able to reap the benefits of immunity.
While it is true to say that the passage of time presents obstacles and prosecutorial difficulties, the answer to this problem does not lie in arbitrarily halting routes to justice for innocent victims. Such a system would not be accepted elsewhere in this nation for criminal gang-related offences. A blockage to justice of this nature should not therefore be deemed acceptable in Northern Ireland.
Like others, I wish to see an outcome that deals with the legacy of our troubled past. We all wish for this. I acknowledge and recognise the Government’s desire to move this long and challenging process forward. However, it would be a mistake to rush through or proceed with a Bill that ultimately does more harm than good when it comes to delivering for victims of terror.
To deal with these matters adequately, fairly and proportionately, we need a transparent process in place that commands broad support across the wider community in Northern Ireland. We have not reached this point with the Bill before us. As we have said in respect of many other matters relating to Northern Ireland, agreement has been and should be built on consensus. Where there is no consensus, there cannot be a fair and balanced way forward. It is clear that consensus does not exist on supporting this Bill in its current form. I oppose the Bill as drafted, and I am sure that my noble friends will have much more to say as it proceeds to its next stage. I look forward to listening to the Minister as he winds up this debate.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak. Having listened to the whole debate, I thought it would be good for your Lordships’ House if I gave a very short contribution, inspired by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The President of South Africa’s address to us yesterday gave me the confidence to contribute briefly to this debate.
First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on his speech, which graciously tried to reconcile irreconcilable problems. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; the issues he raised and the questions he posed have to be answered. We cannot have a situation in Northern Ireland where those who committed crimes are simply pardoned and not prosecuted. The same situation is not true for England and Wales. Our law would become confused.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his efforts towards achieving the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, warmed my heart. If the Minister is wise, he will pause this Bill and ask noble Lords such as these to work out what should come before your Lordships’ House. If not, we may pass this Bill but it will not happen in Northern Ireland.
What did we learn from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu? There had been a few prosecutions of very high-ranking officials from the security forces, including the former Minister of Law and Order, Adriaan Vlok. He was given a suspended sentence following a plea bargain. Many other such cases were not prosecuted. The victims felt that the Government were strengthening impunity and that the beneficiaries of apartheid had escaped accountability for their actions. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up to try to deal with that feeling. Despite the challenges and limitations, the commission’s decision-making processes and hearings attracted global attention. It was the first commission to hold public hearings at which victims and perpetrators were heard. While amnesties were generally considered inconsistent with national law, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission provided a basis for showing that conditional amnesties were a useful compromise, particularly if they helped to secure confessions from perpetrators. If they led to a confession, there was a positive; if they did not, they did not.
This was a major departure from the sort of trial there was at Nuremberg. Although it was built on justice, the methodology was very different. It provided the world with another tool in the struggle against impunity and the search for truth and justice. The regret that Archbishop Desmond Tutu had was that it did not have “justice” in its name. It had “truth and reconciliation”; the truth was found and reconciliation was attempted but, in the end, justice was not delivered.
I took part in the Drumcree reconciliations in Northern Ireland. For me, that was a statement of public policy. Could we not enshrine in law what most people are saying we should not do and pause, like we did with the health Bill in this House, and come back with something slightly more wonderful, as the noble Lord said?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, with that interesting comparison because everybody has said that the one thing the Bill does not do is promote reconciliation. We certainly need to have a debate about what would promote reconciliation.
I join others in showing appreciation to the Minister for his opening speech. I think we all genuinely appreciated his sincerity. When he said that the Bill is challenging for us and for him, it was pretty obvious that there was a very sincere situation. He has our sympathy, which is perhaps not what he wants, but I believe he will get engagement. What we will get at the end of it is obviously yet to be determined, but it is important to put that mark down.
Another thing that has been said is that the term “Troubles” is euphemistic. It is a terrible understatement for what was a bloody conflict. It convulsed Ireland and Northern Ireland for 30 years and has left, as we now appreciate, a tragic and very complicated legacy. It is also worth saying that while none of us who live on the mainland can possibly appreciate what it did to the communities in Northern Ireland—we have heard so much about that and all appreciate the contributions made—it has left deep scars across the whole of the United Kingdom. This is not just because of the atrocities committed in Great Britain. In so many meetings over many years just as a local MP, I heard the sense of inadequacy, guilt and despair at the conflict and the inability to bring it to an end. I think that affected people right across the UK; we were just so used to news bulletins about another bombing or shooting, and we wanted it to stop.
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement laid down hope for the whole of the UK, as well as the island of Ireland. The question now is: will we be able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of that agreement with a process of reconciliation and a functioning Executive and Assembly? That would attract well-wishers from across the world. Right now it does not look likely and if not that, what?
Reference has been made to the Stormont House agreement. I recognise that the Ulster Unionist Party said that it did not support the agreement but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, I hope it did not reject the basic principles: any legacy solution should promote reconciliation and uphold the rule of law; it should acknowledge and address the suffering of victims; it should facilitate the pursuit of justice and be human rights-compliant. That is surely not a point of contention.
The other thing we are all concerned about is the switch in the Government’s position. At the 2017 general election, the Government said:
“We … continue to believe that any approach to the past must be fully consistent with the rule of law … Conservatives in government have consistently said that we will not introduce amnesties or immunities from prosecution.”
That was said by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State at that time, but we have had an election since and the world has changed. The Minister has been here throughout that and will of course have his own appreciation of that change and development.
I think all of us accept the views of some that the uncertainty over possible prosecutions of service and security personnel causes stress and anxiety—of course it does. But surely that does not justify setting aside human rights issues and the rule of law; it cannot do so. We have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, did, that the security forces did an incredible job, took huge casualties, were brave, saved lives and kept the peace, but some of them clearly did not conform. In fact, it is in the interests of the overwhelming majority who performed absolutely professionally that those who did not should not be given absolution.
It is important to say that this is not simply a domestic issue: it affects our reputation as a nation and an upholder of human rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said. We uphold human rights and the rule of law, but this has been seriously damaged by the conduct of this increasingly discredited Government who, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, now think that law should just be taken into account, rather than respected and followed.
I was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—its political wing, if you like —and I am concerned when I hear debates within certain sections of the Conservative Party calling for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, alongside Belarus and Russia, the only non-members of that organisation. I am glad that Dominic Raab said that he does not think that useful, but that was not a robust defence of our membership, nevertheless. The idea that we should do that is unconscionable, and a dying Government with no mandate have no right even to consider it.
The problem, which has been mentioned, is that all of this should be happening in a debate among the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who need to make an honest assessment of the role. We are here because they are not there, and that simply has to stop.
The Minister said that he has had many meetings recently, and I believe him; he probably listened and engaged sincerely and genuinely. But the fact is that the stakeholders are all saying that they have not been properly consulted and certainly have not been listened to, perhaps apart from in their engagement with the Minister. So we have to recognise that the Bill is supported by no one in Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that it is not good enough to say that, because they all have different motives, the fact that they are united against it is not valid. For a Government to pursue a Bill that no one in Northern Ireland supports shows total contempt for devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. It is unacceptable.
Lord Bew (CB)
I absolutely take the point the noble Lord is making, but some polling suggests that significant groups on both sides of the community do want to draw a line under this dispute, to use that horrible phrase. I am not suggesting that it is a majority, but you cannot deduce from the political parties their hostility. Do not forget what I said about Denis Bradley. The parties are playing a game whereby they apparently offer justice to people, but realistically there is no chance of justice. So you cannot deduce anything from the parties’ positions. Some of the polling is more mediated, and there is the position of the veterans’ groups, which has been referred to.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I do not for a minute dispute that people have different motives for their objections, and they may have motives that I do not like or respect. But it is indisputable that no political party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill, yet the Government say they are determined to legislate against the wishes of all of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. I repeat: those elected representatives should be sitting in Northern Ireland—
Lord Hain (Lab)
More importantly, all of the victims’ groups are opposed to the Bill. It is quite difficult to get them to agree on anything, but they agree in their opposition to the Bill.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, which is obviously important —it was my final point. The most important thing of all is that the victims should determine the shape of whatever legislation we come up with. They are the people who need to know and be consulted.
This is a distasteful point to make, but the Bill is being driven by a wing of the Conservative Party that wants to protect service personnel from prosecution, which does not help the victims in any way. I plead with the Minister and I look him straight in the eye, because I believe that he will relate to this. Whatever he comes up with—he says that he wants to amend the Bill substantially, and he will have to—it has to be something that the victims recognise and that addresses their real issues and their desire for hope and justice. He has to reconcile the rule of law, human rights and the needs of victims; that is a huge challenge. I believe that he genuinely wants to try to do it, and he deserves support and help to do so, but clearly, if he cannot, the Bill can go no further.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very powerful, informed and serious debate. In fact, nothing else could be graver than the issues that we have been discussing for the last number of hours. It is about life and death; it is about the whole way in which Northern Ireland has suffered for so many years. So many people have lost their lives; so many families have been bereaved; so many people have been injured and maimed in all sorts of mental and physical ways. Of course, nothing could be more important than what we have been debating this evening.
I have been involved in Northern Ireland for about 28 years now. A Welshman with an Irish background, I was called by Mo Mowlam to be her deputy back in the time of the Labour Opposition before 1997, and then I became Minister of State and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Some of the highs—indeed, the highs—of my political life have been there. The Good Friday agreement was obviously one of them. However, some of the lows were there, too, and this debate is talking about the lows. The lowest point was when I had to fly back from a holiday in France to go to Omagh and talk to all the parents of those children who had been blown up by that terrible bomb. That occurred not long after the Good Friday agreement had been signed.
I believe that everybody who has spoken in this debate spoke from the basis of great sincerity and a belief that they want to ensure that right is done in terms of where we are going on legacy and reconciliation. I have done a little tally of Members of the House who spoke on this: about 19 Members have spoken against the Bill, four have spoken absolutely in favour of it, and about four were somewhere in between. That is not a scientific or mathematical way to look at how we should deal with these matters in the House, but it is an indicator of what people—people who take a great interest in, or come from, Northern Ireland—are feeling about this hugely important subject.
I agree very much with the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Bruce, and others too, who said that we should not be doing this at all. It is not a matter for us: it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive to do. As we know, however, neither of those institutions is up and running, and that is why this House of Lords and the House of Commons have to deal with it. It is a great pity because, although I think it would probably be more difficult for political parties in Northern Ireland to deal with it, ultimately those parties in Northern Ireland own this problem and need to resolve it.
The Minister made a first-class speech, mainly because he spoke from his very great experience in Northern Ireland and knows what he is talking about. He was right to say that we could have amendments to this Bill, including amendments that the Government themselves will table to try to improve it. There are those who think that the Bill is entirely unamendable—that it is so bad that it should be dumped. I am veering that way myself, but, of course, we do not dare dump Bills in this House. We go through a Second Reading and we go through all the other stages. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others made wonderful speeches saying in general what the principles behind the Bill are, how they are wrong and how we ought to be able to change that.
Your Lordships ran through a huge number of issues which will undoubtedly come up in Committee: immunity, the powers of the Secretary of State, human rights, the rule of law, the glorification of terrorist acts, oral history, reviews as opposed to investigation, inquests, civil litigation, and others. These are all hugely significant issues that will undoubtedly occupy us for some weeks ahead.
We talked about veterans and their importance in all this. I sometimes think we overlook the problems of veterans in Northern Ireland who, more than veterans in any other part of the United Kingdom, have been adversely affected over the past 40 years. Above all, the theme, if there is a theme of this debate, is victims. That is at the heart of this. All the organisations in Northern Ireland, so far as I can tell, including the Victims Commissioner himself, are opposed to the Bill. That should be so important in our deliberations. I think what actually underpins the objections of everybody who is against this Bill, from whatever part of the community in Northern Ireland they come, is how it deals with victims, survivors and families. All those people would feel so adversely affected and let down if the Bill, in its present form, were allowed to go through. It has lots of flaws, and we will address them in the stages to come, but the biggest one is the issue of victims. I know the Minister has met victims’ organisations, he has met victims, but at the same time, we have to understand that they are crucial to all this.
The other big issue, of course, is that people are against it. Everyone is against it. Every single political party in Northern Ireland does not want it. Had the Assembly and the Executive been in operation, it would not have seen the light of day: it would not have got anywhere because everybody would have been against it. The NGOs are against it. The Human Rights Commission is against it. Amnesty is against it. Ireland is against it, which is important because Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. The United States is against it. The European Union is against it. The Council of Europe is against it. That is a pretty substantial and impressive list of people who do not want it.
As a consequence of that, it is bad law; it is unfair law; it is unworkable law. If I were still Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I would not touch it with a bargepole. I would say, “Let’s start again.” It is an important issue: we cannot dodge the issue—of course we cannot. If we keep on saying, “It’s all too difficult, we can’t do this,” we would be wrong. Try and try. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, referred to South Africa. Many years ago, I went to talk to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and listened to people, including the current President of South Africa, and heard some wonderful ideas, but South Africa is not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is too small. South Africa is huge, but there were issues we could learn from.
We must not rush this through; that will not be good for anybody. I urge the Minister, even at this late hour—and it is pretty late—to go to his boss and say, “It’s not good enough; let’s start again.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I said in my opening remarks some hours ago that I have found this legislation challenging and difficult, and the subsequent few hours have done nothing to reduce that one bit. I have listened to a very powerful debate. First, I thank a number of noble Lords for their kind words in response to my earlier remarks, which I genuinely and deeply appreciate. I also thank one or two noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Bruce of Bennachie—who were kind enough to remind me of certain words I had written for previous Secretaries of State on this subject and into previous Conservative manifestos.
There have been a number of very powerful and moving speeches. As ever, I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. She reminded us of the Loughinisland massacre. I remember it very well because I was with a friend from the Republic of Ireland, watching the same football match that evening, when the news came through. I was an adviser, as the noble Baroness knows, to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the late Lord Mayhew of Twysden, so I deeply sympathise with the case to which she referred. My noble friend Lord Rogan, who is in his place, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn and many others referred to incidents during the Troubles which deeply affected them, people right across Northern Ireland and people across the whole United Kingdom.
I concur with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that, of all the speeches, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, made an outstanding contribution, which I think moved the whole House. I thank him very much for that, and I am aware of the tremendous work he has done over many decades in Northern Ireland, and his great record of service to the community there.
In my opening comments I said that there have already been a number of attempts to resolve these issues over many years. Going back to 1998 and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, legacy was the untouched issue, if you like, and at the time it was one of those matters that was—probably for good reason at the time—put into the “too difficult” drawer. There have been a number of attempts since and they have all foundered for one reason or another.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, talked about the need for the Assembly to be more closely involved in this. I remember, and referred in my speech to, the attempt by the Executive to deal with this issue back in 2013, with the Haass-O’Sullivan talks, which unfortunately did not lead to an agreement.
I referred also to the Stormont House agreement, when most of the institutions contained in that agreement, such as the Historical Investigations Unit and the ICIR, were very firmly in the devolved sphere. It was always our assumption at the time that it would be the Assembly that would take them forward. There would have had to be legislation in parallel here to deal with certain national security issues and issues around disclosure of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to. It was at that point that the then First and Deputy First Ministers came to see the then Secretary of State to say, “This is all far too difficult for us—could you do it all at Westminster?” I completely appreciate the sentiment of working with the local politicians and the local political parties in Northern Ireland, but there are difficulties in just handing it back to them. I do take on board the points about the need for a collaborative effort.
I think that is one reason why people refer to the shift in approach in 2020 by the then Secretary of State. If I am being fair to him, I think he genuinely looked at the previous attempts made to resolve this and at the possibility of prosecutions. We have heard a great deal about that this evening, and I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with whom I agree far more than I ever disagree on a range of subjects. When he talked about people literally getting away with murder, unfortunately, in Northern Ireland they have for many decades because of the lack of evidence to convict. When I talked earlier about the vast majority of cases now being over 40 years old, the reality is that the likelihood of any meaningful prosecutorial process leading to a conviction is very slim indeed.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble and learned Lord touches on some of the issues that have also troubled me in dealing with this over the past months. I can see an argument to do with the chances of a prosecution being so slim in a very large number of cases. I talked to the retired police officers about this, who were very clear that in most cases, if the evidence had existed at the time, there would have been convictions, but it is simply not there and the chances are incredibly slim. Therefore—
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I want to interject the fact that in the 1970s, a process was adopted which prevented prosecutions—there were to be no prosecutions for murder of any military personnel—and there was a process through which the Royal Military Police produced statements which have now been declared to be totally unacceptable, so there were processes which made it impossible. I ask the Minister again: will he make the money available for the prosecution of the 33 files which Operation Kenova has submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions? If you have the money, you can prosecute.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Baroness has asked me this question a number of times before. The Public Prosecution Service is not funded by the Northern Ireland Office; it is funded by the Executive, and it is a devolved responsibility. It would have to find the money from within its own resources, if resourcing is the only issue here. I have heard from a number of respected figures within Northern Ireland, within the legal system, who would argue that it is not just about resources at all.
I was trying to set out what I think the Government’s position was, because the chances of prosecution in so many cases were so remote, even where people have held out for prosecutions. I have given the example before of Bloody Sunday and the Saville inquiry, which reported in June 2010. The PSNI then very methodically went through the report and investigated the cases again to see whether there were any grounds for the prosecution of soldiers. It took nine years for the current DPP to come to a decision around prosecutions, concluding that prosecution would be justified in one case. As we know, that case subsequently collapsed. I think it has now been re-referred, but it did collapse. One noble Lord mentioned the fact that people are getting older and dying, and this example points to the fact that these processes can take a very long time.
Therefore, the purpose of what the Government are putting forward here is to try to bring forward information and get people to the truths in a much more timely way. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, shakes her head and disagrees, but that is the genuine intention: to try to get more information out there while it is still available. As noble Lords know, the problem with a prosecution if it collapses is that no information is provided to families, and they are literally back at square one. We can have these discussions, but I just wanted to say that that was one of the justifications for this. In order to encourage people to come forward and co-operate, as noble Lords know, the Government originally put forward in the Command Paper a blanket statute of limitations of the kind referred to by my noble friend Lord Cormack, but they then refined the position on the basis that if people were going to be given immunity from prosecution, there should at least be some incentive to earn it. That was the way in which the Government approached this back in 2020.
I have taken on board the very strong feelings expressed this evening. If noble Lords will forgive me, I think I have been fired hundreds of very detailed questions from across the House, which I could not possibly answer, particularly at nearly 10.05 pm. But what I am prepared to do is to sit down with noble Lords, both individually and collectively, before Committee, which I hope will not be rushed. That is certainly not my intention. I think somebody used the phrase “pell-mell” the legislation through the House, but that is not my approach or my intention. I would want to take sufficient time to look at the Bill in detail and give it the scrutiny that it absolutely deserves.
In my speech I tried to respond to some of the concerns that have been expressed already and which were brought out in the debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that I was not in a position to flag, if you like, at an earlier stage what these amendments might be. I think the noble Baroness is familiar with government write-round processes, which do not always proceed at pace and are the subject of discussion. I do apologise. In all genuineness, I hope that these amendments, when they are drafted and I bring them forward, will go some way to allaying concerns on the issues that have been raised outside the House and inside the House this evening around ECHR compatibility, independence of the new commission, greater incentives for co-operating with the body, and penalties for misleading, lying and not telling the truth, including revocation of immunity where that has already been granted, and full sentences for those who do not co-operate with the body but are subsequently investigated and convicted.
I also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that I do not expect those amendments to be the end of the story. There are other amending stages in your Lordships’ House beyond Committee, and, again, I hope we will not rush from Committee to Report and can have a reasoned and genuine discussion and debate between those two stages of the Bill.
While I will look at what further amendments the Government might be able to bring forward, I will genuinely look constructively at those which are put forward by other noble Lords across the House. As I have always said in my engagements within Northern Ireland itself with victims groups and others, I am the least precious person when it comes to amendments and where they come from. If they are sensible and constructive, I will always look at them and give them a fair wind.
As I say, I am very happy to sit down individually and collectively and engage with noble Lords before Committee. I will seek to go through the speeches made in your Lordships’ House this evening and, where detailed questions have been put to me, I will respond in writing, if noble Lords will allow me, rather than detain the House for a great deal longer this evening.
As I said at the outset, it is challenging and difficult, but there is no perfect way of dealing with this. I want to try and genuinely use this House in its proper constitutional way to revise and improve legislation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. His comments tonight have been very helpful to the House. He has clearly listened to the concerns that have been raised. The most important thing he said is that he does not want to rush the process but wants to take the time to listen, engage and get this right. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Caine
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 14, Schedule 4, Clauses 15 to 26, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 7, Clauses 29 to 39, Schedules 8 and 9, Clause 40, Schedule 10, Clauses 41 and 42, Schedule 11, Clauses 43 to 52, Schedule 12, Clauses 53 to 58, Title.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 24th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2023)
Lord Caine
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness O'Loan
At end insert “but that the House should not be invited to read the Bill a third time until the Northern Ireland Assembly has agreed a Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill”.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, policing and justice were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2009, years after other areas of governance. How to handle Northern Ireland’s legacy of pain has been a source of contention for decades, for reasons which are well known. Despite that, agreement was reached in principle in the Stormont House agreement of 2014, the terms of which were compliant with all international legal obligations and the rule of law, of which the UK is so proud. For a variety of reasons, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not yet legislated a way forward, although the content of the agreement is largely accepted in Northern Ireland. We do not have an Assembly at the moment, the reasons for which your Lordships are very well informed about. However, in July 2021, a Motion rejecting the proposals contained in the Government’s Command Paper on legacy, which led to the Bill now before your Lordships’ House, was passed without any dissent by the Northern Ireland Assembly; the Motion was accepted by the Assembly.
When the Government legislate on a matter which has been devolved, the Sewel convention—of course, it is only a convention—requires that the Government seek legislative consent from each devolved Administration affected by the legislation. There has been no legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Bill we will discuss today. My amendment to the Government’s Motion is very simple: it requires that a legislative consent Motion be secured before the Bill goes to Third Reading.
The reasons for that are equally simple. The Bill has been rejected by every political party in Northern Ireland and by the churches, victims’ groups and other individuals, human rights organisations, the Northern Ireland victims’ commissioner, victims’ organisations—such as the cross-community group WAVE, which has done magnificent work to help those who have suffered so grievously during the Troubles—and veterans’ organisations. The Minister has himself admitted that he has not met anyone who actually wants it to be enacted; he has encountered constant opposition to the Bill. It has been seriously criticised by the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, whose role is to advise government, because it is not compliant with the UK’s international legal obligations or with the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. There has been a total failure to consult victims and survivors properly and to respond meaningfully, even at this stage, to their very real objections and concerns.
The Government and the Bill have been seriously criticised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, the Irish Government, the United States State Department and UN special rapporteurs, who warned that the Bill would place the UK in flagrant breach of its international human rights obligations. Last Thursday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights criticised it in trenchant terms, and, again, Members of the US Congress wrote to the Prime Minister about this yesterday, I believe. The Bill deprives survivors and victims of the Troubles of their fundamental legal rights. The Government’s legal obligations under these measures are being set aside in the Bill.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, with which I am bound to say that I have very great sympathy, although for different reasons from those advanced by the noble Baroness. I would like the Assembly to consider the propriety of the linkage between what is, in effect, an amnesty and the establishment of and participation in the commission. I happen to think that those are wholly different issues and should not be linked.
As it happens, I am an agnostic on the question of the commission, but I am not an agnostic on the question of a statute of limitations—an amnesty. I feel very strongly in favour of it. There should be a statute of limitations to preclude prosecutions in respect of any crimes alleged to have been committed and connected with terrorism prior to the Good Friday agreement. There are a number of pragmatic reasons for that, which I am not going to trouble noble Lords with, but there is an essential concern that I have: I believe that it is offensive and a serious abuse of process for servicemen to be prosecuted for alleged offences while at the same time many people who have been, or are alleged to have been, involved in the commission of terrorist offences have been admitted to high political office. I find the letters of comfort offensive if servicemen are to be prosecuted. I look at Mr Martin McGuinness, who served as Deputy First Minister; it seems that he did participate in serious offences. Given all that, can it be right to prosecute servicemen, when in all probability their level of culpability is lower?
It is in my view an abuse of process to do so, and it is for that reason that I want to see a statute of limitations that covers all offences. I do not think that it is possible, in law or practice, to make a distinction between those who are alleged to have been terrorists and servicepeople. I do not think that that distinction is possible, so it has to be a general statute of limitations. I would like the Assembly to discuss this matter, although I am bound to say that I think that the outcome is likely to be different from that which I would wish.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, in producing this amendment, the noble Baroness is representing the widespread frustration that exists in Northern Ireland in the light of this proposed legislation. Speaking from my experience and years of service to Northern Ireland, I have never come across such widespread opposition to a proposal such as this as is the case today. A lot of that frustration, I have to say to His Majesty’s Government, is caused by their failure to produce the amendments to this legislation that they had promised. They made a solemn promise to this House and the other House that they would take very seriously the expressions of frustration that many of us had brought to the Floor of this House and to the other place. We are disappointed in the result and the failure to fulfil that promise.
The failure of this legislation to have at its heart the needs of survivors and victims and their families and loved ones is a total disaster. Because of the way this new commission is proposed to operate, many people in Northern Ireland are going to be denied justice and denied the opportunity to be heard. I speak from many years’ experience of pastoral service to the people of Northern Ireland when I say that this is nothing less than a tragedy.
It is for those reasons that so many of us have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. No one knows better than she does, from her public service, what the feelings of opposition amount to in Northern Ireland at the present time. I appeal to those noble Lords who have serious concerns, who do not live in Northern Ireland, who have not experienced what we have come through; I appeal to them to see the opposition to this legislation as a matter of right and wrong, for it is, I believe, verging on a moral issue.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I want to say briefly why I support this amendment. I must declare an interest in that I am a military veteran who served for a long time in Northern Ireland and members of my family were in the police.
Veterans are, inevitably, really against the Bill, but I think one ought to accept that veterans are not just people like me and not just their families: they are our societies. If you take rural areas like where I come from, a village or a locality, those societies have become veterans of the Troubles. If you do not live there, you do not know how completely the lives of everybody who wanted peace were changed. It is not restricted to the brothers, sisters and parents who waited for their family members, whether they be police, prison officers or simply, like one of my soldiers, driving a lorry that was providing cement to build security posts. This is not a funny thing where people were in the Army or the police, now they are out of it and it is all finished: this is a whole society, and it really affects people. They are 100% against this, as are other victims who may not be totally related at that stage.
Imagine a small village. In one case, one of my soldiers drove a school bus. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is not here today, but she was a child on that bus. One of my soldiers drove it and he kept the bus at home: it was the most secure place. He searched under the bus every morning. His son helped him do so. They watched them do it. The place that was most difficult to search was behind the engine block on the other side. They put the bomb there. He got into his bus, he drove for a distance, he picked up children and the bomb went off. Luckily, the noble Baroness was towards the back. One of my other soldiers, plus one of the children and others who were on the bus, were injured. That child nearly lost its arm. But the next year, my soldier and his son committed suicide, because he had not searched the bus. So this is not just about veterans, but this Bill is seen as leaning the other way, and that is that.
It is an opportunity for Sinn Féin and the terrorists following, or whatever, to investigate the records that were kept by the police of every incident, through records of everything. But on the return side, there is not so much as a written note on a cigarette packet; that is how they planned their business, because at road checks, they could be searched, so they wrote it on little pieces of paper. Those are all gone. I ask Members of this House to remember that this is not something far away; this is part of the United Kingdom. It is whole societies that have been wrecked, and now this is putting the cap on the whole thing.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for tabling this amendment to the Motion to move into Committee. It provides us with the opportunity to once again ask the Government to consider very carefully how they wish to proceed, given the level of opposition that there is to this Bill, which has again been laid bare in the contributions that we have heard from those from Northern Ireland already this afternoon.
The Minister, about whose personal integrity I have no doubt whatever, is fronting for the Government on this issue, and he did give a commitment that the Government would take their time before proceeding, or would move very carefully and consider amendments —and some amendments have been forthcoming. But I would urge the Minister to think very carefully about what has been said already, and also what has been said over the previous months since the Bill was published.
We have been told repeatedly throughout the period of what is euphemistically called “the Troubles” that the victims should be at the centre of any process which is about legacy, truth recovery, justice and so on. It is very clear that victims have been treated abominably by this Bill and by this Government, and that is a terrible thing to have to say about a Government who are committed to the union—although their actions in recent times, both in the protocol and on this, would cause many unionists to doubt what exactly is now going on with the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is certainly not the case for all members of that party, and certainly not all parliamentarians, but at the centre there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with how Northern Ireland is now being treated as part of this United Kingdom. This is one of the most egregious examples of where victims and their views are being set aside. There is universal opposition, yet this Government are intent on proceeding.
I appeal to the Government: listen to the victims. We heard the noble Baroness mention various organisations, institutions, foreign bodies, and all the rest of it, and I have respect for very many of them. However, I do make the point that some of these people now speaking out against this Bill supported, against the views of victims in Northern Ireland, the proposals to reduce the length of any sentence on conviction of the most heinous terrorist crimes, some of which we have heard about just now, to two years, and to allow those who have already served two years to walk free. Regardless of that, we should listen to the victims and, even now, pause, and urge the Government to withdraw and not move into Committee.
Victims have listened very carefully to the voices that have been raised in opposition to this Bill, and among the voices that have been raised are the voices of the victim-makers. We have the appalling situation where the representatives of terrorist organisations, who glorify and eulogise murder and the murderers—I am talking about Sinn Féin—have the audacity to come out and use this piece of legislation to bash the Government. Their support for victims is mock support: it is a pretence. Their agenda is completely different. They are pocketing the concession for their members, and those who carried out violence, then turning it to bash the Government.
So the Government cannot win on this. They are in the invidious position of doing something that has no support across the board. Therefore, I urge them to withdraw the Bill. They need to counter the twisted narrative of the Troubles that is out there, and to be more proactive in terms of the balance of the past. There is a widely shared view in Northern Ireland that there is an imbalanced process, where the story of the terrorists and their organisations is continually played out in the media. We have had some examples of that even this week—but where is the balance, with the countless thousands of families, their extended families and their communities and neighbours who were terrified daily by the threat of terrorists living among them, spying on them and betraying them at their work?
I do not advocate looking at Twitter too much, but I urge noble Lords to look at one that talks about “on this day” and an atrocity carried out by the IRA almost every day. It details the normal day-to-day activities of ordinary people going about their daily business—dropping their children at school, driving a bus, being in a bakery, carrying out a profession—who were murdered. They were cut down by terrorists who now claim that they have the right to talk about human rights and lecture everybody else about them. The Government are doing those people, their relatives and their kith and kin such a disservice. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to think again at this stage.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a Member of this House coming from Northern Ireland, having represented a constituency in the other place, I—like others from Northern Ireland—have met many victims. The Troubles have imbued the lives of all of us from Northern Ireland because, in some way, we have been deeply affected, either by the deaths of loved ones or neighbours or by the destruction of property. All of that has left many victims searching for truth recovery and justice. The ordinary people I am talking about feel that the Bill robs them of their opportunity to access justice, investigations and inquests which they believe, quite rightly, is their right.
I agree that there should be a pause placed on the Bill and that the Government should go away and think again—and think in terms of the Stormont House agreement. We said this at Second Reading, but other things have happened since then. Other organisations in the human rights field have raised important considerations to be taken into account. The European Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the victims’ commissioner and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory responsibility in all of these areas, have all highlighted the faults in the Bill and the fact that the very premise on which it is based—immunity from prosecution—goes against the very heart of what the UK democratic system should be about, and what we as Members of your Lordships’ House should be fighting for.
I can understand what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, is talking about as a former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, and what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, as he was part of the Eames-Bradley commission which looked into this area in detail with a microscope. There is no doubt that the deaths, injuries and massacres have caused immense pain, whether to members of the security forces or to people on whatever avenue of any political perspective or whatever location they came from on the island of Ireland, as well as here in Britain. People suffered pain and anxiety and were deeply affected.
I believe that the fulfilment of rights and the rule of law must be central to the legacy process. That goes to the very heart of the Bill; immunity from prosecutions and the prevention of civil actions will not deal with what was already agreed in the Stormont House agreement and will not bring peace, justice and reconciliation. I firmly ask the Minister, who was involved with Stormont House and many other agreements to do with victims and legacy in Northern Ireland, to go back to the drawing board and the Stormont House agreement. The Bill, with the amendments, and particularly the government amendments that we will deal with later, is an exercise in denying justice. It will breach the European Convention on Human Rights and threaten the Good Friday agreement. It is bad for justice, for human rights and for the thousands of people who lost loved ones, who were injured during the Troubles, or whose property was destroyed, and who have very bad memories of what happened to them, their families, their communities and their colleagues.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading I made clear my own distaste for the Bill and pleaded with the Government not to proceed to Committee or Report. Of course, it is open to the Government at any stage to pull the Bill and to suspend our proceedings. My noble friend’s amendment does not do that; it says that we will proceed with Committee in the normal way. However, it says that before giving the Bill a Third Reading—which is also open to us to decide as a House—we would have a chance to pause it in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have argued in our proceedings; it would be wise for this not to go on to the statute book. This would be a way to do that.
I was grateful to the Minister for the invitation he offered to Members of your Lordships’ House to attend one of his briefing sessions—I think everyone in this House admires the diligence which he applies to his duties. However, during that meeting I had to reiterate my view that it is unwise and unnecessary to proceed with a Bill that, as we have heard again today, has united all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland and beyond.
One of my own principal reasons for opposing further progress on the Bill at this time is that, as we have heard, it has not been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is non-functioning, and so has not been considered by it. That contributes to the emasculation of power-sharing and devolution, and places in jeopardy one of the most important building blocks of the Good Friday agreement: the very formula which allows people from divergent and different parts of the community to live alongside one other and learn to honour and value each other’s traditions and experiences. Again, I plead with all sides that the Assembly be restored as soon as is humanly possible. Anything which smacks of victors or vanquished will lead to alienation and hostility, and potentially worse, which is why no effort should ever be spared to revive and restore the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I know that some would welcome the death of power-sharing and devolution and are ready to impose Westminster-baked solutions on Northern Ireland. That flies in the face of subsidiarity, is disrespectful of diversity and risks the gains which have been made. We need changes of heart and mind, not ill-considered legislation. For those reasons alone I support the amendment to the Motion that my noble friend has laid before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, during my time as chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place I came to know, respect and admire a lot of people, none more than the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—a Roman Catholic of deep faith and a police ombudsman of utter impartiality—and the man who had been Primate of All Ireland, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who is respected and indeed loved by people throughout the island of Ireland. They have both made very powerful speeches today, and we should reflect very carefully on what they and others have said.
But we are dealing with thousands of human tragedies, and this terrible legacy, without the input of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. I want to make a plea to the party politicians in Northern Ireland: for goodness’ sake, come together and discuss. It is absurd not to because of one issue over the protocol, important as it is. They have not even discussed that. There is an Assembly, it has been elected, and an Executive could be appointed within 24 hours of its meeting. In my view, it is very important indeed that, before we go very much further forward with the Bill, the Assembly comes together and recognises its constitutional responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to make its views known on all issues of importance to them.
Of course, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would allow this House to proceed, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said a moment or two ago. On balance, I think she is right to do that, because we have a constitutional duty too. But for the Bill to pass on to the statute book without a proper input from Northern Ireland would be, to put it very mildly, deeply unfortunate. So I hope that our friends and colleagues who have influence over the Members of the Assembly, as many do, will urge them to come together and discuss. Of course, they will not agree on everything. Of course, there will be vigorous debates on the protocol. But that is the purpose of a democratically elected body.
My noble friend the Minister’s behaviour has been exemplary: he listened carefully to all that was said on Second Reading, indicated his own discomfort with the Bill—I do not think that anybody could be comfortable with it—and promised to come back with some amendments. He has done that. He is an honourable man. He knows and cares more about Northern Ireland than most people who do not live there. He has spent much of his life there and has given much of his professional career to serving its people.
We have a good Minister, a decent man, with a bad Bill. I do not think that anybody disputes that. But I think that what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said was wise and sensible. We ought to resolve that this will not go on to the statute book until the Assembly in Northern Ireland has met. It must not continue to abdicate its responsibilities. It has a duty to the people who elected it, to serve them.
So, really, the substance of my brief remarks is to appeal across the Irish Sea, to a very beautiful part of the United Kingdom which I got to know well and love deeply: please do not continue to neglect your democratic responsibilities. Let us have your views on this Bill. I suspect that they will not be very different from most of ours.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I realise that I run the risk of striking a discordant note in this afternoon’s debate, and I very much understand the widespread criticism of this Bill from virtually every quarter that has been identified. However, I choose to identify with the remarks made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and take issue with just one of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, when, in the list of those opposing the Bill, she mentioned veterans.
Veterans are not a homogenous group; veterans come in very different categories. I feel that this debate would be lacking if someone did not speak for UK-based veterans who, for 38 years, served and did their duty, in the main, to the utmost of their ability. Yes, of course, there were tragedies, and errors were committed by the British Army. We know what they were, and I am not going to go into those; but the vast majority of soldiers, as we have debated in this Chamber before—I have had debates in my name making exactly these points over the years—did their duty to the best of their ability. Their voice must be heard.
We do not want, as a veteran group, to set ourselves against all the other powerful arguments against the Bill, but the voice that I speak for is the voice that has had enough of investigations being mounted on now quite elderly soldiers on the whim of evidence, often causing them a lot of fear and upset, some of them going to their grave with the allegations not fully investigated. If the Bill is intended by the Government to stop that process, it is a very blunt instrument to achieve a particular aim. On that basis, I would ask the Government to think again about the Bill, but if the Bill is lost, for all the very good reasons that people have been talking about, what must not be lost is some way for veterans who did their duty to be protected.
I am not going to personalise it; I am one of them. My colleagues and I, on the whole, did our best, serving to the best of our ability. There must be some protection for us. We tried to raise it in the context of the overseas operations Bill, but those protections were dismissed by the Government, who said we would come back to it in the Northern Ireland Bill. We are back now. If we lose this Bill, the vast majority of UK-based veterans—not all—will feel that they have been let down by the Government and that successive promises have been broken. That is the only point that I will make.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. Would he agree that, at the end of the day, we are going to have to have a statute of limitations? It has to apply to all security personnel, but because of that, I am afraid that it has also to apply to those who are alleged to have been involved in terrorist activities.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
I accept the noble Viscount’s point. I say simply that, if investigations are going to continue, and the rule of law is going to continue to be applied, I would seek for protocols to be put in place to protect the manner in which investigations were carried out and the way in which people who were required to take part in questioning were handled. I would want to ensure that their dignity, their respect, their age and their previous service were taken into due consideration. That is a minimum ask. That is a reasonable ask, and I speak on behalf of veterans who served their country in Northern Ireland over a very extended period.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
I suggest that the noble Lord may have meant GB-based veterans and not UK-based veterans, since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
I accept that point entirely. I meant people such as me who live in England—I am three-quarters English and one-quarter Welsh. It is people such as me whom I had in mind, fully accepting that veterans from Northern Ireland have a very different outlook on the whole matter—quite understandably—because they were living and working within their own homeland. I am talking about soldiers who were brought up elsewhere than in Northern Ireland. I apologise for poor use of our language.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I will not repeat the cogent and compelling case she put. While Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I tried to grapple with legacy issues, which are incredibly difficult. I was bruised by them, and I had to withdraw a Bill I introduced that had been in gestation prior to my appointment because it was opposed by everybody. That is what should happen to this Bill.
However, I would have liked to support the Bill for that very reason of having grappled with these issues. I would particularly have liked to support the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, because of his commitment to Northern Ireland, his long service and the high regard in which we all hold him in this House. But the Bill is opposed by every political party in Northern Ireland, and by every victims group. They do not agree between themselves very often and they do not agree about the definition of a victim, but they agree in their total, unanimous opposition to the Bill.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I am the first to acknowledge that many sensible amendments have been put forward from all sides of the House; there are also some that I would not be quite so keen on, but no matter how good some of those amendments are, they do not and indeed cannot deal with the fundamental flaws in the Bill.
Similarly—and I speak after a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to find a way forward on legacy that is acceptable to everyone. Again, I am the first to acknowledge that, but I am completely convinced that the Bill before us is not that way forward.
The noble Baroness’s amendment goes to the heart of the process because it deals with the issue of democratic legitimacy and gives this House and Parliament an opportunity, if taken, to pause for thought. There are four good reasons why we need to pause.
First, as others have indicated, the Bill does not have a level of consensus within Northern Ireland among the political parties—indeed, quite the opposite. As someone who in a previous life served for 24 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and indeed for six of those as the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly, I can say better than most that it is difficult at times to get a consensus within the Assembly. It is difficult to get a consensus in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in recent days on other issues there has been a level of debate as to what counts as sufficient consensus in Northern Ireland: is it a simple majority, or a cross-community majority? But one thing indicated by the proposer of the amendment is beyond doubt, as shown by the vote in 2021: every single party in Northern Ireland is opposed to this Bill. That is a complete consensus.
We may question in particular the bona fides of one of those parties, Sinn Féin, whose military wing inflicted violence for many years and was the biggest single contributor to deaths in Northern Ireland. But even leaving aside the fact that republicans were responsible for around 60% of the killings in Northern Ireland, nevertheless there is a complete consensus within all the parties in Northern Ireland that this is not the way forward.
Secondly, there is also a consensus among victims that this is not the way forward. As previously indicated, in the same way that veterans are not necessarily a homogeneous group with the same views on every subject, that is undoubtedly true of victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Indeed, not only do they often desire different outcomes and have different perspectives on the world, but even members of the same family of a victim of the Troubles sometimes have different views. So it is extremely rare that a consensus emerges, but it is difficult to find a single victim, let alone a single victim group, who is in favour of this as a way forward. If indeed victims are supposed to be at the centre of this, by proceeding pell-mell with this Bill we are not moving forward.
Thirdly, the Bill very clearly represents a denial of justice. When we look at the Troubles, two myths are sometimes perpetrated. They are quite lazy assumptions. The first is that everybody in Northern Ireland is a perpetrator. That is clearly not the case. The vast majority of people, from whatever side of the community, got on with their lives, tried to make progress in a democratic way and gave the lie to the idea that there was no alternative to violence.
The second myth is that everyone is Northern Ireland is also a victim. I was extremely fortunate: although I grew up throughout the entirety of the Troubles, I did not lose a family member or close friend to the Troubles. Indeed, I probably grew up in one of the safest parts of Northern Ireland. I was able to grow up in such safety because of the bravery of veterans throughout the United Kingdom, both soldiers and police officers, in keeping that peace in Northern Ireland. I cannot claim to be a victim, which makes me particularly reluctant as a Member of this House to impose a denial of justice on victims. I would be imposing that on other people.
There is no doubt that many victims out there do not seek a particular form of justice or a conviction. It is also the case—none of us should be naive, particularly in historical cases—that the opportunities for a trial and conviction to hold somebody directly accountable for the murder of your loved one are extremely remote. I believe the Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it provides the “solution” of simply snuffing out, and taking away from families that want justice, any opportunity to have their day in court. That is the third reason why this is fundamentally flawed.
There is a final reason why we need to look at this. Understandably, when we are dealing with legacy the focus is quite often on the past and the legacy of the past, but I do not believe the Bill provides reconciliation in the future. Indeed, I believe it provides a very dangerous pathway for the future.
Unfortunately, we have already seen a younger generation in Northern Ireland—sometimes fuelled particularly by comments from those who have been supportive of terrorism—effectively trying to rewrite history. It is not unique to Northern Ireland, but the glib mantra of some people is that there is no alternative to violence, and there is an attempt retrospectively to justify that level of violence. Let me make it absolutely clear: from whatever source, whether republican or loyalist, violence in Northern Ireland was never justified and never will be. But if we rewrite history by effectively whitewashing what happened and providing an amnesty, we are in danger of sending out a signal to the future that violence is an acceptable way forward. That is a very dangerous pathway and not one that any of us would intend to go down, but I think we are inadvertently going down it.
For all those reasons, this is an opportunity to think again and pause for thought. I therefore welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment. I believe it is a productive and balanced way forward, and I therefore urge the House to support it.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the amendment and for what, if I may say so, was an incredibly powerful speech today. We have heard so many powerful speeches today from all sides of the House. I noted here that we have had speeches from Northern Ireland and not Northern Ireland. We have had the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Hain—a former Northern Ireland Secretary—and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who made an incredibly powerful speech. Then there were the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Alton, who also made speeches that made a very powerful case. We even heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, making a slightly different case but supporting, none the less, the aims of the amendment before us this afternoon.
As I said at Second Reading, the strength of opposition risks undermining the Bill’s stated intentions of dealing with the past and promoting reconciliation—“reconciliation” is in the very title of the Bill. But the Bill is not promoting reconciliation and is opposed by so many who have spoken today. It is for this reason that on these Benches we support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. A Bill of such sensitivity and consequence cannot and should not proceed without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who I thought also made a very powerful speech this afternoon, we need to listen to the victims and pause this Bill before Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is rare that I speak in this House and say how disappointed I am to be here. But I think there was some optimism that, when we had the Second Reading, the Government would go away and, in thinking again, perhaps have that pause for discussions that we had hoped. I pay tribute to the Minister, because he did. This has taken longer to come back to us; the Bill has had quite a long gestation period to get to this point. But it is worth noting that the reason the noble Baroness has brought her amendment before us today is that, for all the engagement the Minister has undertaken and all the discussions that have been had, there has been no movement in the opposition to this Bill. It is not a lack of engagement that is causing the problem. It is not a lack of talking to people. It is perhaps a lack of listening and changing.
The noble Baroness’s amendment before us today is a very unusual one, so I hope the noble Lord recognises that it indicates the strength of feeling across this House and outside in Northern Ireland. I think it is a rare and dubious honour to have united every Northern Ireland voice in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, have tried to deal with some of these issues themselves in the past, and no one is pretending that it is easy or that there is an easy solution. But what is essential is that victims, survivors and indeed veterans and others—anyone who has been associated with this time—have confidence in the process. This is what we are lacking today. I suppose the point—it is not necessarily a disagreement —is that we all know the views of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running and debated this tomorrow, it would not make any difference. It would still oppose the Bill, such is the strength of feeling. I was there for just a few days, the week before last, and in every single meeting we had with every single political party, and at every meeting afterwards, this was raised as an issue and there was no support.
It is appropriate that in Committee we should be clear about our approach to the Bill. The Minister has been generous with his time and we have had numerous discussions, but our position remains the same: we do not support the Bill. Indeed, at Third Reading in the other place we voted against it. That remains our position. The leader of our party has said he will repeal the Bill, such is his opposition to it. He does not say that to wipe the issue to one side; he says it in order to find a better and different way of trying to deal with some of these issues, recognising that most people want to find a process that works and that this difficult, complex and painful for so many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
Well, my Lords, I said at Second Reading that I was well aware that this legislation had been met with far from universal acclamation, and, if I may say so, the last hour and seven minutes has reminded me of that in spades.
A number of noble Lords were kind enough to reference my role in this legislation. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack and a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I think one suggested that had it been my Bill it might have been slightly different. That may or may not be the case, but I tried to assure the House at Second Reading that I was committed to working with noble Lords on all sides and to continue engaging with groups outside Northern Ireland to see what could be done to improve the legislation in line with the proper constitutional functions of your Lordships’ House that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reminded us of. That is what I have sought to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in moving her amendment—I hope it was inadvertent—cast some doubt on the level of engagement, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to it. I can only say that, since the end of July, I have done over 30 meetings—frankly, I have lost count—on legacy with political parties in Northern Ireland, Members of your Lordships’ House, victims’ groups and others. Those meetings have always been frank and candid, and I have sought to listen and take on board as many points as I can. I will continue that engagement and, indeed, I will be doing more such meetings in Northern Ireland next week. That has been a genuine attempt to fulfil the promises I made at Second Reading. Again in response to the noble and right reverend Lord, whom I hold in the highest regard—he is a man of great principle and has made a huge contribution in Northern Ireland over many decades—I say that I believe that the amendments I have brought forward are a reflection of the promises I gave at Second Reading. I am very happy to sit down, at any time, with the noble and right reverend Lord to go through those amendments, but we will be debating them anyway, I hope, at a later stage.
I understand the motive behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. I have long had sympathy with the notion that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have greater involvement in these matters. It was always the position, for many years, that addressing the legacy of the past should be owned and tackled primarily by Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. Some of us remember—it was not that long ago—10 years ago, when the Northern Ireland Executive invited Richard Haass, along with Meghan O’Sullivan, in the aftermath of the flags protest and difficulties over disputed parades, to address the issue of flags, parading and the past. That initiative was driven by the Northern Ireland Executive, supported by the parties in the Assembly. Unfortunately, as with other attempts to deal with these very difficult issues, that process did not find a consensus, and 12 months later, we found ourselves at Stormont House trying to deal with the same issues.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady O’Loan, referred to the Stormont House agreement. At the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I was in the room, as it were, for all but a few hours—time off for good behaviour—for about 11 weeks of that entire process. The level of consensus reached there has always been exaggerated. I can well remember the spokesman for the noble Baroness’s former party, the SDLP, opposing just about every line on legacy—she is smiling because she knows to whom I refer—in that agreement as “a dilution” of Haass-O’Sullivan, which was itself a dilution of Eames-Bradley. So the SDLP was not exactly oversold on it. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his place, but the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is there, and he will attest to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party did not support the provisions in the Stormont House agreement. So, that is two out of five that opposed it, pretty well right from the outset. Over the years, the level of consensus fell away even further.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I point out to the Minister that, from my very deep recollection, the SDLP supported the Stormont House agreement.
Lord Caine (Con)
As one who was in the room on 23 December 2014 when the final document was handed out, I think the approach of the former Member for Belfast South, Alasdair McDonnell, who was the leader of the party at the time—he might want to correct me if my recollection is faulty—was to say that they would look at it and give it a fair wind, but he made no commitments beyond that. As I say, the party’s spokesman was in a rather different position, but that might not be the first or last time that has been the case.
I also recall vividly that, after the Stormont House agreement was reached in late 2014, in early 2015 the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive came to the then Secretary of State and asked her whether the UK Government would take the legislation through this Parliament in Westminster to implement it, citing the enormous difficulties that would be encountered by trying to get it through the Assembly. That in part is why we are here; it went from something that it was envisaged would be dealt with in the Assembly to something that it was then requested we do here. It has, if I can put it like this, been a Westminster responsibility ever since. That is in part why the Government are bringing the Bill forward and why I stand here today.
Given that context, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others reminded us, we have been grappling with this—it was never dealt with in the 1998 agreement because it was too difficult then. Successive Governments have sought to deal with it; they have failed to achieve consensus and resolution has proved elusive, frankly, to Governments of both parties. But we are, in a sense, running out of time in that people are getting older—some are passing away—and the chance of getting information to victims and survivors becomes more difficult the longer time passes.
Perhaps I may briefly try to pick up one or two further comments from the debate. My noble friend Lord Hailsham referred to a statute of limitations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. This provides me with an opportunity to remind the House that the Bill has changed considerably from the original Command Paper proposals. People have referred to the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2021—I think the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme raised it—but that was on the proposals in the Command Paper rather than the Bill that we are dealing with. It has changed, and I am on record in this House as opposing a statute of limitations on this issue. My noble friend and I have discussed it before; he and I have different views, as I am opposed to it. If there were a statute of limitations in the Bill, I would not be here doing it. The Bill has changed so that the immunity provisions within it are conditional and must at least be earned. Where there is no co-operation with the new commission, the prosecution route remains open.
My friend, as I think I can call him, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to veterans being opposed. The exchange that he had with the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, probably drew out one of the points that I was going to make: that veterans are not a homogeneous group. I met the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement last week and it is very supportive of the Bill. Where I definitely agree with the noble Viscount and the noble Lord is that we should be proud of the record and service of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces. As I have said in this House on many occasions, my view is that without their contribution, sacrifice and service there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude and we should never forget that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Forgive me, my Lords, but I wanted to clarify that our position has always been that this Bill should never have been brought forward in this form until it had commanded some support. That has not changed, so it is not a pause or delay if nothing has changed. If there is a fundamental problem with the Bill, we would rather it be pulled back. My noble friend Lord Murphy and I met the Secretary of State and the Minister himself to say, “Don’t proceed with this Bill; we will work with you to find a better way.”
Lord Caine (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s tone and comments. The only point I was trying to make is that pausing or stopping the Bill, as some have suggested—or if it gets to the statute book and it were to be repealed by a Government of a different colour in 18 months’ time or so; although I do not predict that for one second—we risk, in those circumstances, prolonging this for at least another five years while there is consultation, attempts to reach consensus, which will probably never happen, and the need to draw up legislation, et cetera. During that period, as I have referenced before, more people will have passed away and more people’s memories will be defective, so the chances of getting information to people will be even more remote and the chances of prosecutions more so.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I actually agree with the last point he made. I think that we would all like to take this opportunity to resolve the issue, but it cannot be resolved in a way which antagonises everybody—that is the problem. I urge him again, as I have done in private, to look again at the Operation Kenova amendments; they provide a working model to deliver the Bill and they have universal support. I am open to technical tweaks and any discussions with the Minister to make those amendments more acceptable technically, but the substance is there to get a consensus on this for the first time in generations, if not ever.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Without prolonging this, I hope that we might get to those amendments this evening and have a proper discussion and debate on them. But I am grateful for the spirit of what he said.
In conclusion, the Government clearly cannot support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I understand completely the motivations behind it, but, in the Government’s view, the Bill provides an opportunity to give more information to victims and survivors in a timely manner, and it is the Government’s view that it should proceed.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I express my deep gratitude to everyone who spoke on the Bill today: noble Lords spoke with such eloquence and gravitas on these most sensitive issues. I thank the Minister for his response, and I hope he will understand that, despite all the nice things he said, I cannot accept much of what he said, particularly his comments on the Stormont House agreement. Things have moved on in the eight years since then, and we are now in a different place. All of us who were in Northern Ireland at the time of the Good Friday agreement had grave difficulty with things such as the release of prisoners. It was a difficult time, and people are trying to find ways that will enable everyone to engage in one process for dealing with the past.
The Government’s actions in bringing the Bill and continuing to push it are doing very serious damage to our reputation as a country. They are also doing huge damage and causing a lot of pain, grief and loss of trust in the United Kingdom Government among the people affected by the Bill. That is profoundly important, as noble Lords said.
I will say a word of reassurance on veterans to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. As I have said previously in this House, members of my family served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, so I know exactly that I do not intend, and that it is not the intention of any of us, to cause grief to veterans. Those who served honourably really have nothing to fear, and the statistics show that, but I will not delay your Lordships on that.
Finally, the people of Northern Ireland are united against the Bill. Your Lordships will have seen the extent of unity among those of us from Northern Ireland about the Bill. I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division today, but I ask the Government again to pause and even to dispense with the Bill and start again. There is no necessity or urgency to deal with this situation; there is a need to get it right. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Suttie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether the definition of “serious physical or mental harm” in the Bill is sufficiently broad to ensure all those who wish to avail themselves of the ICRIR’s services are able to.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. For the record, I too thank the Minister for his willingness to engage in this process. I echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that he has been an exemplary Minister. I congratulate and thank him very much, and I appreciate that he gave up a large chunk of his summer holiday last year to engage in this process.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
Indeed, it was in response to my request. So I think we in this Chamber all recognise that the Minister not only has engaged very actively but has a tremendous amount of personal experience on this. Because of this, he has a tremendous amount of doubt about some of the elements currently in the Bill.
It is very welcome that the Minister has made a commitment to use Committee to continue to listen and engage on these concerns, and to listen to the very strongly held views of the House, which reflect the wider concerns in Northern Ireland and beyond. It is in that spirit that I hope that he will listen to the debate today.
Amendment 1 seeks to probe whether the definition in the list of eight narrowly defined characteristics on page 2 of the Bill is sufficiently broad to ensure that all those who wish to use the ICRIR are in a position to be able to do so. The trouble always with producing such lists is that they often accidentally result in some people being excluded and could therefore risk seeing some victims being denied justice. While acknowledging that the list is actually broader than was contained in the Stormont House agreement, it should be noted that the Stormont House agreement allowed for alternative legal routes, such as civil cases and inquests. It is worth exploring in Committee whether a longer list, or a more flexible approach to a list, could be adopted. We would be very happy to discuss the possible wording with the Minister between now and Report.
The Minister will know that the Commission for Victims and Survivors has expressed particular concern about the need to demonstrate severe psychiatric damage. At the time when many of the atrocities took place, people did not always have access to mental health medical services, so the link between the incident and mental health may not be clear.
The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also expressed concern about the current list of eight characteristics producing arbitrary outcomes. As paragraph 73 of its report on the Bill states:
“For example, consider that there are two similar cases concerning torture but resulting in differing harms. The first case results in severe brain injury—this type of harm falls under the definition of a ‘serious offence’. Where immunity is not granted, the case may be prosecuted. The second case of torture results in severe damage to one or more organs—this type of harm does not fall under the definition of a ‘serious’ offence—there is, therefore, no possibility of a prosecution. It is not clear why these cases ought to be treated differently.”
To give another specific example, I would query the use of the terms under subsection (6)(e) and (f), which list the characteristics of “total blindness” or “total deafness”. Surely, partial blindness or partial deafness would still have a potentially very traumatic impact on a person’s life. I urge the Minister to examine this section of the Bill again to see whether it could be redrafted in a more flexible manner so that people are not accidentally excluded from access to the ICRIR. I am sure—or at least I hope—that this was not the original intention behind the drafting of this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a signatory of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I am happy to support that amendment. In various discussions with the victims commissioner in Northern Ireland, he has raised this issue on behalf of victims and survivors. We have already referred to the fact that there is cross-party support, as well as support in the victims’ organisations and in the churches for the Bill to go back to the drawing board of the Stormont House agreement. The role of the House of Lords is clearly to review, scrutinise and try to improve legislation before returning it to the Commons. However, challenges remain, because this legislation is, I feel, irremediable, as it centres on immunity from prosecution and ending all judicial processes for victims, thus making the amendments to the Bill—from the Government—a tinkering process.
Amendment 1 is probing. It seeks to broaden the quite narrow definition within the Bill in relation to medical conditions. In fact, a more expansive approach would enable more people to avail of the ICRIR’s services, whereas a restrictive approach will limit the efficacy of the legislation. Within Stormont House, other legal routes—civil cases, inquests and criminal prosecutions—would have been retained. This amendment was favoured and promoted by the victims commission, particularly on its visit to both Houses last week.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I have a quick comment on the previous debate. Many noble Lords—in fact, nearly all—talked about the consensus in Northern Ireland opposing this legacy Bill. I just remind them that there may be consensus, but it is from very different points of view.
My Amendment 63, which is also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Bew, Lord Godson and Lord Empey, is designed to narrow the criteria for a reinvestigation being started by the ICRIR. If the previous investigations listed in my amendment, such as by the HET or the PSNI’s Legacy Investigation Branch, and the stated need for the provision of “compelling new evidence”—a phrase that I remind noble Lords was thought necessary and appropriate for the overseas operation Act—are not added to the Bill, I have a very depressing prediction to make to your Lordships’ House. I think the ICRIR will end up reinvestigating many—indeed, every one—of the nearly 4,000 deaths. The cost will be billions of pounds, not the budgeted £250 million, and the process will last not for five years but for a decade or more, because this is where judicially led enquiries go, especially when internationalised. If the ICRIR, as suggested in the Minister’s letter to noble Lords on 17 January, is obliged to act simply on allegations, that can be the only consequence.
Legacy practitioners—which is the new force in Northern Ireland, not the victims’ relatives as the Bill believes, I believe, naively—using the concept of collusion, or “collusive behaviours”, the version relied on now by the Police Ombudsman, can design a case to investigate every death. Collusion can be alleged in relation to all loyalist killings and, indeed, all republican ones, by virtue of the use of security force agents in both paramilitary groups, let alone alleged investigatory failings that Strasbourg complains of.
When I spoke at Second Reading of the overseas operations Bill, almost exactly two years ago on 20 January 2021, I said:
“Let us not forget that the only cases now involving veterans are ones pending in Northern Ireland, which concern events of 50 years ago or more. For that reason, we need to get on with a Northern Ireland equivalent law”.—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1236.]
Of course, extending that Act to cover Operation Banner, as I suggested then, and others, would have dealt with the issue in hand, rather than this increasingly complex confection of ICRIR.
No murder case in England would ever see this level of reinvestigation, and certainly not of funding. Have we learned no lessons from the Iraq historical allegations, and solicitor Phil Shiner? Let us remember, as was mentioned earlier, that it is good to remind people of who actually died in the three decades of the Northern Ireland terrorist campaign. Nearly 4,000 persons died violently; 60% of the deaths were caused by republicans and 30% by loyalists. The state—police officers and soldiers—was responsible for approximately 10% of the killings. Very few of those state killings were unlawful, as the force used was not unreasonable, but all the republican and loyalist murders were most certainly unlawful.
The rewriting of history is about the complexity of the Troubles being distorted into a single concern with state killings, which of course republicans and their allies then use, slowly, case by case, to construct the narrative of the IRA being somehow a popular resistance force that had no alternative to killing. The Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe, when enforcing the ECHR judgments on the so-called McKerr line of cases, refers only to killings
“either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel.”
So Strasbourg has effectively accepted a nationalist perspective on the matter for the past 20 years, and there has been no public challenge by our Government. Some 90% of victims’ families are thus being told by the human rights court that they do not really matter. They are not wanted in the world of lawfare; they are an embarrassment.
When ICRIR opens for business, I believe the following will happen: there will be a smattering of requests for reviews from very distressed relatives; the IRA Army Council will almost certainly not be tempted by the immunity opportunity; and loyalists may not know how to respond. The vast majority of requests will be from legacy practitioners, once again, who will demand rigorous reviews—in fact, new criminal investigations—of hundreds of cases on the flimsiest of allegations, unless curbed by our amendment. The Northern Ireland Office has to brace itself for the judicial reviews and civil suits that will keep on coming.
Legacy has been a poisoned chalice since the Belfast agreement, and it is worth remembering that the 1998 document never envisaged what has since happened. About victims it said simply:
“The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence.”
The United Kingdom failed to deal with legacy, although we now have something close to peace. There has been no substitution; nobody has brought forward a real legacy plan since the Eames-Bradley report of 2009, which did have some elements of legacy. The only credible initiative was from former Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde’s Historical Enquiries Team within the PSNI. But that was closed down because a radical academic, given access, misconstrued what was happening, and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary joined in the unwarranted criticism of the PSNI and HET—I believe to the anger of Sir Hugh.
This amendment is designed to stop mission creep by the ICRIR. It needs to be accepted because, without a statutory mention that narrows access and prohibits repeat applications, the commission’s remit will grow, just as the police ombudsman’s did. We need finality and I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to my speech and those of other noble Lords on this very important issue.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, in his response to the previous debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I fear that the Minister may have misunderstood some of the phrases I used in my own remarks. I do not in the slightest attach any personal criticism to him for the failure of the amendments we asked for from the Government on a previous occasion. I hold him in the highest possible regard personally for all he has done for Northern Ireland, and I hope that that respect is, despite the remarks, mutual.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I would not normally intervene, but I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his very kind words. If I did misunderstand him, that is my failing. I assure him that the admiration is indeed very mutual.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, turning to the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has brought to the attention of the House, may I refer to just one aspect of what I believe is the almost impossible task that the commission will face? It is the question of contact, discussion and analysis of those who are involved in cases brought before it. It is not just a question of medical phraseology and limiting the field in which people could claim to have consequential difficulties because of the Troubles. From my experience over the years, I have seen that it is almost impossible to define and limit the consequences of the experience of people—families, relatives and neighbours—because mental scars are very hard to define, but they are vivid in their consequences for people’s lives.
Secondly, I support what the noble Baroness said in moving her amendment in terms of the difficulty of the construction we will eventually give to this commission. I know from experience—as do many Members of your Lordships’ House—how difficult it is when distinct definitions are not spelled out and people have their own approach to what they think was defined or underlined. If this part of the Bill is to proceed, I suggest to the Minister that a closer examination is needed of the definition of the commission’s role—how it is to be described, how it will relate to jurisprudence and how it will relate to the way in which individual cases are presented. There is, I believe, real opportunity for this concept of the new commission to proceed, and proceed in a positive way, but I still think that a great deal of preliminary thought is necessary at this stage.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly first to Amendment 63, which seems to be based on the premise that if any investigation was carried out or any report written on a Troubles-related incident, that would be enough to take it off the desk of the commissioner for investigations, and that any request for an investigation must be rejected unless the family requesting it “has compelling new evidence”. However, we know that one of the genuine concerns of many victims and survivors is that the case of their loved one was never properly investigated in the first place. In many cases at the height of the Troubles, there were understandable security reasons why proper investigations by the then RUC simply were not possible. We also know that information was very often withheld from investigating teams.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I accept part of what the noble Lord is saying about how the victims feel about what has happened in the past and the need to understand more. However, does he not agree that the reality is that for the people from the terrorist organisations who perpetrated these acts, there are no records, as was said earlier, and there is nothing that at this stage will ever lead to anyone ending up in court and being found guilty? Indeed, many of those people who were involved with some of these killings have in fact been given letters of freedom and have been given immunity.
Lord Hain (Lab)
The point I am making is that there were files, and Operation Kenova has had access to those files. They are held principally by the security services but, under very strict conditions and with trust, the investigation has been able to retrieve information on a sensible basis without compromising the work of the security services, and that has been of great comfort for victims. That is my point and my concern about the noble Baroness’s amendment.
I turn to my Amendment 147. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, both distinguished former Metropolitan Police Commissioners, together with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, a distinguished former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, for adding their names. The amendment is designed to ensure, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie has already argued, that the Bill does not prevent the continuation of the review into the Glenanne gang series, known as Operation Denton, which is expected to conclude and report in spring 2024—that is, after the Bill could have received Royal Assent.
What is known as the Glenanne gang series includes a significant number of murders and other terrorist offences committed in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles between around 1972 and 1978. The cases within the Glenanne gang series are connected by common features, such as individuals, weapons, areas or targets involved. In some of these cases, direct evidence has already demonstrated the collusion of police or security force personnel.
Various parties, including families, have significant concerns about the rigour and professionalism of previous investigations into these cases and have for many years sought a comprehensive, overarching, thematic analysis of the Glenanne series and the extent of any state collusion. On 5 July 2019, the Barnard judgment set out the requirement for an independent review of the activities of the Glenanne gang, a statutory requirement in accordance with Section 35(5) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chief constable of the PSNI requested that the former chief constable of Bedfordshire Police, Jon Boutcher, carry out this review. It was named Operation Denton, commenced in February 2020 and is part of the cases being conducted under the umbrella of Operation Kenova.
To date, Operation Denton has identified 127 murders resulting from 93 separate incidents connected to this series. It has met and is supporting families of the victims. It has had success in securing the release of material from the Republic of Ireland through lobbying for and securing the introduction of secondary legislation by the Irish Government to ensure access to records held by the Garda to assist the review. It is anticipated that Operation Denton will conclude and report publicly and to families no later than spring 2024.
Operation Denton is so well progressed and has developed such strong levels of trust and confidence with the families that it would cause unnecessary delay to the review—and, crucially, undue stress to families, who have suffered grievously already—for this inquiry to be passed to the ICRIR. It is important therefore that Operation Denton be allowed to complete its work. I hope that the Minister, who I see is nodding, will confirm that in his reply to this group of amendments. The lawyers and NGOs supporting the Glenanne series’ victims and families have indicated that they will legally challenge any decision to stop Operation Denton and will not co-operate with the ICRIR, such is their confidence in the work currently being done.
In conclusion, it is almost certain that Operation Denton’s work will be completed and families informed of its findings before the ICRIR is open for referrals. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will give the Committee the assurance that I seek and the absolute assurance that the victims desire.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 1. I support this probing amendment. That is not necessarily to make a judgment that what is in place at present is insufficient, but it is probing to establish whether what is placed in the legislation is comprehensive enough and whether it covers all the situations. There can be nothing worse than finding that there are inadvertent consequences and that, through a degree of misunderstanding or because we have not been exacting enough, some people are excluded wrongly, or perhaps even that the net is drawn too widely on other occasions. As I said, I draw no conclusions as to whether that is the case at present but I will listen with care to the answers given by the Minister on that.
To take the last point on Amendment 147, I have some sympathy for the case that the noble Lord put forward. However, I have some level of reservation. It is undoubtedly an investigation into one of the most horrendous series of murders that have taken place; they were horrific, and it is correct that they should be condemned. Where I have a little reservation in perhaps suggesting that the whole Bill is flawed is that if we start looking at individual operations, however well advanced, and singling them out for some level of exemption, that can create a concern that other areas of investigation into horrendous murders which are needed are not also covered. That is my concern about Amendment 147.
On Amendment 52, again, I look forward to what the Minister will say on that. I have some reservations about it. At the moment, there is a five-year period in which there is an opportunity for a request to be made. It is hard to see in genuine cases why a family would not make that within the five-year period, so I am not clear why this is necessary. Indeed, are we shifting the goalposts by making this entirely open-ended in terms of making the request? Therefore, at this stage I am certainly sceptical about that but I look forward to what will be said in connection with it.
I support the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in Amendment 63. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the point that there is a concern about the inadequacy of some investigations. I take that very much on board. However, what the noble Baroness says is proportionate, fair and practical. I say that because Amendment 63 would take into account what previous investigations had taken place. Surely the aim of the investigations in review is to bring everything up to the same level. If work has already been done, that should be built on where necessary. We should not look to duplicate work; that is from a practical point of view because there is a danger of the level of funding becoming open-ended to the extent that it is simply unaffordable.
We also need equality of treatment. There would be a concern that if we simply disregarded an investigation —indeed, if we have investigation after investigation in some cases—then some high-profile cases in which people are able to shout the loudest may go to the front of the queue and get an additional level of investigation, rather than there being equality of treatment for victims.
Amendment 63 has been carefully worded. It does not say that a previous investigation would preclude a review or an investigation. It would place the onus on the Chief Commissioner to take account of what has happened before. In many cases, particularly in the early days of the Troubles, that investigation might well have been inadequate. What information is available should be a key factor in determining the level of work that must go into an individual case. What is there is balanced.
The proposed opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill is also in this group. I again have considerable sympathy for what has been put forward. Undoubtedly, we must ensure that the net for what evidence is inadmissible to the courts is not thrown too wide. There is a concern that what is presently within Clause 7 is not fit for purpose and, at the very least, creates elements where clarity is needed. For example, it is not clear in what circumstances an applicant for immunity would provide information that is not connected with the application process. Perhaps the Minister can expand on this. Separately, Clause 7(3)(b) has the effect of making material that is later obtained “as a result” of material provided by the applicant inadmissible. That seems quite tenuous. We must ensure that the inadmissibility net is not any wider than it needs to be.
There are considerable concerns over Clause 7. I know that the Government are proposing some changes to it but again, there is a lack of clarity. For example, there is an interaction between admissibility of material, as mentioned in Clause 7, and Clause 23, on the provision of information to prosecutors. That needs to be clarified. If Clause 7 was to remain within the legislation, the Minister must clarify what impact Clause 23 has on Clause 7. Without such clarification, there would be a strong case at least for re-examination of what is in Clause 7, and perhaps for exclusion altogether.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71 and 83, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Amendment 83 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am grateful to them for their support. I too have benefited from engagement on my amendments with not only the Minister but the Bill team and his private office, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation.
Amendment 71 requires that, as far as possible, ICRIR reviews be conducted in public, providing for transparency in the conduct of reviews by that body. Transparency is not only desirable in reconciliation but a necessary precondition for it to occur. Many of the reviews that the ICRIR will be charged with conducting will have decades of mutual suspicion to contend with. My amendment to Clause 13 attempts to bring greater transparency to those reviews where possible. It is not merely a question of procedural efficiency; it will make clear to those for whom we are seeking the truth that they can be as confident as possible that there is no thumb on the scales, that the review process can be trusted, and that those tasked with handling these hugely sensitive investigations are doing so without the pressure to conform to some predetermined narrative.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 147 from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. In passing, it might be worth mentioning that I am open-minded about whether this Bill should progress. I think that there are arguments both ways, and we have heard some powerful ones today, but it relies on the consent and support of those people most affected by it.
One thing that has struck me in the debate today is that certain groups of people have not been mentioned whom I am sure no one wanted to forget. It was not until the Minister responded that we talked about the RUC’s losses and about its involvement in some of these cases. As we consider the immunity that might be offered, I think that we all respect and support the military’s losses and involvement in these things. Of course, the RUC was directly involved, and its members did not return to barracks at the end of the day but went home to their children, their parents and many other people. I do not think that anybody is choosing to forget, but we ought to keep that in mind.
We also ought to keep in mind that, here in mainland UK, the people of Warrington, Manchester, Birmingham and London lost people. Their thoughts have to be borne in mind too. It is not a case of “This is predominantly a Northern Ireland Bill”. There are other people who must be considered too, and they have not been spoken of today.
I support Amendment 147 because I think that the progress made by Operation Kenova is very significant. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we should be concerned that this might extend to a whole new group of investigations that might be extended. But we should have the reassurance that the number of investigations is quite discrete. A significant number of these are already with the DPP in Northern Ireland. They have been for quite a while, and there is a question about whether there are sufficient resources there and the skills necessary to make these decisions—none of which are easy, as we all know, but at least we have got to the point of a case going to a prosecutor to consider a charge. That is a very significant number.
There is also the outstanding case of Operation Denton, which has been investigated for a significant amount of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has already suggested, it is thought that there will be cases going to the DPP by the beginning of next year. There is no certainty about this, but that is a professional judgment which I think is not unreasonable. The main thing to consider there is that, obviously, the families and all those interested in the outcome of those investigations now have a trust and expectation: a trust in the investigation team, which has been hard won and can easily be lost, and also a trust in the process.
Of course, it may be that the Government have to decide that they will end these investigations and fold them within this proposal. I think we all understand that that is a real dilemma. But, for the families involved, and given all the hard work that has gone into this, it would be a terrible shame. Some of the previous investigations have not had the support that we heard described by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and that, from my experience, has been garnered in this case. It would be a shame if that hard work and trust were lost on this occasion.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. She made the case with absolute clarity. No more needs to be said.
On Amendment 147, I reassert my declaration that I am a member of the international steering group advising on Operations Denton and Kenova. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, a very long-overdue review of cases involving the Glenanne gang, which is reported to have involved loyalists, including members of the security forces, who carried out shooting and bombing attacks against Catholics and Irish nationalists in the 1970s. We know that there are some 127 victims.
I will address the comments made repeatedly that terrorists do not keep records and that the police and Army do. Having investigated many of these cases of alleged collusion, I can tell noble Lords categorically that those involved in collusion do not keep records: for example, of instructions to not investigate; to bring people in for questioning during an investigation, provide them with a cup of tea and some sandwiches, leave them in the room but not actually ask any questions, then release them, to protect them so that they have been investigated in the eyes of the general public; to perhaps lose evidence, which I have seen; or to contaminate physical evidence. None of this is recorded. That is why, where you can identify collusive activity of that kind, it is very usually impossible to bring a prosecution—and it is right that there should be no prosecution where there is no unbroken chain of evidence.
Denton has made very significant progress. It was reviewed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in January 2021, which explained that Denton differs from Kenova in that it is being conducted as a review and not a criminal investigation at this time. This makes the approach by the operational team fundamentally different from that of Kenova, which is an investigation, from an evidential perspective. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, Denton is due to be finished next year. Former Chief Constable Boutcher will then report.
Considerable resources have gone into this review. Were the Bill to be passed without an amendment of this kind, Denton would not be completed by Chief Constable Boutcher and his team and would fall for review by the ICRIR. Given the progress already made, to bring in a new team in would professionally require a review of what has been done before. I know we say that we do not reinvestigate, but, in professional terms, if you pick up a case that somebody has been managing, you must examine it to make sure you are satisfied that all investigative opportunities have been explored. That would result in a huge and unnecessary waste of resources, and it would be particularly damaging to victims and survivors, who would be required to revisit yet again what they suffered and have been suffering.
Such is the difference between investigations and reviews that An Garda Síochána, who have been very helpful to Denton and Kenova, was unable to provide sensitive material to Denton. That material could have been provided under international agreements for police co-operation, were Denton an investigation. But, because Denton is a review and not an investigation, it could not be provided under the European police co-operation agreements, et cetera.
At the request of the Operation Denton steering group and Chief Constable Boutcher, the Irish Government have passed a statutory instrument. The effect of that is to allow them to pass sensitive material, which they could not otherwise pass, to Operation Denton. When I was engaged in discussions about that matter with the Irish Government and Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, I was simultaneously considering this Bill. It was very odd to me that my Government in the United Kingdom were moving to close things down and the Irish Government were moving to open things up and be helpful.
So, given the complexity and extent of Operation Denton, I suggest to the Minister that it would clearly be in the public interest to permit Mr Boutcher and his team to complete the work in which they are engaged. I therefore support this amendment.
Amendment 52 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, would remove the five-year rule contained in the Bill, which effectively introduces a limitation on prosecution that is inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement and our international legal obligations.
This work of dealing with the past is incremental. It requires consideration of victims’ needs. A five-year limitation period for the seeking of investigations or reviews would place huge pressure on people who may be suffering the consequences—for some, very severe mental health problems—of the incident in question. I know that noble Lords will think that five years is a very long period, but I assure them that, in investigation terms and for people dealing with the mental health problems that have arisen as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles, to add the additional pressure of knowing that you have to be there before five years are up is difficult.
Noble Lords will also understand, I think, that it will take some time to grow confidence in these new ICRIR processes. In light of the international condemnation of the Bill as it stands, questions might rightly be asked about whether victims, survivors and their families will use the new processes. That is another reason for us to think about the need to amend the Bill very significantly.
Does the period when the ICRIR becomes operational include or exclude the period of finding premises, setting up an office, agreeing a budget, getting staff, establishing processes, providing training, and the Secretary of State drafting all his guidance, et cetera? We do not have limitation periods for criminality in this country, for very good reasons. If a person was murdered before 10 April 1998, under this Bill they will have only five years to seek an investigation. If they were murdered four months later—in the Omagh bomb, for example, or in any of the other atrocities—that limitation would not apply. It is arbitrary. How do the Government justify the introduction of a limitation for a very small subset of the victims of crime in the United Kingdom?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to briefly comment on Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness raised, in relation to the five-year limit. When the Minister replies to this group of amendments, I hope he will respond to this point.
The Minister said in the previous debate that, if someone did not co-operate with an ICRIR investigation or review, a criminal route remains open—I think I am quoting him directly. But this amendment points to the fact that the Bill provides for a five-year limit: unless a case is brought to the commission within five years it cannot be brought, and the commission is the only body that can investigate Troubles-related crimes. Therefore, if somebody does not co-operate, after five years the body will continue to exist but it will not be able to take on or open any new investigations. How is it that a criminal route remains open, as there is no other body and the police will be prohibited from investigating? There is no other body that can do any investigations, so after five years, there is no criminal route open; it ends at that point. I would like an explanation as to what the Minister meant by his statement that a criminal route remains open if you do not co-operate. Under the Bill, after five years no further new investigations can be launched, nobody can make a complaint and there is nobody else who can do any investigations.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a deeply respectful debate. A number of issues have come to light, and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to them. Some of the issues are quite complex. I am grateful particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the experience that she brings to this.
I turn first to Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. This definition is something that the victims’ commissioner has raised with a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. The phrase “serious physical or mental harm” is really key here. Many of us have met victims who have suffered harm that is not always immediately evident. We have to look at this again, because there is no power for the definitions to be amended. Given the Government’s fondness for Sis—not that I am recommending this route—there possibly needs to be some discretion for the commission. We discussed this briefly with the Minister, and he is rightly wary of having a list, which can never be exhaustive, but this has to be revisited and looked at again. Some discretion might possibly be the way forward.
On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hain, I do not know whether the Minister is considering opening this up. Operation Denton is due to report in spring next year—I know that is an elastic term in government announcements. We will come to our amendment on this later in proceedings, but to have this investigation running for so long and for it then to be ended by the Bill would clearly be the wrong thing to do. It seems a sensible process, and one that started in 2020, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Hain is well made. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that so I can understand the timing.
There is no commencement time in this Bill. It would be helpful to know when, if the Bill were to conclude all its stages and become law, the Minister envisages that it would start. That is important in this context.
My noble friend Lord Browne talked about transparency. That is clear-cut: if we are to have confidence in a process, it needs to have transparency. I think it might be a mistake in the Government’s drafting that someone could be compelled to attend but not compelled to give evidence. That seems to be a bit of a loophole, and I hope that the Minister can come back with something positive on that. did
I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I can see the point that she is trying to address, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Weir—that in repeated inquiries it is the people who shout the loudest who have more access to the various mechanisms in place—but it seems to me to be a very absolute point. If compelling new evidence was brought forward, in any circumstances and by anybody, surely there should be the option for the commission to consider that compelling new evidence.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I entirely agree with the point that the noble Baroness has made. However, to be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is that not why the amendment refers to “take into account”? That then would not preclude it being taken into account and a different approach being taken.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It may be. I do not have the amendment in front of me—I will look at it again later—but there seemed to be an absoluteness. I understand the principle, but I want to make sure that the detail and specifics of the amendment do what they intend to and not cut off options for—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Proposed new subsection (5B) inserted by that amendment says that the commissioner
“must consider whether the close family member … has compelling new evidence, and if not, must reject that request.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is helpful; I am grateful. It is “the close family member” as well.
A number of issues arise from the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the question of Clause 7 standing part. Amendment 52 seeks to delete the five-year deadline from the start of the ICRIR’s operation—it is a nifty little acronym—for seeking reviews of Troubles-related deaths and offences. I can understand where the Government are coming from in saying that the process cannot be open-ended, but could the Minister say why they settled on five years? What consultation or views expressed led to five years? What assessment was made of the risk of people refusing to engage because they think that they can be timed out given the five-year cut-off? Did he receive any representations on that? Was it discussed? Was there a consultation, or was it plucked out of thin air? That is what I seek some clarity on.
I would be grateful for any guidance from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, but it seems to me that Clause 7 creates restrictions on the use of material against a person in criminal proceedings where that material is obtained by or provided to the ICRIR by that person, but it does not affect the use of material in proceedings brought against any other person. That seems to be a contradiction that needs to be addressed, and perhaps the Minister can clarify that. I have read the clause several times—that is why I was slightly delayed in getting up. It seems strange in the context of what the Government are trying to achieve.
The debate on this has again shown the respect that the Committee and this House have for victims, survivors and all those affected by the Bill. It also shows some of the tweaks and changes that will need to be made to address the particular concerns that have been raised today.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments. I will start with Clause 7. As the Committee knows, the Government’s overriding objective is to put in place mechanisms that have the potential to deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles, particularly victims and survivors, while seeking to help society look forward. The Bill is designed to help achieve those objectives.
The primary focus of this legislation is effective information recovery. The commissioner will conduct investigations for the purposes of providing answers to those who seek them. Central to that is Clause 7, which creates restrictions on the use of material against a person in criminal proceedings where that material was obtained by or provided to the ICRIR—that acronym of which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, is so fond—by that person. This is very much in line with the approach for information recovery included in the Stormont House agreement in 2014 and is extremely important in avoiding the creation of a disincentive for people to come forward and provide information to the ICRIR. In the Stormont House agreement there were similar provisions on evidence given to the ICIR, as was. It is very much in line with previous approaches to this issue.
The clause does not affect the use of material in proceedings brought against any other person, so it would be possible for a witness to provide information about an individual who was involved in a death or serious injury and for that information to be used in any subsequent prosecution against that individual. Equally, the clause does not affect the use of material obtained by a designated ICRIR—I am just going to say “the commission”—officer, for example when exercising police powers. This would ensure that the content of an interview given by a suspect while under caution, as part of a criminal investigation, could be used in criminal proceedings in the normal way.
I hope that goes some way to addressing the concerns of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme in respect of Clauses 7 and 23. If not, I am more than happy to sit down with him with my officials and go through it in greater detail, well in advance of the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I agree that this has been a very thoughtful and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said—respectful debate. It is probably the kind of debate that shows the strength of this Chamber in Committee, looking at a Bill in some detail and putting forward suggestions and improvements to it, even though—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others have said—some of us still face a dilemma as to whether the Bill is actually improvable. For many of us, it is still a fundamentally flawed Bill.
Earlier I did not mention the other amendments in the group, but I particularly highlight Amendment 147 and the powerful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hain. These are issues I hope we can return to before the passage of the Bill is complete, and I welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that.
There is also the important question of accidental consequences of the five-year limit. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made a powerful speech giving examples of where there is a cliff edge. Cases could accidentally be dropped, which would be unfortunate.
I thank the Minister very much for his response to Amendment 1 and welcome that we can perhaps discuss this in more detail. I think we all feel—the noble Lord, Lord Weir, expressed it very clearly in his support of this amendment—that we really do not want accidental consequences. I feel it would be very positive indeed if we examined this further between now and Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Loan
Member’s explanatory statement
This and other similar probing amendments in the name of Baroness O’Loan impose a function of investigation on the ICRIR as well as the function of review.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 to 4 in my name and the consequential amendments in this group. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I will not speak to each amendment, as in many cases the purpose is clear. The amendments are necessary to place the investigation function clearly in the Bill on each occasion on which it is relevant.
It is important to say that the Bill relates only to incidents that occurred before the agreement signed on 10 April 1998. It does not refer to atrocities arising during the Troubles that occurred after April 1998. For example, PSNI security statistics show that, in the past 10 years, 23 people have been killed in the Troubles; there have been 304 bombing incidents and 477 shooting incidents; more than 1,500 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act; and 235 people have been charged with terrorist offences. Terrorism is alive and well in Northern Ireland, though not to the scale—thank goodness—of previous atrocities. Most recently, two men have been charged with the murder of Lyra McKee in Derry in 2019. Noble Lords will probably be aware that it is believed that was an attempt to kill a police officer.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 2, which has been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I shall speak specifically to Amendment 72 standing in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am grateful for their support and for the backing that these amendments have had from victims’ groups in Northern Ireland, especially the WAVE Trauma group, which, notably, represents victims from all parts of the community. That breadth of support is also the case for Amendments 112 and 124, which are also in our names.
Amendments 72, 112 and 124 form a coherent whole and a coherent alternative to this most objectionable Bill by putting on a statutory basis a process for addressing the legacy of the Troubles that will command cross-community, cross-party and cross-victim-group support where this Bill, with or without the government amendments tabled by the Minister, most certainly does not. With or without those government amendments, the Bill remains totally toxic. Our amendments would transform the Bill into a consensual one, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Defence Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary to support them, because if not then we will need to divide the House on them.
I come to this issue of legacy not from a legal or policing perspective; there are other noble Lords who have that experience, and no doubt they will speak to these amendments and others, drawing on their expertise. I come to it, as I know others will, with a degree of humility, trying to put myself in the shoes of those who are looking to us—looking specifically to your Lordships’ House to do this in a way that the Commons so palpably failed to do—to help them to try to address issues that have scarred them emotionally and psychologically, and in some cases physically, for decades. As I made clear at Second Reading and in the debates on the committal Motion, I do not think that the Bill as drafted does that in any way. Indeed, I think that for many it will have the most devastatingly adverse impact. I have proposed amendments that would turn a terrible Bill into one that could command acceptance.
As I have said before, I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Caine, his task of taking this legislation through the House. Given his long experience in Northern Ireland and the great respect in which the whole House holds him for his knowledge and care for Northern Ireland, I doubt very much that, had he been asked to frame legislation to try to deal with the pain and trauma of Northern Ireland’s horrifically violent past, he would have come up with the Bill before us or indeed the amendments that he has tabled on behalf of the Government to try to remedy its most awful features. Bluntly, his tweaks here and there do not fix this fundamentally flawed Bill.
With his customary courtesy, the Minister wrote to Peers in advance of Committee, and I thank him for that, as I do for the meetings that he has readily offered to me and others to discuss the matter. In that letter, the Minister writes that he understands that
“for many in Northern Ireland the legislation is extremely challenging”.
I am afraid to say that in this context the Civil Service word “challenging”—I recognise it from my ministerial experience—must enter the lexicon of ironic political euphemism. To the victims and survivors of the Troubles, who should be at the heart of what we are trying to do, this is not challenging; it is devastating.
We have been told that the Government has been engaging with key stakeholders since Second Reading. Government Ministers and officials may well have heard what victims and survivors have had to tell them, but I am afraid they have not listened. They still seem intent on seeing though a kind of Faustian pact between the state and those who brought injury, death and destruction to thousands of our citizens. Putting the interests of perpetrators though a low-bar immunity process over the needs of victims is not only morally corrupt; it is politically disastrous.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I apologise and crave the indulgence of the Committee. On the point that those who are dealing with certain ongoing investigative processes get no updates, as police ombudsman I established a process of six-weekly updates for complainants. I know that the police ombudsman has contact with the families and a lot of very good work has been done on that process. It is for that reason that there is confidence in the police ombudsman processes. I can tell the Committee that the police ombudsman has no power to investigate anyone other than police officers. That is the deficit there: it is that they cannot investigate civilians or soldiers. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for the intervention.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her interruption. She makes a telling correction, or at least clarification, to the point I make. I agree with her, and take her point entirely, especially having worked with her and respected her for her work when I was Secretary of State.
However, there is regular contact with the families and regular updates; that should be the model adopted going forward. Not only is Kenova a model of effective police work and a model for how to work with the families concerned but it has the most robust governance and oversight structures in place. Two of our distinguished colleagues in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, serve on one such body, along with those who have extensive international policing experience. That is the model that should be adopted for any investigative process coming out of this legislation.
In bringing my remarks on this amendment to a close, I confess that I am still not absolutely sure where the Government stand on Operation Kenova. For a time, the mantra was trotted out at official and ministerial level that Kenova could not be said to be successful because no prosecutions had resulted. This was disingenuous at best. The Secretary of State who peddled this line knew full well that over 30 files sat with the seriously overstretched and underresourced Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland and have now done for three years or so. I will refer more to this in the debate on Amendment 136. If cases do not come before the courts for whatever reason, one cannot blame the investigation. Now it is conceded by Ministers and officials that Kenova does good work, but we are told it could not be upscaled, because it would be too expensive and investigations would take far too long. Jon Boutcher has made it clear that in his view the essential elements of Operation Kenova could be upscaled and investigations completed within a manageable timescale and not at an eye-watering cost.
I said at the outset that this is bad legislation. Our amendments could turn it into acceptable legislation and surely the Government are therefore duty bound to accept them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and will speak briefly in its support. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the way in which she introduced this mammoth group of amendments.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, and to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I kept thinking of those immortal words from the Irish story: “I wouldn’t have started from here.” What we have is a terrible ragbag of a Bill. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that if our amendment were accepted, the Bill would be very significantly improved. However, we really need to go back to the drawing board here. The Bill is far too complicated and complex. It tries to treat a whole range of people with what I would call an artificial equality and, in the process, upsets everybody. We have heard that quoted time and again, at Second Reading and in the debates today. You cannot please everybody; you have to try to be fair and just. In particular, you must have regard for those who have been slaughtered or maimed in terrible incidents of which they were not the perpetrators and where they were seeking to defend what was right.
The House does not need me to give a whole series of encapsulations of dreadful events such as Enniskillen. But we cannot have this Bill because it does not recognise—as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, put it graphically earlier in our debate today—for instance, the proper desserts of the veterans of those forces who were seeking to defend, and who were not engaged in terrorist acts.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I need to apologise for not attending Second Reading, but I want to support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. We need to understand what Kenova is, and it is worth going back to understanding that it is an investigation of 200 murders. It is probably the most complex investigation in British criminal history. It also involves allegations of kidnap and torture.
In October, Jon Boutcher wrote this, which I want to read into the record:
“The Kenova interim report will address what was, and was not, happening between organisations; the Provisional IRA and its Internal Security Unit, the police, armed forces, intelligence services and their agents and informants. In particular it will focus on”
the Provisional IRA,
“which committed these murders and whether steps were, or were not taken by the security forces before these abductions and murders occurred to protect people, or subsequently to bring those responsible to justice. It will also comment on the state’s approach to investigating such cases and the nigh on impossible operating environment that confronted the security forces”.
He went on to say this about the Bill:
“My commitment to publishing the results of all of the Kenova investigations remains as strong as ever and this takes us a step closer to achieving this. While there is much discussion about the future of legacy following the Government proposed Bill, the Bill should not impact the release of Kenova’s findings”.
I simply could not agree more.
In a month’s time, it will be 48 years since the murder of a young man with whom I trained at the Peel Centre in Hendon. Stephen Tibble was five months younger than me and a month ahead in training; He was shot dead in west London by the IRA. For the first 15 years of my career, the world of Irish republican terrorism spread not only from Ireland to the rest of the UK but in particular to London. Quite a lot of Metropolitan Police officers also lost their lives in this struggle.
I join with those who have said that the Good Friday agreement was one of the great moments of our lives, because it is not for me to put myself forward in that way. The idea that the Bill will allow a way to end investigations into these terrible atrocities seems completely appalling. Personally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the Bill is not amended to be run on Kenova terms, we must in the end oppose and defeat it in this House.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I have already added my name as a signatory to those amendments and to those in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain in relation to Kenova. In relation to the amendments to do with investigations, I want to see these investigations as an avenue to justice, so that that justice is still open to victims and members of the public. Investigations must not be closed down and justice must be provided for. The question arises: why would the Government want to remove investigations and who does this benefit?
The review process, which I think is to be undertaken by the ICRIR, is unlikely to meet all the requirements of an independent and effective investigation with the participation of next of kin, in line with the ECHR. Many believe that the main damage the legacy Bill will do is in closing off all the routes to justice that currently exist in Northern Ireland and replacing them with a single new body that has insufficient powers and is constituted in a manner likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights—hence the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. They are absolutely vital because we want to see investigations and access to inquests. We want to see proper justice and truth recovery for all.
As I understand it, the ICRIR will lose those investigatory powers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, will correct me if I am wrong in the next respect: that the police ombudsman will be prevented from investigating matters related to the Troubles, on top of the limitation on dealing with complaints already in the Bill. Legislation for dealing with police complaints in Scotland, England and Wales will also be blocked off from applying to Troubles-related conduct.
I had direct contact with the police ombudsman’s office in relation to the Loughinisland inquiry. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, initiated that inquiry, which I think was way back in 2004—it seems such a long time ago. It was practically complete by the time she left and was then taken over by her successor, who did not see avenues of collusion. I remember saying at that time that he was being unfair to the victims and families, and that he should vacate the post. I think I said it in terms that were stronger and a little more derogatory than those, if I cast my mind back to 2011.
In the subsequent report by a previous police ombudsman, Michael Maguire, it was quite clear that he had worked further with families and with members of the RUC and the PSNI. He discovered large avenues of collusion in the midst of our community being perpetrated against ordinary people and denigrating very good police officers who were operating according to the rule of law. We must always remember that.
While the UK authorities continue to claim that the ICRIR reviews will be capable of Article 2 compliant investigations, using full police powers, human rights organisations such as the Committee on the Administration of Justice assert that this will not be the case, particularly for those who avail of the immunities scheme. Police powers will not be exercisable against persons who cannot be subject to criminal proceedings for an offence as they have immunity for it. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who says that, unless we—or rather the Government—go back to the drawing board, the Bill, as it is currently drafted, will fail before it even starts, because it does not command the respect of victims, political parties or the churches in Northern Ireland. Unless it has that cross-community support and support from victims, it is redundant.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain about Kenova. We all know of the good work that has been done by Jon Boutcher, particularly in relation to Kenova, the investigations into the activities of the alleged agent known as Stakeknife, the Provisional IRA and the security forces. The interim Kenova report is drafted and about to enter a process of representation for those who will be adversely impacted by its findings. One thing that Mr Boutcher has done is liaise with the victims and their families at every possible avenue; they know exactly what is going on and what the next steps will be. He does that in a sympathetic and empathetic way, while also being very assertive in the job he has to do. Another amendment deals with the PPS in Northern Ireland being properly resourced to ensure that those files are not left lying on the shelf without any form of prosecution. So I am very happy to support all the amendments in this group, as I believe that the Kenova model, because it establishes the minimum standards for an ICRIR review, would be a very good model, if the Minister would consider accepting it.
While I am very happy to support the amendments in this group and to add my name to some of them, I feel that the current proposals in the Bill do not fulfil what is required for investigations. Yesterday morning, I listened to an actor playing the role of a victim who had been subjected to a paramilitary shooting. It did not say where he lived in Northern Ireland, but he was subjected to the most horrendous shooting incident that was witnessed by his own daughter through their front window after he returned from the pub. He was set upon by about three or four gentlemen and shot; to all intents and purposes, it was a punishment shooting. Therefore, in terms of that particular incident, I firmly believe that investigations must be central, because we have to find out who is responsible for those acts of terror.
Alan McBride was on the radio today speaking about Kenova. He is part of the WAVE Trauma Centre, and his wife sadly died in the Shankill Road bombing in October 1993. He is a firm believer in the Kenova model, because he believes that that would establish the minimum standards for ICRIR reviews and because it commands respect across the community and of so many victims’ groups—particularly WAVE, which has done such good work in this regard.
So I am very happy to support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, because investigations must go along with reviews; without investigations, review is redundant and it makes the Bill redundant.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 34 about human rights, to which the noble Lords, Lord Godson, Lord Empey and Lord Bew, have added their names.
Human rights are usually invoked by people in support of their political position, without actually admitting or understanding that there is always a conflict of rights in most situations. This could not be more true of legacy in Northern Ireland. One right is always mentioned—Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to life—but of course there are other ECHR rights that should arise in a legacy debate. Article 6 is the right to a fair trial, which has implications for those whom the ICRIR will consider in its reinvestigations and public reports. Article 8 is the right to respect for private and family life, which applies to an even wider range of people caught up in every Troubles death, especially those who served in our Armed Forces and the police. Article 10 concerns freedom of expression and the right to a reputation, and this applies to another group, including those who are critical of lawfare for different reasons but who fail to get much reported by our state broadcaster in Northern Ireland, BBC Northern Ireland.
For over 20 years, following the McKerr judgment of the European Court in May 2001, the slogan “Not Article 2 Compliant” has been thrown around, not just by the advocates of lawfare but by too many figures in the criminal justice system. In the McKerr case—he was a member of the IRA killed on active service in November 1982 by members of the RUC—Strasbourg invented a new right. The court did not say that the UK had violated McKerr’s substantive Article 2 right to life, but the seven human rights judges said that a new right had been violated due to an alleged inadequate investigation. That right became known as “Article 2 procedural”. The UK was required to continue to investigate and to ensure that
“the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure”.
I am sorry to say that, in the context of Northern Ireland and terrorism, there are some relatives who might have an interest greater than justice, such as discrediting the way police officers and soldiers resisted republican and loyalist terrorism during the decades of the Troubles—and Strasbourg does not deign to notice that.
There is a second McKerr line of cases in the House of Lords, and later the Supreme Court, which the Committee on the Administration of Justice and academics never mention. On 2 October 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. The House of Lords, in another McKerr judgment in 2004, said that Article 2 compliant investigations did not apply to deaths before that October 2000 date. This position was left in place in domestic law by our judges in the McCaughey case in 2011, the Keyu case, a Malaysian case, in 2015, and the Finucane case in 2019. Then, in December 2021, in a key Northern Ireland case called McQuillan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule of no Human Rights Act requirement for such investigations —which, essentially, were reinvestigations—before October 2000, with a qualification, based on some controversial Strasbourg jurisprudence, that a 10-year pushback was permissible. The helpful headline in the Times Law Report read, “Northern Irish police are not required to re-investigate incidents from the Troubles”.
Solicitor Patrick Finucane was murdered by loyalists in February 1989, some 12 years before the human rights commencement date. His killers have been convicted but the need for reinvestigation—a public inquiry, as Strasbourg and his family demand—remains an open question. Some human rights lawyers query whether Strasbourg’s 10-year rule is even arguable under the Human Rights Act 1998. If the Supreme Court judgments are relied on to turn down a Finucane public inquiry, and the Supreme Court said that the Government, for various other reasons, were not obliged to have one, the matter should be over and we would save up to £100 million. For this reason, I believe that the Government need to beef up their responses at Strasbourg —I note what the Minister said in answer to the previous debate about the Northern Ireland Office making overtures; it would be helpful if we could see some of those—because they have to start ignoring what is seen as an international lynch mob currently baying at the Northern Ireland Office over the Bill.
I look forward to the Minister explaining how, given the McQuillan judgment, much of Article 2 procedure now applies to the nearly 4,000 Troubles killings. In 2021, in a PSNI statement just after the judgment, Assistant Chief Constable Jonathan Roberts, who well understood the import of McQuillan, wrote:
“The Police Service welcome the clear legal ruling that there are no legal obligations arising from Article 2 ECHR to investigate these cases”,
including McQuillan. He continued:
“We will now carefully consider the judgments and their impact on the legacy caseload.”
Sadly, nothing visible has happened since that.
I am sure that, in answer to my amendment, the Minister will say that Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 means that all ECHR articles would apply to the ICRIR’s work. If the Government are being pushed by the CAJ and Strasbourg into Article 2 procedure—as they have been in Northern Ireland Amendment 76, which the Government will move—by adding criminal investigations to the review process, why can they not also say in the Bill, using the Minister’s phrase, that other ECHR articles, particularly Articles 6, 8 and 10, will be in play?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments. First, I was struck during the debate by this distinction between investigations and reviews. Everyone agrees that investigations should follow but the question is whether there should be prosecutions. There are arguments around whether a review is really an investigation—do the families really get the facts? If we could agree that an investigation was not always followed by a prosecution, this may be something that we could start to agree on.
Secondly, it seems that there is a broad consensus that, as an approach, Kenova is good. The standards of connection to the families and of investigation have been supported by the people who most need this—namely, those who have lost family members.
Finally, there is a bit of a definitional issue around the difference between a review and an investigation, and we will have to address that at some point. One of the things about an investigation is that, obviously, there is always an interview with the suspect. It has to be conducted by the rules of evidence and there is the potential for a charge at the end. One of the dilemmas with any review, including Kenova, is that a review can consider material that is not evidence. I will make two broad points in that area.
First, as we have heard, Kenova is looking at intelligence material from other countries as well as from within the UK. It may be able to look at such material but it will not be able to quote it or quote it in a court. Secondly, it is impossible to use intercept material—intercepted communications, usually by telephone—as evidence in the UK unless it has been obtained in a jurisdiction in which it is legally possible to use it as evidence. It is ironic, but that is our system. Reviews are able to consider telephone communications that may be indicative of, but not evidence of, certain actions or charges. That dilemma has to be resolved at some point because although the reviewer may be led by such communications to conclude that one particular person was responsible or a crime was committed in a certain way, they cannot quote it in a court of law—it regularly now has to be held back in serious and organised crime and terrorism cases. The only information that can be quoted in a court is the fact that the telephone call occurred, the time it occurred, who was at either end of the communication, and, more recently, where they were when they made the call, because there is information on mobiles. I raise this not because it is an easy answer for the Minister to give but because it is fair to put that dilemma in this domain.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support, which is extremely important. In making that important point, would he agree, with his long experience, that this kind of looking into the facts, if I can put it that way, through what I will call a review for these purposes, may not lead to that evidence going into court, for the reasons he explained, but could and does help considerably under Kenova, as I understand it, in the truth-recovery process, which is at the heart of this, in practical terms, for 99% of these cases, and what victims want?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I entirely agree. If you are able to say to a relative, “We are aware of a call and we know the content but we cannot tell you what was said”, you can start to fill that gap, which exists for every family, around what happened, when and how, and what the end was like—these are terrible questions to face, but it helps. I agree entirely: it is part of that truth-sharing, but, to be fair to everyone involved, I have to say that there is an evidential barrier which is available to help a reviewer but not a criminal charge.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, given the hour and the desire to move on to the dinner break business. From these Benches, we very much support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to impose a function of investigation on the ICRIR, as well as one of review. She made very compelling arguments and I will not repeat them, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling in the debate on these amendments this evening.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 72 in this group, to which I have added my name. I was struck by the personal and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, as well as the practical suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for some ways forward. Perhaps we could take this forward with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, before Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the case powerfully that the process being used by Jon Boutcher in Operation Kenova has cross-party support and has acquired the confidence of all those who have been directly engaged in it. Perhaps most importantly, it demonstrably works. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. I suspect that virtually everyone taking part in this debate has spoken to Jon Boutcher. If you meet him, it is hard not to be overwhelmingly impressed by his commitment, dedication and drive. He is really committed to this process, and we should seriously consider it between now and report.
I urge the Minister to look closely at Amendment 72. I look forward to his response at the end of this group, not least to some of the questions that have been asked on the Government’s response to the option of upscaling the processes used in Operation Kenova, which seems to me to be a preferable approach compared to the proposals in the Bill.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, if I were still Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and someone had suggested to me that the Bill should be introduced and then, immediately after suggesting it, said that all the international bodies concerned with human rights, Members of Congress in the United States, every single political party in Northern Ireland, every Church in Northern Ireland, and more or less everyone in Northern Ireland was against it, you might understand what my response would have been. The Bill certainly would not have ended up in this Chamber.
What I do not underestimate is the problem that the Minister and Government face. Of course, we have to try to resolve these issues—we have been 25 years trying to resolve these issues, and we did not do it when we did the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, because there were all sorts of other things to do. We have tried and tried, not least with the Eames-Bradley report, which I am sure the noble and right reverend Lord remembers. However, there is a dilemma: should the Government abandon the Bill—should they dump it? I think they probably should—or should it be improved? That is the work of the House of Lords, which is trying to improve it, to see whether there is any consensus at all among political parties here and in Northern Ireland as to what should replace it.
Lord Caine (Con)
As if I need reminding. I am grateful to all who have contributed to this extensive and far-reaching debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to my all-Peers letter in which I described this legislation as “challenging”. I assure him that that word was not chosen by the Civil Service—it was inserted by me. I think that the intention could best be described as ironic understatement.
I am also grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, about the role of this House and the attempts to improve the Bill. I genuinely hope that, whether one agrees with my amendments or not—and I suspect from what I have heard across the Chamber that a large number of your Lordships would fall into the latter category—it is recognised that I am trying sincerely to improve the Bill as best as I can, and will continue in those endeavours.
On the various amendments before the Committee, as noble Lords are aware, the legislation establishes the commission to carry out reviews of Troubles-related deaths and incidents involving serious injury. I have tabled Amendment 76 to make it clear, I hope, beyond any doubt that the commissioner for investigations is to decide whether a criminal investigation should form part of a review in any case that is considered by the commission. I reiterate the point that, under the legislation currently before the Committee, “review” is intended to be an umbrella term that can include a criminal investigation. We have tried to take on board some of the concerns and criticisms over the use of that word.
In the Government’s view, the amendment that I have tabled would confirm very clearly that the Government can meet and deliver on their international obligations in respect of investigations. The Bill does this by ensuring that the commissioner for investigations, as a person with the powers of a police constable, has access to the complete range of investigative measures, including as part of a criminal investigation, while giving them the discretion and flexibility to determine how they can best fulfil the needs of victims and survivors.
I completely understand that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who proposed a series of amendments, does not agree, and does not believe that the amendment goes far enough. In all honesty with your Lordships, I tread warily on this issue of the ECHR. I am not a lawyer, unlike the noble Baroness. The Government’s position on this is that obviously it follows that, when immunity is granted by the commission, the commission will not be capable of following that with a process leading to a prosecution or the punishment of an individual concerned. Nevertheless, the Government consider that result to be compatible with their international obligations, for the following reason. The absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can, in the Government’s view, be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in those circumstances, in a limited and specific way, is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths or serious incidents that would not otherwise come to light. Such recovery is an important part of trying to help society in Northern Ireland move forward. I think we will touch on that issue further in a later group of amendments.
I turn to the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate or effective to stipulate that all reviews must entail criminal investigations, which would be the effect of Amendment 72, or that in some cases a criminal investigation, and only a criminal investigation, must be carried out. There are circumstances where families might wish simply to gain a further degree of information about something that happened on the day, about some specific aspect of what happened, and we would envisage that the commission in those circumstances might determine that a short review is all that is required to answer a small number of specific questions—and that information might be readily available in the archive of material available to the commission without having to go down the criminal investigation route.
We believe that stipulating that all reviews entail criminal investigation would—I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear me say this—add a significant amount of time and resource to how long it would take the body to work through its caseload and prevent it being able to prioritise appropriately. We are clear that, in all cases, the commission will be able to conduct full, effective investigations capable of discharging our obligations. The commission will have all the necessary powers to conduct investigations, including the powers and privileges of a police constable, the power to compel evidence from witnesses and full access to state records.
As I said in response to an earlier group, it is of course vital that the commission is informed by best practice from elsewhere, including Operation Kenova, which I agree with many noble Lords across the Committee has achieved very positive outcomes in building strong relationships with victims and helping them to better understand the circumstances around what happened to their loved ones. Like many noble Lords across the Committee, I have met Jon Boutcher on a number of occasions and continue to engage with him, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has carried out—specifically for the way he has conducted relations with families.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I understand the Minister’s point about some cases. The fear of victims is that “review” will be just a desktop job, that they will not be looked at—to underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made—to get at the truth in a way that Boutcher has been able to do. Yes, it does take time and resource, but if you do not know what the information is, because it is in files you have never had access to in the way that Jon Boutcher has, how can you possibly say that you can close off a case with a short review, even though it will cost less money?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful. What I had in mind with short review is that if there are specific facts to which a family does not have ready access, they can go to the commission and ask: “We just want to know a bit more about what happened” on a particular day, and those facts can be very easily turned up by the commission, just by looking at its records, the archive, et cetera. That would be an appropriate way of responding to such a request.
To reiterate, the commissioner for investigations will have all the powers of a police constable, will have access to all the relevant information and, crucially in the legislation, will be somebody who has to have experience of investigations in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. So, it really will be for the director of investigations to exercise his or her judgment and discretion, but of course my amendment—I should say that we believe the legislation as drafted would allow for this anyway—makes it very clear that a full criminal investigation will be available to the commission should that be the decision of the director of investigations.
Lord Caine (Con)
Not the Secretary of State but the director of investigations, because the commission will be operationally independent from government.
In paying tribute to Jon Boutcher for the work he has done, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about scaling up Kenova. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but the noble Lord referred to Mr Boutcher’s evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the other place. He acknowledged that, while some aspects of his work could be built on and scaled up, not all of it could, so there are difficulties.
To give an example of the scale of this, the noble Lord’s amendment would require a criminal investigation in every case, and given that the Police Service of Northern Ireland currently has a caseload of around 1,000, the danger is that we would spend significant resource, but also, more importantly, significant time, dealing with this backlog, which would mean that we would spend almost as long investigating the legacy of the Troubles as the Troubles themselves lasted, which I think is not something anybody wants.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those very powerful voices that have been heard in the Chamber tonight. I also thank the Minister. I will speak briefly—I know noble Lords are all waiting for their dinner—but I want to say a word in response to the Minister’s assertion that the absence of prosecution can be justified on the basis that the conferral of immunity is necessary to ensure recovery of information which would not otherwise come to light. We will come back to this on group 6, but I cannot understand how the possibility of immunity leading to disclosure of hitherto unknown information justifies departure from the requirements of Article 2. In the conduct of an Article 2 investigation, as the Minister has said, there is a requirement to take note of and comply with not only the requirements of our own criminal law but the procedural requirements of Article 2 and the other articles of the convention.
With great respect, I think the Minister’s comments on the historic backlog, the 1,000 cases that the PSNI currently has and the need to deal with them as proposed in the Bill explain why the Bill is not Article 2- compliant. Although there is provision in the Bill for the establishment of an investigative arm of the commission, and for persons being accorded police powers, such as powers of arrest, search, seizure, et cetera, those powers are necessary to carry out investigations, and that means that the structural investigation construct of the Bill really resembles that of police forces, the Police Ombudsman, the IOPC and the NCA. What is different about the Bill are the arrangements for access to criminal investigations and the extent to which the Secretary of State is empowered by the Bill to provide guidance, which must be complied with unless it can be shown it is reasonable not to do so. The Secretary of State has other powers to control and regulate the operation of the commission. Those powers are excessive and, I will argue, unnecessary, and they detract from the independence of investigation, which is fundamental to ECHR-compliant investigation.
I am not going to engage in argument with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the effect of McQuillan —we may come back to it anyway—but, having regard to the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 24th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2023)
Baroness O’Loan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the duty to produce a report on the finding of any investigation until the matter under investigation has been dealt with by the Prosecutor.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, these amendments relate to the reporting functions of the commission that will be established by the Bill. Noble Lords will know that the process of reporting and producing a report for public consumption is enormously important because it complies with the requirements to be open and transparent about the work that has been done.
At the same time, those who report must rightly engage in a complex but necessary fairness process—a process in which one has to consider all one’s obligations to all the various actors mentioned in the report. I did so most recently in June 2021, when I reported on my work for the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service’s handling of the case of Daniel Morgan. The fairness process at the end of that report lasted months and months, because it was so important to ensure that letters went to everyone who might be mentioned and even very faintly criticised in the report, to receive their responses and then to produce a report that reflected precisely what we wanted to say. I am very much aware, as I am sure noble Lords are, of the difficulties attached to this reporting process.
These amendments apply to the reporting process following review or investigation because of the other amendments I have tabled. Amendment 5 in my name removes the requirement to produce a final report on an investigation if that investigation has been subject to a referral to the prosecutor under Clause 23 and the prosecutor has yet to make a prosecutorial decision or a prosecution has not occurred. This is an amendment to Clause 2, so it is the first time the Bill is introducing the functions of the commission, and one of those functions is to report. The amendment says simply that you do not have to do so if there has been a referral to the prosecutor and it is not resolved. I want to put that in the Bill to prevent any expectation that there is an obligation to report in these circumstances. I think that expectation would exist but for this amendment.
Similarly, Amendment 89 to Clause 15 would mean that the Chief Commissioner is under no obligation to produce a final report or to provide the specified information where a matter has been reported to the prosecutor. Obviously, where an investigation has occurred it is not possible to provide the information referred to in Clause 15 until all prosecutorial possibilities have been exhausted. This is to protect the integrity of any investigation that has occurred.
Amendment 98 refers to the requirement in the Bill to provide a copy of a whole report to somebody who is criticised in it. I may have misread or misunderstood the impact of this clause, but I think the Bill requires the commission to send the report to anybody who has been criticised in it. I am suggesting an amendment that would introduce a process similar to that of the Salmon or Maxwellisation principles and would require only information that relates to the criticism of the individual in question to be shared with that individual, not the whole report. Were the whole report to be provided, it would give the individual who has been criticised access to information about other criticisms and other information that it may not be appropriate to include before the final editing of the report. For example, the commissioner might find that his criticisms were not justified when he gets a response from those to whom the material has been provided. Clause 15(11) may be attempting to deal with this problem, but it is not clear what is meant by that subsection. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to the extent of that subsection and how it applies. I hope that the amendment as suggested would limit the obligation on the commissioner while still satisfying the requirements of fairness for those who are criticised and still enabling him or her ultimately to produce the necessary report.
Clause 15 provides that if there is a criticism of the criticism, the commissioner will exclude the material. In Amendment 100 I suggest that it is very helpful, when one is producing the material, if one can modify the material that one has sent out, rather than exclude it in its entirety. There may well be issues that still need to be raised for the purposes of completeness and accountability in reporting. I think it would give the commissioner much more flexibility and allow the production of a fair but more complete report.
Clause 24(4) provides that the commission may not request information from a victim or survivor of the Troubles or their family member. Clause 24(5) modifies that slightly by providing that information can be sought if they hold a public office or something like that. To enhance the confidence of victims in the proposed process, my Amendment 141 provides a right for such a person to provide information. I think that is important in caring for victims.
Amendment 142 is a probing amendment, simply to consider the circumstances in which confidential information should be available to the ICRIR for the purposes of historical reports. For example, I have seen multiple situations in which information held by organisations such as the PSNI, the RUC or the Metropolitan Police has been marked confidential despite the fact that, even by government marking standards, it does not warrant such classification. When you are confronted with information marked confidential, you can challenge the classification and get it downgraded so that it does not attract the protections that confidential information attracts, but I think it is important for the Minister to consider whether it is possible to arrange for situations in which information that may have been marked confidential might be made available for historical purposes.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 99 and 101 in this group, which are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Godson. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the amendments are designed to focus on the possible functioning of the commission, the ICRIR. I think I will say “the commission” and follow the Minister’s advice on that: I do not want to struggle late at night with that mouthful of letters.
I say first to the Minister that it has been a hard day’s work. He has all my sympathy and is entitled to feel, given the amount of work and effort he has put into this Bill, that he has also somebody who supports the Bill, albeit somebody who is coming up and raising difficulties, although I hope of a containable sort. That might be a little bit more than flesh can bear at this stage in the proceedings.
I want to address an issue that has been at the centre of discussion during the week in Belfast: the article by Neil Faris in the Belfast News Letter—three articles in fact—about the possible functioning or the future functioning of the commission. It is perfectly possible that some of the concerns that exist and are expressed in those articles may be overstating and the Minister can allay them. But essentially my two amendments are both directed in that respect. They seek to balance the rights of those who may be named in reports with the rights of those requesting reviews, and particularly (6A)(a), (b) and (c) in my amendment are designed to achieve that end.
In the case of Amendment 101, it is a linguistic change, again with the same objective of balancing the rights of those who are at the other side of this process with those actually carrying out any review. One key point I want to make is quite simply that we have talked a lot already about what is or is not Article 2 compliant. But the UK Government also have a responsibility with respect to Article 8, respect for private and family life, and Article 10, freedom of expression, and both these rights also must be respected.
The particulars in new subsections (6A) and (6B) draw on best practice in the world of civil litigation, particularly inquiries by public bodies into alleged misconduct falling short of criminality. I would be happier if I felt that the Government were considering this best practice and how it has evolved, particularly since 2016, to ensure fairness when the commission indeed gets up and running. There are concerns at the moment about how the commission might actually work in practice. Those are concerns that the Minister and the Government have the capacity to meet, and that is really the point that lies behind my amendments, which are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: Amendments 99 and 101.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking—briefly, the Committee may be pleased to hear—to Amendment 136, I again thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for adding their considerable names. I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her forensic analysis and for bringing her long experience into the debate through her amendments.
We all understand that, due to the age and complexity of legacy cases, prosecutions will be rare—very rare—but it is important that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is sufficiently resourced, with appropriately skilled and experienced lawyers, to promptly review cases referred to it by the commissioner of investigations of the ICRIR, and that is not happening at the moment in respect of the Kenova model. Families have been waiting many years to understand what happened to their loved ones. Delays in prosecution decisions must not be allowed to prolong the wait still further.
Currently, legacy cases are glacially slow, to be decided upon by the PPS Northern Ireland, and, when a decision to prosecute does result, those cases can be expected to take five or more years to come to a conclusion. These cases involve recurring legacy issues and present specific legal challenges, such as the admissibility of evidence, hearsay and the continuity of exhibits. They need to be dealt with by lawyers with experience and expertise in these matters. As an example, Operation Kenova now has 33 files with the PPS Northern Ireland for consideration. The first tranche of files was submitted in October 2019, over two years ago. For most of these cases, families have been waiting for more than 25 years, and in some cases almost 50 years.
The PPS Northern Ireland prioritisation criteria mean that legacy files are effectively put in a queue for examination, as resourcing and demand allow. Understandably, perhaps, given the resources available, priority is given to cases relating to current offences, so the review of legacy cases slips further and further backwards, to the frustration and unnecessary additional traumatisation of the families concerned. The Bill claims to be victim-focused, but it is time that legacy legislation actually demonstrated such an intention because, as currently drafted, it does not do so.
The way that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland reviews cases differs considerably from the way that terrorism cases are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales. The CPS has a specialist counterterrorism division that engages with the investigation team as soon as a file is submitted. Early joint case conferences with senior counsel and the investigation team are held to assist in understanding the evidential strengths and weaknesses of the file, enabling further evidential recovery and facilitating prompt decision-making. This collaborative approach allows a more informed understanding of the cases and speedy and effective decision-making. The PPS Northern Ireland simply does not have the resources to dedicate lawyers to legacy files in this way.
As part of this Bill, it is important that sufficient funding is allocated to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to review files and make timely and good decisions on them. It is essential that the creation of the ICRIR is supported by robust operating practices within the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that must be adequately resourced to deal promptly with legacy files referred by the ICRIR Commissioner of Investigations.
In conclusion, the Minister cited resources as one of the reasons why he questioned the validity of the Kenova model being inserted into this Bill, as I am proposing to do on Report. The alternative to adequately resourcing this—and Jon Boutcher has already disputed that it will involve massive resources, at least compared to what has been devoted to these legacy cases in the past—is leaving victims betrayed. What is the point of this legislation unless it is to give some relief, closure and sense of justice, as well as, crucially, truth recovery, which is the predominant objective victims are seeking? If this Bill does not deliver that, and if the model adopted does not have the resources to deliver that, then it will fail in its objective, and we might as well say so. If the Government are going for a resource-thinned, slimmed-down operation, as I am afraid this Bill seems to propose—and the Minister’s response to the previous debate seemed to indicate that resources are one of his top concerns about the Kenova model—then they will leave victims completely dissatisfied. I do not think that is where your Lordships’ House wants to be, and I do not think that is where legislation seeking to bring to a head this whole legacy trauma should be either.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I speak for the first time on this legislation. During Second Reading, I was in the south Atlantic on the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Falklands. Having expected to be fully part of the legislation, I have not been so far. I speak with a fair degree of trepidation because there are clearly so many experts and former Secretaries of State. When I speak on my normal portfolio, I feel as if I am probably just about pitching things right, and I hope this evening I manage to get the tone right.
First, I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in pointing out that we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. So many of the amendments on this Bill have been framed by the noble Baroness, who has reviewed the Bill forensically as far as anybody can tell. She has certainly caused these Benches to look at and think about some of the issues that have been raised.
In reporting, there is always a balance between needing to have appropriate reporting and putting too many requirements on to Ministers, officials and others. It is a tendency for opposition parliamentarians when amending legislation to say, “We’d like the Government to report on something.” Amendment 5 makes a lot of sense; we should not have excessive reporting expectations.
I have a few questions about the extent of the pressure we are putting on officials. Would we be able to deliver some of the amendments being proposed? Also, one of the issues that has come up across this group seems to be about resources. One of the issues for your Lordships’ House is that, if something is deemed to be a finance Bill—if we say there needs to be resources—at some point the other place might say “That is not your remit.”
One of the things I want to ask the Minister is the extent to which he envisages it being possible for the Government to look at the appropriate resource to enable the aims and ambitions of the Bill to be fulfilled. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, there is not a great deal of point in pushing through legislation, which in itself is disputed and contested by so many, if, in the end, victims feel that their cases are not being looked at adequately. Can the Minister either tell the House or undertake to go away and consider whether it is realistic to be thinking about resources to ensure that His Majesty’s Government will provide additional funding to investigate legacy cases, so that those do not fall on the budget of the current Government of Northern Ireland? That seems to be something which we ought to look into.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I think the amendments are very sensible, they come from sensible people and the Minister should take them very seriously. They improve a Bill which we do not like, as we are again in this dilemma. Nevertheless, the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, really are worth investigating and we would support them.
My noble friend Lord Hain again has made an extremely sensible suggestion that we need to look at the resourcing. In the case of his amendment, that is with regard to prosecution, but the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has made the very valid point that the whole apparatus that is to be set up by the Bill needs to be resourced. We are not in good financial times, so I am assuming that the Government have costed what all this will take and that it will be put into a Budget. We will have the Budget in a week or two’s time, so it is probably too early yet for the establishment of these institutions. Nevertheless, these are hugely important issues, not the least of which is linked to time. People should not have to wait a long time to have their case heard because there are no resources for it. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and will, as ever, seek to deliver a sensible reply. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to this having already been a hard day’s work. I trust that it will not turn into a hard day’s night—but enough song references for this evening.
I turn to the amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Clause 15 places a duty on the chief commissioner to produce a final report on the findings of each review that the commission has carried out, as soon as is practicable once the review has concluded. This, as noble Lords will recognise, is designed to support information recovery.
However, where the commissioner for investigations has referred a case to prosecutors for possible prosecution, Clause 17(2) and (3) already require the chief commissioner to postpone publication of the final report pending a decision by the prosecutor, or the outcome of any criminal proceedings which might flow from that decision. In the Government’s view, therefore, Amendments 5 and 89 are not needed as the Bill already achieves their purpose.
I note the noble Baroness’s comments on sharing reports, which I take seriously. The commissioner will of course be subject to the safeguards set out in Clause 4, but I am happy to sit down with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, whom I welcome to our debates, to discuss the matter further. Where the legislation makes reference to “material” criticising an individual under Clause 15, it means
“material which, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, constitutes significant criticism of a living individual who was involved in the conduct forming part of the Troubles, or other harmful conduct … to which a review relates”.
I am advised that language in that space is aligned with the Inquiries Act, but, as I have said, I am very happy, between now and the next stage, to sit down with the two noble Baronesses to discuss those matters further.
My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, rightly considered the importance of ensuring that the commission should follow best practice in carrying out reviews within the exercise of its power. The commission is already under a clearly defined obligation in Clause 4, to which I have just referred, not to do anything that
“would risk putting, or would put, the life or safety of any person at risk”.
It is the Government’s view that this safeguard is wide enough to offer sufficient protection to the rights of anyone likely to be named in reports. Therefore, in our view, the amendment is unnecessary. Additionally, we would expect the commission, as a public body, to maintain high standards and follow best practice when discharging all its functions, including those which relate to naming individuals in reports—but, as ever, I am very happy to discuss that further.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, the former Secretary of State, referred to prosecutions and acknowledged, as he has done throughout, that the prospect of prosecutions is very rare. It is worth remembering, when looking at this legislation, that the most recent case that will be examined by the commission is now over a quarter of a century old, and the oldest case is just slightly older than me. I will be 57 in April, for those who are unaware.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am a child in your Lordships’ House.
We are looking at cases which go back very many years and where, as the noble Lord rightly says, the chance of prosecutions is rare. In response to his amendment requiring the Secretary of State to make payments where conduct has been referred, I do not think he will be remotely surprised to hear me repeat what I have said in the Chamber on a number of previous occasions in response to him and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the latter of whom is not in her place, unfortunately: that funding for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, and one for the Executive to consider.
I will say, almost in parenthesis, that I understand the comments about resource, but I have spoken to senior members of the legal profession in Belfast. While they would of course always welcome more resources, they are also adamant that the speed with which some of the cases proceed is not entirely down to resourcing; there are other issues involved. Having said that, I remind the Committee that the 2021 spending review set out historical levels of funding for the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Executive. Spending per head in Northern Ireland is already the highest of any region of the UK: Northern Ireland receives 21% more funding per head than the UK average. Also, a sizeable amount of money— £250 million, to be exact—will be made available by the Government to fund the institutions established by the Bill, including the investigative function of the commission.
I turn now to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her amendments—
Lord Hain (Lab)
I apologise; I do not want to detain the Committee, but what proportion of that extra spending or allocation that the Minister said Northern Ireland gets compared with other parts of the UK is down to the unique security needs of Northern Ireland that are not present elsewhere in the UK?
Lord Caine (Con)
A lot of it is determined by the Barnett formula, but, in large part, it is not just security but the additional needs that Northern Ireland has. I have no issue with the additional spending: it is right that, as part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland benefits from the same levels of service as every other part, and that should continue. But the additional spending is not just down to security, by any means.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Is the Minister sure that Northern Ireland benefits from the same level of services as the rest of the United Kingdom? Our waiting lists are very much longer than any in the health service here—far more people are waiting for appointments there than here—and we have major difficulties in our education system because of funding matters. So the service is not the same.
Lord Caine (Con)
I completely appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness. To some extent, the problems there are exacerbated by the lack of a devolved Administration between 2017 and 2020: we are still living with the consequences of there being no decision-making during that period, when Sinn Féin pulled down the institutions. Of course, we are also suffering from the lack of a functioning Executive at the moment. I suspect that we might return to some of these issues when we debate the Northern Ireland Budget Bill in your Lordships’ House in two or three weeks’ time. However, I accept that the situation, particularly regarding health and waiting lists, is considerably worse in Northern Ireland, but we stand by the principle that Northern Ireland, and all parts of the United Kingdom, should benefit from the same levels of service.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s amendments on the historical record. If families do not request an investigation into the death or serious injury of their loved one, or their cases are not referred to the commission by the Secretary of State in circumstances where he has deemed it appropriate to meet international obligations, the researchers responsible for compiling the record will use only publicly available information and will not contact families. This is of the utmost importance because we know that, for perfectly understandable reasons, a number of families in Northern Ireland would rather not resurrect the past, and we entirely respect that. Nothing in the current drafting prevents individuals voluntarily providing information to the commission, but, again, I am happy to continue to talk to noble Lords on this matter. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these issues. Amendment 136, on the need for funding for prosecutions, covers a very complex and sensitive issue. The reality is that a case takes an average of three years—probably longer now in Northern Ireland—to come to prosecution once it is presented to the prosecutors. With the various stages of the trial process, it lasts a number of years. If the commission has a lifespan of five years for the receipt of information, with a consequential period for investigation, which may well exceed a year for each one, there will be difficult problems in trying to process cases. Quite simply, we are trying to do too much in a limited amount of time with limited resources. That is why I am afraid I have to challenge the Minister again on his assertion that the money must come from the current Northern Ireland budget—it quite simply is not there. I hope that the Minister will recognise the need to resource both investigations and prosecution.
If we set up a commission to deal with the past and it is capable of doing what Jon Boutcher has done in Kenova, which I am serving on, and the cases go into a black hole called the prosecution service and nothing comes out the other end, conclusions will be drawn about what Parliament’s intentions were in setting up this legacy process—and they will not be positive conclusions. I just reiterate that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, made very valuable and thoughtful contributions. In relation to the question of whether it is possible to give a criticised individual a partial report, rather than a whole one, report writers have to take into account the privacy rights of the individuals who appear in the report, whether they are named or might be recognised by the role that they hold. There is that need to try to balance the need to ensure accountability and transparency with the proper protection of the privacy rights of others. My amendments seek to make the process of preparing those reports more compliant with all the requirements of fairness.
Lord Caine
“(4A) At least three months before the start of each financial year the ICRIR must—(a) produce and publish a work plan for that year, and(b) give a copy of the plan to the Secretary of State.But this duty does not apply in relation to any financial year which starts before 1 April 2024.(4B) A work plan must deal with the following matters—(a) the caseload which the ICRIR is expecting;(b) the plans which the ICRIR has for dealing with its caseload;(c) the plans which the ICRIR has for engaging with persons entitled to request reviews of deaths and other harmful conduct;(d) policies which the ICRIR is planning to introduce, review or change;(e) such other matters as the ICRIR considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the ICRIR to produce a work plan for each financial year before the start of the year.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name. Most of the amendments in this group are technical in nature, and as such I shall try at this late hour not to dwell on them too long.
Amendments 6 and 189 are designed to ensure that the commission produces and publishes a work plan for each financial year. Amendment 7, 10 and 11 make changes to the existing provisions on annual reporting, bringing them in line with the process for producing a work plan. This will ensure that the commission has properly considered, and planned for, its expected caseload in each financial year. This is similar in rationale to comparative provisions in other legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which requires the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to publish strategic plans and annual reports.
I have also tabled a series of technical amendments that are clarificatory in nature. Amendment 17 deletes a reference to a commissioner having been removed from office on grounds of ill health, as ill health is not a ground for removal from office. Amendment 18 ensures that the definition of “insolvent” which applies for the purposes of the provision on the removal of commissioners also applies for the purposes of the provision on the appointment of commissioners. Amendments 19 and 31 update the provisions about the application to the commissioners and commission officers of the law relating to the rehabilitation of offenders. They ensure that the Bill reflects the current approach taken in law.
Amendment 32 ensures that the commissioner for investigations, who is also a commission officer, falls only within paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 as a commissioner and not also within paragraph 20 as an ICRIR officer. Paragraphs 14 and 20 make equivalent provision to ensure that the prohibitions on trade union activity that govern the police do not apply to the commission.
Amendment 42 avoids overlap with provisions of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which will apply to designated commission officers operating in England and Wales. Amendment 194 changes the definition of “reserved provision” with regard to this legislation, reflecting the fact that Section 8(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires consent to a Bill rather than to the Act itself. The commissioner for investigations will have the powers and privileges of a constable and be able to designate other commission officers with police powers as required.
Amendments 179 and 181 will enable the commission to enter into bespoke agreements with relevant oversight bodies—namely, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Independent Office for Police Conduct in England and Wales, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in Scotland—regarding arrangements for external oversight of the commission’s use of police powers. This will ensure that powers are used proportionately.
The Bill as drafted includes consequential amendments giving the commission the power to request communications data directly from UK companies. Schedule 12 currently gives the commissioner for investigations the power to grant authorisations to obtain communications data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, following further consideration, it is the Government’s view that providing the commission with such powers would be disproportionate, particularly given the complex statutory regime associated with such powers and the scope of the commission in relation to the review of historic cases, the most recent of which, as I said in my response to the last group, are more than a quarter of a century old.
It is important to note that telecommunications operators are required to comply with the Data Protection Act, meaning that they would need a business justification for retaining communications data from 1998 and before. Therefore, the likelihood of providers holding relevant data for the purposes of the commission’s functions is very remote indeed. Removal of this clause will have no impact on the commission’s ability to obtain communications data previously obtained and still held by the relevant authorities using investigatory powers as part of previous investigations. Nor does it affect powers which flow purely from commission officers having the powers and privileges of constables. On reflection, the Government do not consider it necessary or proportionate to give the commission access to this power, given the nature of legacy investigations. I have therefore tabled Amendments 180, 182 and 183 to address the Investigatory Powers Act. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and I discussed this issue last week and I acknowledge that she has some concerns, which, again, I am very happy to discuss with her further. I beg to move.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, my remarks will focus on Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Empey, who has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence tonight. His wife is currently still in hospital after several days. I have no doubt that noble Lords will wish to join me in wishing Lady Empey—our friend Stella—a full and swift recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is not in his place tonight, mentioned that we were near the end of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, before the RUC was mentioned. Like the noble Lord, Lord Caine, I thank him for his kind remarks about that force, which suffered so much during the Troubles. My noble friend Lord Empey’s amendment seeks to insert a legal guarantee that former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross, the Historical Enquiries Team or the Police Service of Northern Ireland will not be precluded from employment by the ICRIR. Of course, there is no reason that they should be; however, recent history tells us that some will, none the less, seek to find a reason.
Noble Lords will be aware of Operation Kenova, mentioned many times tonight, set up in 2016 to investigate a series of terrible crimes, including kidnapping, torture and murder, involving an individual codenamed Stakeknife. The Operation Kenova team is led by Jon Boutcher, who, at the time of his appointment, was Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police. He retired as chief constable in 2019, coinciding with a decision to expand Operation Kenova’s remit to four separate investigations, and he continues to lead that team. For the record, last year he found time to launch an unsuccessful bid to become Commissioner of the Met. One of Mr Boutcher’s first decisions when appointed to lead Operation Kenova was to prohibit former RUC GC and PSNI officers from involvement in the investigations. This ban has remained in place as his remit has widened. There is no logic to this, and neither is there any merit in blocking their route to employment by the ICRIR.
There are various interpretations of what this legislation is or is not intended to do. However, conducting thorough investigations into the multitude of unsolved murders and other horrific incidents throughout the long years of the Troubles should clearly be at the top of the list.
Clause 3(3)(a) provides that the ICRIR officers should
“have experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland”.
So, if proper investigations are to be carried out by individuals with first-hand experience of this work in Northern Ireland, surely former RUC GC and PSNI officers, as well as serving PSNI officers on secondment, should be at the head of queue to be engaged with the ICRIR.
I have always been a strong advocate of law and order. Throughout Northern Ireland’s darkest days, it fell to the brave men and women of the RUC, alongside the Armed Forces, to maintain law and order. Some 312 RUC officers lost their lives at the hands of terrorists, with 302 of those tragic deaths occurring in the Troubles. Over 10,000 more officers were injured in attacks, with over 300 left with life-changing injuries. While I remain a strong supporter of the Belfast agreement, the loss of the RUC GC’s name and cap badge were bitter pills to swallow. However, I cannot, and will not, allow the remarkable achievements and bravery of that force to be airbrushed from history, as many would like, especially IRA Sinn Féin, which is carrying out an intense and continuing campaign to rewrite the history of the Troubles and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has alluded to—to show IRA Sinn Féin in a better light than its former bestial acts would merit. That includes barring former RUC officers from serving once again. Similarly, serving, and former officers of the successor force, the PSNI, must be afforded the same access to skilled employment that the ICRIR will offer.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that the intention behind my noble friend Lord Empey’s amendment will be respected and adhered to by His Majesty’s Government when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first I say that, on the whole, I support most of the government amendments; they are sensible, and I am sure noble Lords will find them reasonable. As one of the sponsors of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has said. It is shocking that we need an amendment to make clear the position of those people who served our country so well for so many years in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Historical Enquiries Team or the Police Service of Northern Ireland—it is shocking that it should even be contemplated that they might not be considered to be a commissioner.
The reason we have to put it into the Bill is because there are very large numbers of people, particularly from the nationalist side, who spend their lives denigrating what was done by the RUC. Of course, there were bad apples, but I do not think there were probably as many bad apples as we have seen in the Metropolitan police force over the last few years. I urge the Minister to include this in the Bill so that people in Northern Ireland will know that this House and this Government—the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—realise and celebrate the steadfast and dedicated work put in by so many people in the RUC, so many of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned, paid with their lives and with their injuries. Can I suggest that the Minister comes back and says very clearly and simply “Yes, we will put it into the Bill”?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 33, and I commend the signatories to it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to convey our concerns and best wishes to Lady Empey. We wish her a speedy recovery.
I have a few brief remarks on the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the UDR and the Army. It is often forgotten that the RUC in particular stood between sanity and insanity, and more than 300 RUC members were murdered. It strikes me very often that their lives and the sacrifice they made are seen to be much less important than others, but I want to state in your Lordships’ House today that we appreciate and respect all that they did. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, some people have used their lives to vilify what the RUC sought to do.
It was mentioned in an earlier debate that 60% of the murders committed in Northern Ireland were committed by republicans, 30% were committed by loyalists, and 10% were allegedly committed by the security forces. Of course, that is not correct; if you drill down into that 10%, you arrive at a figure of something like 2%. It seems to me that instances where the security forces were engaged are included in that 10%. On many occasions, they intercepted terrorists going about their business of murder and mayhem, but those instances are included in that 10%, so it is not accurate. I want to put that on the record here tonight. I have sought to do so on other occasions—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I thank my noble friend Lord Morrow for giving way. Would he agree with me that if we fail to put this on the face of the Bill and run the risk that former operatives of the RUC, the PSNI and the HET are barred from the ICRIR, we would be sending out a signal that, institutionally, we regard those organisations as being party to the conflict and that we would, in effect, be placing them on a parallel level and a par with the paramilitary organisations, given that the purpose of this is to investigate all crimes across the Troubles? That would send out a signal. If there is concern—which I think all of us share—about some who try to rewrite the past and justify what happened, this would send out completely the wrong signal. I suspect also that if there was a legal challenge in terms of a fair employment case, the provision would not survive that.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank my noble friend Lord Weir for making that very important and valid point. It would be absolutely disgraceful if, in any way, that happened. Former members of the RUC, and indeed some members of the PSNI, have also been on the receiving end of republican terrorism. I was delighted to hear earlier in the debate that someone, at long last—I must have missed this—has been apprehended for the murder of that young journalist in Londonderry, Lyra McKee. It is a known fact, or it is believed—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, also made this point—that the bullet which took her life on that dreadful evening was meant for a police officer.
I sometimes think that noble Lords and others in this part of the United Kingdom do not fully comprehend and grasp what the security forces had to put up with over all those years. I say with some regret that there are a few of us, particularly on the unionist side of the community, who had very close friends—I have had them, in my family—who were blown up, but because they were members of the RUC, there was no other crime. That was the only crime. Thankfully, that particular friend survived, albeit with very serious injuries.
I ask your Lordships’ Committee not to shy away from talking about the RUC, which perhaps made the biggest sacrifice of over 300 of its serving officers. That must never be forgotten. Certainly, the law-abiding community, whether on the nationalist or unionist side, will never forget the sacrifice they made.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister two brief questions. It may be that I have not understood his amendments, in which case that is my fault. First, on government Amendment 42, it seems that the trade union rules that apply normally to police officers will not apply to the ICRIR. Is that because it is a technical amendment to avoid overlap with the provisions of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which will apply to designated ICRIR officers but which is the law only in England and Wales at the moment?
Lord Caine (Con)
My understanding is that it reflects the fact that, while the commissioner for investigations will have the powers of a police constable, technically he is not a member of the police service.
Lord Hain (Lab)
So there is no dilution of the rights of staff in the ICRIR?
Lord Hain (Lab)
Okay. Secondly, on Amendment 183, does that in any way dilute the investigatory powers of the ICRIR? This is one of the concerns about the whole thrust of the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon—I missed the amendment number.
Lord Caine (Con)
Absolutely not—nothing here is intended to dilute the investigatory powers of the commission at all.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I acknowledge the need for many of these government amendments, which clarify technical and procedural points. They do not go to the heart of the objections to the Bill that have been articulated tonight.
Some amendments, such as Amendments 6 and 7, are very minor. They provide for the provision of annual work plans, six-monthly reporting and things like that. It seems slightly heavy that you have to produce those as a matter of good governance—the auditors will require that. There is a requirement to provide annual reports and things like that, but, as regards putting that in statute, I do not object to it, but it is kind of heavy-handed. It goes again to the suspicion that the Secretary of State wants to be very involved in the work plans, how they are doing it and how they intend to distribute the resources that are available to them within the commission. I simply draw that to the Minister’s attention.
I am not sure about the meaning of Amendment 35. I know it is not the Minister’s amendment, but can he say whether it is possible that it may have the effect of limiting the application of some of the provisions of the Bill and some of the amendments that we have discussed and will discuss? There are powers other than those commonly known as police powers which may apply. I do not expect the Minister to answer that tonight, but will just leave the thought with him.
It seems that Amendment 41 may limit the ability of the commissioner to be flexible in the use of his staff. Obviously, the commissioner will be making decisions about which staff are required to have police powers and which are not. Those who have police powers will be able to do things such as arresting, searching and seizing, et cetera, while those who do not will not, but they can accompany and assist. I am not sure—perhaps the Minister can clarify this at a later time—whether an officer can have a limited subset of police powers, as provided for in the legislation, and I am not sure what that would add. So Amendment 41 may in fact not be particularly helpful in ensuring the most economic and effective use of the resources available to the commissioner.
The Minister referred to my reservations about Amendment 183. That refers to the removal of the provision making the ICRIR a relevant authority under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—which goes to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just asked. As I understand it, as drafted, the Bill gave the commission the right to require the delivery of data. Information may or may not have been requested by a previous investigation. If it was requested, it should be available in the files of that previous investigation. However, we know that, in many cases, data which may have been available was not requested by previous investigations for a variety of reasons, and therefore it will not be available to the commission unless the commission has the power to ask for it. The suggestion has been made—I thank the Minister for the discussions we had about this—that the holder of the data could voluntarily surrender it. That may or may not be correct, but my question is: this is actually a tool in the toolkit of a standard investigation, so why take it away?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to speak on this group of amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. I want to pick up on a couple of points and speak to our Amendment 198.
My comments on government Amendment 6 are not dissimilar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It seems quite prescriptive in terms of the work plan that has to be produced. Is there any flexibility within that? Is this a plan that must be adhered to? Is it for the Secretary of State’s benefit in terms of monitoring? I would be quite interested to know what the intention of the plan is and how much direction can be exercised by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 198 is a probing amendment on the timing of commencement. It would insert
“but such day or days must not be beyond the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
At the moment, it is open for the Secretary of State to implement commencement when he or she considers fit. I would like some clarity on when the Government think it will come into force. The Minister is looking at me with a rather puzzled expression. I direct him to page 47 of the Bill, where he will see what I am talking about. I am surprised that he is looking at me that way, but it is not unusual. Clause 57 says that the provisions will come into force
“on the day on which this Act is passed … Otherwise, this Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.
I am curious to know the Government’s intentions on that.
I will be interested in the Government’s comments on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I think that the Minister will recognise that he will have to reassure and give confidence to those who have raised the issue. What he says tonight will be very important in that regard.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Responding directly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and other noble Lords from Northern Ireland, regarding Amendment 33, the Government are very clear that we must set up the commission properly and with the best people to give it the best chance for success. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is no prohibition whatever on the employment of former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—which was awarded the George Cross—no prohibition on the employment of former members of the Historical Enquiries Team and no prohibition on former members or current members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland applying to become commission officers. There is no prohibition within the current legislation.
I have made it clear in response to earlier debates that I share the admiration of noble Lords from Northern Ireland for the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the Troubles. The figure I have is that 302 officers were murdered in the course of their duties. I have always been struck by the montage that was produced a number of years ago of all those officers, under the banner “Our Murdered Colleagues”, a copy of which I have at home.
Slightly linking to Part 4 of the Bill, where we talk about oral histories, I agree with and share the concern of those noble Lords who believe that the record of the RUC is under sustained attack, mainly from republicans within Northern Ireland. I have said in this House before that what I have described as a pernicious counter-narrative of the Troubles has developed in recent years, which has put the state at the heart of every atrocity and seeks to traduce the record of the Armed Forces and the police. We ought to discuss this.
On that, I can do no better than to commend three volumes of outstanding oral history put together by a very good friend of mine, Colin Breen, beginning with A Force Like No Other: The Real Stories of the RUC Men and Women who Policed the Troubles. Colin is a former serving RUC officer. One of the reasons why those he interviewed were able to open up to him so candidly and vividly was because he is one of their own. Anybody reading those volumes will be struck by stories that range from the comic to the absolutely heartbreaking. I commend that particular oral history to Members of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister. Given what he has just said, is he saying quite clearly that he will not suggest putting it into the Bill? Given that we saw what happened to Kenova, does he share my concern that people feel slightly worried that what is said in this House and what Ministers think sometimes gets changed later if it is not in legislation?
Lord Caine (Con)
At this stage, I am not inclined to write a list of people who are disqualified from membership of the commission into the legislation. From reading the Bill, it is fairly clear that there is no disqualification, as I have set out. I would therefore probably argue that, while I agree entirely with its intentions, the amendment is not necessary as a matter of law. That would be my instinctive response.
On Amendments 35 and 41, the commissioner for investigations will have to be a person of significant standing and experience and will be responsible for the appropriate delegation of responsibilities to ensure that the commission can carry out effective investigations. The Bill is already clear that a person can be given the powers and privileges of a constable only if they are deemed capable of effectively exercising those powers and have received adequate training. In addition, Clause 3 makes it clear that the commission must ensure that, as far as is practicable, its officers include persons who have experience of conducting criminal investigations. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 also allows a designation under Clause 6 to be made, subject to any limitations specified in the designation. Paragraph 5 allows a designation to be time-limited.
Regarding the amendments and comments around timetabling, the commission’s processes will of course be complex. This is a significant undertaking, and it is our view that the commission’s delivery should be timely and not rushed. We have already taken a number of steps by establishing an implementation programme team within the Northern Ireland Office, whose job is, I stress, not to pre-empt the operations of the commission but to lay the foundations, looking at the estate, IT, procurement, and so on, should Parliament agree to establish the commission, so that it can begin its work as quickly as possible.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said about commencement. I might be in a position to say a bit more about that at the next stage of the Bill. I will talk to her about it before we return to the Floor of the House, if that is acceptable to her.
On which note, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and—suffering from a hard day’s work turning into a hard day’s night—I also beg leave to withdraw my own.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2023)
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Member’s explanatory statement
This and subsequent probing amendments in the name of Lord Browne remove the Secretary of State from various roles in connection with the appointment and holding office of Commissioners.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 12 and 13 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen; Amendment 16 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan; Amendments 24 to 30 inclusive, which are all consequential; and, finally, Amendment 178, which will not detain us for very long.
Amendments 12 and 16 and their consequential amendments are probing amendments. Their effect is to remove the Secretary of State from the various roles in connection with the appointment and holding office of commissioners of the ICRIR, which, with the leave of the House, I will hereafter refer to as “the commission”. The amendments would replace the Secretary of State with the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission —NIJAC.
As it stands, the Bill confers sweeping powers on the Secretary of State, including the power of appointment to the newly established commission and powers over the process of the commission itself. These powers include but are not limited to: control over the commission’s funding; the power to request reviews; the appointment of commissioners; the devising of procedures for dealing with requests around immunity; the power to withhold permission for the disclosure of sensitive information; the power to terminate a review on national security grounds; and, most importantly, the power to wind up the commission itself.
The Government have noted the concerns relating to the commission’s lack of independence and have proposed an amendment to strengthen the commission’s independence by making it clear that the Secretary of State should consult individuals before appointing the chief commissioner. It is clear that independence is a precondition for investigations to satisfy our obligations under Article 2 of the ECHR. The purpose of the probing amendments in my name, and the consequential amendments, is to discern to what extent the extraordinarily wide-ranging powers conferred on the Secretary of State, even after the Government’s amendment, compromise that independence and risk a breach of our ECHR obligations.
One of the functions of independence is securing public confidence in the operation of investigations; to do that, it is necessary for the investigations to be independent—and to be seen to be independent. The role of the Secretary of State in relation to the commission, as currently envisaged, has attracted criticism from all communities in Northern Ireland. The Government have assured us that the commission will have full operational independence; we are assured that that includes the establishment of terms of reference, the appointment of staff and the making of all decisions related to the conduct of investigations. Of course, the commission may appoint its own staff, but that will be done by the commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State. The commission may make decisions related to the conduct of investigations, but with the hand of the Secretary of State ever present and able either to block disclosure or to shut the body down altogether. The commission may make decisions related to immunity applications, but only if the salient question is whether the applicant is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and belief, and they must take account of any guidance given by the Secretary of State about when that condition is met. It is difficult to consider that a genuine and objective decision at all.
Defending the system, the Government have cited the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and various independent public inquiries as precedents, suggesting that it is common practice for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners or chairs to organisations which enjoy absolute operational independence. The problem is that that is not comparing like with like; there is no way that an individual inquiry or human rights body with limited powers is comparable with the amount of responsibility being placed on the commission by the Bill. That responsibility is to provide the sole route to justice for anyone who lost a loved one during the Troubles.
Noble Lords will have noticed that my amendment does not seek to address all the powers of the Secretary of State. Because of its probing nature, it concentrates, in this form, on only some of those powers, particularly as there is a genuinely independent alternative to the Secretary of State: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Additionally, the commission’s functions include:
“To select and appoint and recommend for appointment, in respect of all listed judicial offices up to and including High Court Judge … To recommend applicants solely on the basis of merit … To engage in a Programme of Action to secure … that appointments to listed judicial offices are … reflective of the community in Northern Ireland.”
Again, that provides independence, but, crucially, it does so in a way which is transparent and will disarm those who may suggest that the commission is simply an arm of the UK Government in Northern Ireland. Why not forestall those criticisms and remove the Secretary of State from the area of appointments altogether? The NIJAC is accustomed to appointing those who fulfil statutory requirements and who are of good character and have integrity. Furthermore, the link between the commission and the judiciary is embedded in the Bill, as the chief commissioner must be a person who holds, or has held, high judicial office, and almost all those candidates have been appointed to their judicial role by NIJAC.
In addition to the issues with the composition of the commission, many noble Lords will be aware of an uneasiness about how this body will work, from where it will derive its legitimacy, what mechanisms exist for scrutiny, and, where necessary, how we can ensure that it is responsive to concerns in a way that is not simply subject to the fiat of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in post. Those issues speak to a wider systemic problem with the Bill.
The delegated powers memorandum contains a remarkable paragraph which encapsulates my concerns and those of other noble Lords:
“Legacy matters are highly controversial, politically charged and divisive in Northern Ireland. A vast number of issues remain unresolved as a result of political and societal impasse and there is no single accepted or agreed way to address them … There is a very real prospect that providing the Northern Ireland Assembly with the power of veto in relation to delegated powers could frustrate the purpose and application of the provisions in the Bill, which in the Government’s view is necessary to achieve progress and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.”
That is an explicit acknowledgment that the Government have decided to exclude the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland from important decisions for fear that they will not agree with the direction of travel determined from London. If we were to mould the Bill into a shape which will satisfy everyone in Northern Ireland and be seen as an attempt, in good faith, to further the course of reconciliation, the composition of the commission will need to be seen as independently determined.
Further, it will need to be seen as an avowedly apolitical body aimed at achieving a true incremental reconciliation woven from the skeins of public opinion in Northern Ireland, not a reconciliation based on our perceptions in London. I do not propose to put my amendments to a vote but urge the Government to engage with their provisions critically and take appropriate steps before Report.
I intend to dispose of Amendment 178 at the earliest possible opportunity. Consequently, with the leave of the Committee, I shall say no more about it. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments refers to the independence of the commission to be created. Throughout the Bill, there are restrictions on that independence in the form of not only the Secretary of State’s control over the number of commissioners, and in this instance the appointment of commissioners, and the budget, but many of the other requirements made of the commission and the various powers given to the Secretary of State.
I find some of these powers astonishing. They include the power to give guidance to the ICRIR about how to exercise its functions so as not to prejudice national security, put a life at risk or act in any way which might prejudice actual or prospective criminal proceedings. This exercises the minds of senior investigating officers, chief officers, prosecutors and judges on a very regular basis—decisions have to be and are made. Why do the Government think that the ICRIR will not be capable of making such decisions?
There is also a power to identify sensitive information to be given to the commission, the chief constable of the PSNI, chief officers of police forces in Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman, the director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, Northern Ireland departments and Scottish Ministers. Managing and identifying sensitive information is done routinely by people such as chief constables. It is difficult to understand why the Secretary of State should be required to make regulations and give guidance in these situations. To those looking in from the outside, from whom I have heard quite extensively, it appears that this may enable the Secretary of State to control the work of the ICRIR.
The Secretary of State has a further extraordinary range of powers throughout the Bill, which we will come to later. Combined, they introduce a unique group of powers regarding the operations of the ICRIR. All the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to enable him to regulate, manage, control or otherwise dictate the proceedings of the ICRIR rest on the appointment of the commissioners. Amendments 12, 13 and 16, to which I have put my name, and Amendments 24 to 30, all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, seek to address a profoundly important control given to the Secretary of State in Schedule 1 by giving the appointment-making function for the commissioners to the Judicial Appointments Commission rather than to the Secretary of State.
The Judicial Appointments Commission comprises nine people, five of whom are judges and four of whom are not members of the legal profession at present. The requirement in the schedule on the Secretary of State to consult the relevant senior judge and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate will be indicative to many of those in Northern Ireland who want to see a truly independent commission of a total lack of independence. Noble Lords will know that perception is as important as reality in cases such as this. If the commission is to gain any credibility, it must above all be seen to be independent.
It seems to me that, were the House to agree the noble Lord’s amendments—which he has just said he will withdraw but which I may well retable on Report because they are so important—the Minister’s Amendments 14 and 15 would be unnecessary. In any event, they would not meet the requirement for an independent appointment. The appointment of a person who has gained experience outside the UK, as provided for in Amendment 14, may be an asset, but it could occur in any case, and it seems to me superfluous.
The one thing that emerges from a study of this Bill is that the ICRIR will not be enabled to be independent by its provisions. Rather, it is clear that so much power is reserved to the Secretary of State that it cannot be independent. There is no legislative consent Motion in support of this Bill and no support for it. We are talking about the past and future of the people of Northern Ireland. Independence is critical for this commission.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. Over the last number of days, increasingly people have said to us, right across the community in Northern Ireland, that they are opposed to this Bill on the basis that it does not have victims and survivors at its heart and centre. Last night, I was very pleased to sponsor a meeting for SEFF in your Lordships’ House, where that was the message, yet again, that was given to us. Right across the community, irrespective of political or religious persuasion or, shall we say, whatever job the person may have had, as a victim or survivor, people do not support the Bill because their needs and requirements are not placed at its centre.
The need for the independence of the commission goes to the very heart of the Bill. We have seen quite clearly that the Secretary of State will have undue and unfettered powers. My noble friend Lord Browne is absolutely correct: the membership and work of the commission need to be independently determined and it must not be shackled by the unfettered powers of the Secretary of State.
In fact, many human rights organisations have concerns about the influence of the Secretary of State over the processes of the ICRIR as proposed by the Bill. For example, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint its chief commissioner, who must be a UK judge, moving significantly away from the process envisaged in the Stormont House agreement of appointing an international figure to be jointly agreed by both the UK and Irish Governments. Where is this process of engagement and consultation with the Irish Government and, of course, the agreement that is urgently required? Things in Northern Ireland do not go ahead successfully unless there is reconciliation, consensus, agreement and consent. There is definitely not consent for this Bill. There will be no legislative consent Motion because there is not an Assembly at the moment, but the five main parties are opposed to the Bill, so it would not happen anyway.
While the proposed government amendments to Schedule 1 seek to provide that the Secretary of State consults relevant figures, they are unspecified. In advance of appointments, the wide discretion given to the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland over appointments to the ICRIR remains. Furthermore, requiring the Secretary of State to ensure, as far as practicable, that there is a commissioner with international experience is a weak substitute for an independent, international individual or group of individuals. I sincerely endorse the views of my noble friend Lord Browne and ask the Minister to go back and look at this issue.
The submissions given to us are quite clear. Liberty says that
“While this may be a ‘Northern Ireland Bill’ in title and in focus, it is explicitly one that is directed by Westminster. This is not just true in the exclusion of stakeholders in Northern Ireland and Ireland alike in the introduction of the Bill, but in the deep vein of political interference that runs through the legislation”,
and that the ICRIR
“stands a chance of working only if it is seen to be independent in its operation.”
Yet the hand of the Secretary of State looms large throughout all aspects of its function.
A similar view is expressed by Amnesty, which quite clearly states that the ICRIR does not meet ECHR procedural requirements, and that the Secretary of State retains control over the appointments, the resources and caseload of the ICRIR as well as the powers to terminate its work at any point. In view of that, it is quite clear that the ICRIR will not be independent and I would like the Minister to outline to the House how he and the Government will address that issue, and how he will toughen up the legislation by amendments on Report to ensure independence. If the needs and requirements of victims and survivors are to be placed at the centre of the Bill, this is an urgent priority and I urge the Minister to do that and to use the Judicial Appointments Commission to fulfil the requirements of the ICRIR in achieving independence.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 14A, I just want to say that we may be wearing the same colours but I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on her support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I really do not see the need for that and, in my view, “independent” can mean so much to so many different people. As far as I am concerned, the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I see absolutely no reason why appointing commissioners would not be done by the Secretary of State. There have been some brilliant Secretaries of State and there have been some terrible ones, but the reality is that they are the representative of our Government of the United Kingdom and that should happen. Perhaps not being a lawyer, I do not share the confidence that so many people seem to have in the Judicial Appointments Commission.
In talking to my Amendment 14A, I had not realised that the Minister would not have spoken to his Amendment 14. Mine is really a probing amendment and in a spirit of genuinely asking a few questions. I would like to see all five of the commissioners not only have relevant experience before appointment. Also, very clearly, that experience must be gained in the United Kingdom and not exclusively in other places. My amendment would ensure that this would happen.
I am not convinced as to why the Minister has conceded the point about a commissioner needing relevant international experience if practical, and of having that prescribed on the face of the Bill. I have to say again that maybe there is a romanticised idea about international involvement in Northern Ireland. But, from experience of internationalising the Troubles—that horrible word that people use—reinvestigation has not always been good and has not always been considered successful. What type and level of experience is anticipated for these commissioners? Will they have to be former police officers or lawyers? As I said in the previous debate, I think it is sad that the Minister is unwilling to put into the Bill that ex-RUC and PSNI officers can definitely be considered. We saw what Jon Boutcher did by ruling out instantly ex-PSNI and ex-RUC. That is wrong and implies, as I said before, that there is somehow something wrong with them and that they are not to be trusted.
We need to know some of these things so that the appointment does not get decided with us and the victims not knowing exactly how that person will be put there. Without the benefit of my amendment, the Minister’s Amendment 14 leaves open the possibility of appointing an individual who not only has no experience of UK policing but has never even set foot in Northern Ireland or gained any relevant experience there. Of course we must remember that, once they are appointed, they take on the considerable powers of a constable. That is exceptionally important. Noble Lords should require assurance on this; their acceptance of my amendment would provide that.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I just want to comment on a small but important point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made; I wondered whether the Minister would like to respond to it. The noble Baroness said that the advice being issued potentially by a Minister about the restriction on evidence could be quite worrying. As an investigator, I share that view, as I am sure the judiciary would in a court hearing. There are some present restrictions but the list is a small one; it includes the interception of communications, journalistic material, legally privileged material and, most of the time, medical advice. I suspect that this is something to do with foreign intelligence material, which is provided only under certain conditions. That is usually about source protection, and the usual condition is that the material can be shared further only in the event that the provider of the information agrees. I suspect that is what this is about but, if it is not, some reassurance ought to be offered; however, if it is, it could probably be explained quite quickly.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to comment briefly on the amendments in this group. Before I do so, once again, I put on record our thanks to the Minister and his officials for their continued engagement with us on the matters under consideration in the Bill.
I also want to put on record—the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to this—the meeting that we held yesterday with the victims’ group SEFF. Many of its members travelled from Northern Ireland to speak with your Lordships and highlight their concerns about the Bill. It is right that we pay tribute to those victims and the efforts that they are making to try to get across their profound concerns about it. Again and again, they emphasised something that I want to emphasise. While we discuss these amendments and debate independence, appointments and all that, no matter what improvements we make to the Bill, it is—in their view, certainly in my view, and in our view—irredeemable in its terms and fundamental aspects as a piece of legislation. Whatever we do in relation to justice, victims and getting at the truth, it cannot be right to have at the heart of government policy and a piece of government legislation the idea of immunity from prosecution for those who have committed crimes in the United Kingdom.
I want to touch on Amendment 14 in the name of the Minister. It concerns appointing a commissioner who has international experience. Can the Minister develop his thinking in relation to the motivation behind this amendment? I know that this was raised in the other place but it has not really been explained why it is thought necessary that someone should have international experience. It should be relevant to the work of the commission, okay, but what does that mean? Does it mean that they have done some academic studies or spent a bit of time abroad? Does it mean that they have been part of an international organisation? If so, what is the effect of the singling out of a particular position for such a person in relation to other appointments in the commission where other people may be better qualified but lack that particular qualification? I just think it is superfluous, as has been mentioned. There was nothing in the draft legislation to prevent the appointment of such a person, if it was thought necessary, but to put it in the Bill seems puzzling and I would like the Minister to develop his thinking on that.
On Amendment 12 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that have been put forward. We have to remember that the commission and the commissioners, as has been said, will have the power of a constable. They will play more than just a judicial or quasi-judicial role; they will also have investigatory powers, they will be carrying out reviews and so on, so it is much wider than just a judicial-type role. Fundamentally, it gives more accountability if a Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament, is responsible for this, rather than a judicial appointments commission, whose appointments we really cannot question. Given the role of the judicial appointments commission in Northern Ireland and the fact that, throughout all the period of the Troubles, it has been above party politics and has never been dragged into any real controversy, here we are putting it into a position where it will be responsible for making what will be controversial appointments that could be the object of some criticism, in terms of balance and so on. I am not sure that that is a healthy or sensible position in which to place it.
Fundamentally, we come back to the point that was emphasised and re-emphasised to me at our meeting last night with the victims: whether the commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State or a judicial appointments committee or whoever, fundamentally, they do not have the confidence and will not have the confidence of the victims. Therefore, all this is very interesting and important—absolutely—but it does not actually deal with the real fundamental flaw at the heart of this legislation.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in thanking the Minister for his general approach to the Bill. I think we all feel that, unlike so many Bills at the moment, this is a Bill where we have the opportunity to get the Minister to genuinely listen and change it. That is very much to be welcomed in this Chamber. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that many of us think the Bill is fundamentally irredeemable, to use his word. It is irredeemable in the eyes of the victims and, therefore, however many amendments and proposals we put forward this afternoon and this evening, it is, for many, an utterly irredeemable Bill and we have to view it through that prism.
However, going back to the amendments in this group, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, set out very clearly in his probing amendments the concerns about the significant amount of power that is being granted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Bill. I very much share his views and concerns about that. I will not repeat the many points he made, other than to say that these are views shared by the House of Lords Constitution and Delegated Powers Committees, which both felt that this was giving far too much power to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie, have also said, if we are going to proceed with the ICRIR, the new commission, it is vital not only that it is seen to be independent but that this independence is maintained and seen so that the trust of all the people concerned with it can be maintained. It is also incredibly important that the process for how people are appointed to the ICRIR is seen as genuinely independent and, as others have said, above party politics. I think this is an area we really need to return to and look at in more detail before Report.
I appreciate that Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the Minister, are intended to ensure that there is greater flexibility in the ability to appoint the best people to these roles, but, even given these amendments, there remains very real concern about the amount of power being given to the Secretary of State. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I wonder whether the Minister could expand a little on Amendment 14 and the requirement to appoint one or more people with relevant experience outside the UK. I think this is generally to be welcomed as a means of ensuring that the best commissioners with the broadest relevant experience are appointed.
Given the complexities and the history involved, it is not always going to be the case that someone from outside Northern Ireland will automatically understand the Northern Ireland context. But, in the history of the peace process, external people have often played an extremely valuable role, and for that reason I cannot support the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in Amendment 14A. It would, however, be useful to hear from the Minister what sort of people he has in mind—although obviously he cannot name them, because that would be inappropriate in terms of due process. I would also be interested to know if the phrase
“as far as it is practicable”
in his amendment is intended as a sort of get-out clause if no sufficiently qualified people put their name forward.
Finally—I gave earlier notice of this question—is this going to be a proactive process of recruitment, where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others go out and try to find international experts, or will it be more of a sort of passive process? I would be interested to hear how the Minister views this being introduced in reality.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, gives us the opportunity to do two things at this stage of our work: first, to pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has listened, constantly, to the many voices clamouring at our doors over this Bill; and, secondly, to be reminded that there are two key words to this legislation. One is “legacy”—and my goodness, we have said enough in this Chamber already to have analysed legacy—and the other is “reconciliation”, and, not for the first time, I am left wondering how His Majesty’s Government intended us to interpret that word.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is talking about one of the most sensitive parts of this proposed Bill: the appointment of this commission. I cannot, with my experience of Northern Ireland, imagine any issue that is going to be more productive of comment for and against this legislation than the question of the appointment of this commission. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already reminded us of that significant period of this process. I welcome the opportunity given to the Minister to tell us a little more about what the thinking is about the structure of this commission. It is that point where many of us would have concerns about the involvement of the Secretary of State in this process.
Time and again in my correspondence, the messages I receive constantly underline the fact that victims and survivors are not at the centre of this legislation. This opportunity is given to us again to place on the record the needs of that part of our community. It is not just about those in the security forces or victims of either side in the conflict; it is about the mental instability that has been caused to another generation inheriting the deep thought and the deep suffering of the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, the independence of commissioners will be vital to the success of this commission, and I agree that the confidence of the community, who are the victims and survivors, must be at the heart of any body. But how do we interpret “independent”? The truth is that many outside Northern Ireland have little or no concept of what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years. In fact, it is hard for those who have lived through it to understand it fully. Therefore, the independence question is of great importance.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this is an interesting and timely debate. I join many of your Lordships in thanking the Minister for his engagement on this Bill. It does not always happen, but it does in his case, and we thank him for that.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Browne, who introduced his amendment extremely ably, as I would expect, but also forensically. He pointed to the issue of independence, but in reality this is also about confidence. Independence means confidence, and a lack of independence means a lack of confidence. The system for appointing different people has been fraught with difficulty over the years, because those appointments have lacked the confidence of one side of the community or the other. Your Lordships referred to international comparisons, and the reason why people of international repute have been involved in Northern Ireland over the years is to try to ensure that all the people of Northern Ireland had confidence in them. When I was Secretary of State, we appointed Judge Cory to look at various inquiries. It was important that a Canadian judge—in his case—was involved.
If more people in Northern Ireland are to accept this Bill—I am sure it is not accepted at the moment—one possibility is to look at how the commissioner is appointed and who it should be. The Secretary of State has far too many powers in the Bill generally, and on the appointment of the commissioner specifically. When I was the Secretary of State, I tried to shed responsibilities so that they rested with the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I hope that, in the next couple of months—perhaps in a couple of years—we see the restoration of institutions in Northern Ireland. But responsibility for these matters should be taken by the people who were elected in Northern Ireland, not a Secretary of State who represents a constituency in Great Britain. We should be thinking about how there can be confidence in such an appointment.
There may be different ways in which we could ensure independence. The Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland could do it. Committees of this House and the other House could be involved in the scrutiny; there is merit in what the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said about that. But it should be transparent and open, and it should certainly not take place through a British Secretary of State, who I hope will eventually have to pass powers to legislators and others in Northern Ireland.
There is another reason too: all the international criticism of this Bill—whether from the Council of Europe, the United States, the United Nations, bodies such as Liberty and all the rest—is about the inadequacy of the Bill’s compliance with human rights. It strikes me that the lack of independence in the way the commissioner is appointed is seriously linked with those concerns. In other words, if there were a more independent system of appointment, perhaps it would be more human rights compliant.
Even though the report is lengthy, I am not terribly convinced by the Government’s reasoning on the Bill’s compliance with the ECHR. Your Lordships will of course remember, as we have said consistently, that in a few months’ time it is the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which is based on compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. This is therefore a timely and important debate, and we very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his kind words, and to other noble Lords for their engagement on this Bill. I think we are meeting again very shortly, almost immediately after Committee stage concludes, and I will continue to engage closely with all interested parties, bodies and noble Lords across the House on this legislation.
With one thing the noble Lord said, I could not agree more: to be honest, I would be more than happy for the people and the Assembly of Northern Ireland to deal with most of the matters in the Bill. However, I set out to the House at Second Reading and, to some extent, last week in Committee, why and how it went from being primarily a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly responsibility to a UK Government one. Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson came to see the then Secretary of State after Stormont House and said, “This is all far too difficult for us to do at Stormont. Please will you do it all at Westminster?” We agreed.
I also agree with those noble Lords who have argued that central to the effective delivery of this legislation is the need for an independent body to carry out reviews, including investigations, and to grant, where the tests are met, immunity from prosecution. The Government fully recognise the need for commissioners to have credibility, expertise and legitimacy, so that effective reviews and investigations can be carried out and information provided to families as soon as possible. The UK-wide nature of the legislation provides for the appointment of a person who holds or has held high judicial office across the United Kingdom. It would therefore not be appropriate, in our view, for the appointment function to sit with the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, which, by definition, is concerned solely with judicial appointments within Northern Ireland.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and others who have spoken about the independence of the commissioner if he or she is appointed by the Northern Ireland Secretary. The Northern Ireland Act 1998, as the noble Lord alluded, provides the Secretary of State with the power to appoint the commissioners of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The Inquiries Act 2005, passed by the Government of which the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Browne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, were members, provides for the appointment of an inquiry panel by a Minister.
My experience of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is that they are fiercely independent of government. I think nobody would dare suggest that the fact that they are appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland makes them in any way in hock to government. They carry out their duties with total independence and they are not slow, as we have seen in respect of this legislation and other legislation which has recently been before your Lordships’ House, to voice their criticisms and their opinions vociferously. Therefore I simply do not accept that appointment by the Secretary of State somehow limits or inhibits the independence of the commissioners.
Another example to which I could refer is that I was involved as a special adviser in the setting up the independent review into the on-the-runs administrative scheme back in 2014 which was conducted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, then Lady Justice Hallett. She was appointed in 2014 by the Northern Ireland Secretary in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice at the time. The appointment process did not in any way impact on the independence of the review.
To give a further example, in the absence of a sitting Executive in 2019, it was the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley, who appointed the current Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. I do not think anyone would remotely suggest that Marie Anderson is influenced by His Majesty’s Government because she was appointed by the Northern Ireland Secretary, any more so than any of her distinguished predecessors—I am looking towards the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, as I make those comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to some of the overarching powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised specific concern over the winding-up power under Clause 33. I remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State has a similar wind-up power contained in the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by the previous Labour Government. In respect of this legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may wind up the commission via an affirmative procedure that would have to be debated by both Houses of Parliament. The Government believe that it is for Parliament to have the final say in the potential winding-up and abolition of what Parliament has created. However, the winding-up order will be laid only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is has delivered on its functions.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to some of the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to national security. I hardly need to remind her, given her various roles over the years in Northern Ireland, that the Northern Ireland Secretary ultimately has responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland. The powers contained in the Bill are very reflective of what was proposed in the Stormont House agreement and the draft legislation that accompanied it. The power is not in any way extraordinary. I hesitate to remind her that Section 65 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 also requires the police ombudsman to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State on matters relating to disclosure and national security.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised an important point, and I will try to deal with it. Clause 30(2) stipulates that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the holding and handling of information by the commission. This is about ensuring that information is held securely and destroyed when no longer needed. It is not intended to be a power to place restrictions on the use to which the information can be put nor is it a power to restrict the use of information as evidence in a prosecution. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s query.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his characteristically engaging response. He addressed a significant number of the issues that I and other noble Lords raised, reflecting the co-operation that we have all had from him, his Bill team and his private office. I have previously expressed my thanks for that but I am perfectly pleased to associate myself with the words of other noble Lords on that issue.
The one thing that is certain about the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, is that the independence of the ICRIR will be tested in legal proceedings that will define independence for us. It will not be, as a number of noble Lords have suggested, a question of independence meaning different things to different people; in that context, it will mean some very specific things.
When I introduced this group of amendments, I sought to give some indication of what I think that body will look for in independence if it is to conclude that the process is complying with the European Convention on Human Rights and with our history and the rule of law in these islands. In my view, it is highly improbable—in fact, impossible—that it will conclude, with this level of political interference in the commission’s work and the way in which it has been set up, that this not only is independent but can be seen to be independent. That will be a significant flaw in the whole process. I think all noble Lords realise that. They may not agree with me that that will be the conclusion, but there is an overwhelming body of opinion and expertise out there that believes that is the case, and we have all been briefed on that.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate, particularly those who supported my amendments. Those amendments were intended not to be definitive on this whole issue of independence but to be a way into the debate, and I am glad to say that they succeeded in being that. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for bringing in her contributions experience that showed that, beyond the points that I identified, there are other issues in the Bill that undermine independence.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn. I share his view about the Bill, that this whole exercise is irredeemably flawed. The major issue that he raised, which is clearly foremost in his mind, is that of immunity, which we shall come to later today. I am focusing on independence at the moment, and in this group we are looking at independence. I cannot see how that can be consistent with what we have heard today from people with experience interpreting the words of the Bill and relaying to us, from their experience with victims, that there is concern here about the issue of independence.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that the independence that I am talking about is not restricted to any part of the geography of these islands. It is independence from political control at a level that does not allow the informed examiner of how this will work to conclude that it is independence that is necessary for a process of this nature to satisfy the text. Now, that is going to be tested. I invite the Minister to look at this issue beyond the point that I highlighted in order to get into this debate, which is the appointment of the commissioners. I see the criticism that he makes of that, but the criticism goes much beyond just the appointment of the commissioners.
I ask the Minister to consider some of these points and take seriously some of the well-informed criticism from outside about where this is all going to end up. There are alternatives if he wishes to proceed on this basis—although I am not certain that they can be applied—to give the Government the results that they want. I ask the Minister to go away and think about this and perhaps come back with a response. I will look carefully at the words he has said. I have indicated that I intend to withdraw the amendment in my name, but if the Minister does not come back in anticipation of Report with some response to this issue which is convincing on independence, there will be a race between me and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to put down an amendment of this nature to be debated and perhaps voted upon on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bew (CB)
“(4) Before carrying out any reviews, the ICRIR must publish, and in carrying out any reviews, the ICRIR must take into account, guidelines containing best practice on the rights of those likely to be named in any reports.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new subsection makes it clear that when carrying out reviews and in the exercise of its power to make findings in reports the ICRIR will follow best practice for the due protection of the rights of any person who may be named with critical comment.
Lord Bew (CB)
My amendment to Clause 4 is similar to Amendments 99 and 101, which I spoke to in previous discussions on the Bill. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their support for those amendments. My concern here is the functioning of the commission rather than its appointment.
I would also like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, in a rather different vein from the thanks expressed already, for the very fair, frank and open discussion he gave to the people of Northern Ireland on Ulster Television last night, explaining the whys and wherefores of this Bill, in difficult circumstances. I was at times slightly puzzled, because it felt as if the Bill is the first assault on the principle of equality of justice for the people of Northern Ireland that we have seen. But for 25 years there has been irregular process.
I well remember Tony Blair, at the time of the Good Friday agreement, talking about tearing up the criminal justice system and the release system that was then put in its place, and the importance of getting a referendum result in its favour because it was so complicated, difficult and controversial. I well remember new Labour’s entirely reasonable—in my opinion—interest in an amnesty across the board, which was pursued at some length. While it failed because of party machinations in Northern Ireland, it did not fail because of an uprising of victims or sensitivity to the opinions of victims. It fell because of the workings out of political intrigues, particularly between the SDLP and Sinn Féin. I remember the letters of comfort and the royal pardons. All of these things were very unusual and all long pre-date this Bill. I remember Denis Bradley, the distinguished co-author of the noble Lord, Lord Eames, saying that we were now in a place where we could not reasonably expect Governments to deliver justice but that they should be doing their utmost to deliver truth. However inadequate and flawed this Bill is, it is an attempt to deliver more truth. We are in a darker place, and I felt for the Minister as he struggled under the weight of an accusation which is at least 25 years old and could be directed to others with more point than to him, especially in the context of the amendments that he seeks to make to the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I think the Supreme Court decided that the particular applicants in that case were not entitled to get their cases reinvestigated—or investigated. They did not say that there was no obligation on the state to provide investigation.
Lord Bew (CB)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I think the implications of the Supreme Court ruling are somewhat broader. I was going to say that, at some point or other, the Government will have to refer to this major change, possibly with the Attorney-General, because there is controversy about what it really means. We cannot finish the Bill as though something of that importance has not happened, because it clearly bears on the issues at stake in the Bill and on the international obligations or otherwise of the United Kingdom Government.
Like my previous amendments, my Amendment 36 is designed, essentially, to get the best possible practice in play for the commission. It calls for the ICRIR to publish
“guidelines containing best practice on the rights of those likely to be named in any reports”.
I think the Minister will have a reasonable reply. We already know that there is a process of Maxwellisation. During the long period of the Iraq report, many will have felt frustrated about the amount of time devoted to Maxwellisation but, none the less, people who are challenged in their conduct have every right to take time to give a decent reply.
I am sure that that will be the Minister’s reply—that we already have rights in law. But things have moved on since then. It seems to me that the best practice now is something that we might call Maxwellisation-plus. I again draw attention to the way in which the Green Paper to the Commons Treasury Committee sets out proceedings and an approach to the rights of those involved under questioning in the ICRIR, which the Government should adopt. They should follow that Green Paper.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Minister for his open door and willingness to engage. I hope to knock on that door in the next few days to persuade him to support the Operation Kenova amendments.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I thank the Minister. However—this is no criticism of him—I think that he is doing his very best to defend the indefensible and that if he were the architect of the Bill, it would not look like this. I am not expecting him to agree with me, although it would be interesting if he did. I see that he has zipped his mouth, which perhaps says it all.
I will speak to Amendments 112 and 124 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie. Once again, I am grateful to them for their support.
The Bill grants immunity, in effect giving an amnesty, to people who may have committed horrific crimes. Victims and survivors find that most difficult to take. The Bill is opposed by every political party and every victims’ group in Northern Ireland—an unprecedented unity between people who almost never agree with one another, even on the definition of a victim.
Before turning to the substance of the amendments, I will briefly refer back to our debate last Tuesday on Amendment 72 in my name, which for convenience I will call the Operation Kenova amendment. In his response, the Minister made a number of assertions in relation to the upscaling of Operation Kenova to deal with the outstanding legacy cases which I am afraid cannot go unchallenged and need correcting.
I have had access to independent advice which supports the view that Kenova can be upscaled and expedite investigations and would represent real value for money in such a role. If the alternative is some kind of cheapskate, back-of-an-envelope process, of course that will be cheaper. But I hope your Lordships’ House is seeking and will express unity on a proper process that investigates the past and includes within it a crucial truth recovery priority for victims. As we have seen in the past, in a very small minority of cases the evidence uncovered would qualify for consideration of prosecution.
Inevitably, that will be more expensive than a back-of-the-envelope operation, but Kenova represents real value for money. I will write to the Minister before Report explaining all this and copy it to any interested Members of your Lordships’ House. It is very important to do so because the Minister’s arguments against modelling the Bill on the hugely successful and popular Operation Kenova are at best specious and, I am afraid, misleading to many. Granting immunity—an amnesty—to perpetrators of terrible crimes drives a stake through the rule of law. I am afraid it is at the core—the rotten core—of this odious legislation.
At Second Reading, I raised the case of 18 year-old John Molloy, who was stabbed to death in a random sectarian attack near his north Belfast home in August 1996. I asked the Minister to explain to John’s parents, Linda and Pat, why he and his Government see a difference between John’s sectarian murder in Belfast and a racially motivated murder in London or in his own home city of Leeds—both horrific crimes. Linda and Pat are still waiting for an answer.
I can do no better than to quote from a powerful article in the Belfast Telegraph on 24 January. In it, Linda, John’s mother, gets to the heart of the matter:
“‘It feels like John has been archived and forgotten about. You’re talking about a child’s life here and the repercussions of what we’ve gone through. How dare they treat my son as a number? Because that’s how we feel; he’s just another number, and they haven’t even tried. John’s murderers are walking the streets while he’s lying in the cemetery.’”
Quoting Dr Sandra Peake, the article goes on:
“‘Why does John’s life mean so little that the taking of it will no longer be of any interest to a state whose first duty should be to protect its citizens? If this legislation is passed … the person who stood over John as he bled to death on a cold, hard pavement will have the protection of the state. And to earn it, all they have to do is to tell the story of that night to “the best of their knowledge and belief”. Once they do that, the lifelong protection of the state is extended to them as if nothing happened on the night of 10th of August 1996. It will be as if John Molloy never existed.’”
We hear much in the legacy debate about the rewriting of history. What is giving legal absolution to those who murdered John Molloy and so many others like him if not rewriting history? The Government seem perplexed when victims and survivors call this perpetrator- friendly legislation.
I have heard it argued that, over the course of the peace process, decisions have been made that have radically changed fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system. That is true. Sentencing legislation which meant that those convicted of Troubles-related offences would serve only two years in prison before being eligible for early release is cited as the prime example. Those who point to it claim that the immunity granted in this Bill is simply another manifestation of Northern Ireland being a place apart, but I would contend that this is of a radically different order.
Almost 25 years ago, the people of Northern Ireland, including many thousands of victims and survivors, were given a choice: they could vote for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, in the knowledge that the early release of prisoners was a consequence, or they could vote against it. For many victims and survivors, that was a cruel choice, and every Member of this House who lives in Northern Ireland or who has had the privilege of serving there as a Minister or in another capacity will have met and will know people who had to make it. I have sat with men and women who had to make that agonising choice, who lost loved ones or live with catastrophic injuries, and I have spoken with and listened to them. Many—possibly most—victims and survivors voted “Yes”. There were those who could not bring themselves to vote for a settlement that contained that provision—I am sure that some are sitting in this House—but the key point is that they had a choice; in this legislation, victims and survivors are denied a choice.
However, they are making their voices heard loud and clear through their political representatives in every party in Northern Ireland, through their churches, their victims’ commissioner, their victims’ groups and their representations to the Irish Government, to the US Administration and directly to this Government. I believe that they want us in your Lordships’ House to speak for them. Recently, the Secretary of State for Defence—
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to interrupt. How were the victims consulted, and what did they think about the pardons and letters of pardon that were given to people who probably did appalling things, although we were never told? The victims were not asked about that.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Actually, those letters, which started before my time as Secretary of State, were not pardons at all; the so-called “on the runs” letters were statements that there was no evidence, to the best of the PSNI’s knowledge at the time, to bring a prosecution against them. However, in fact, a prosecution was brought against at least one of them afterwards, so they were not pardons—how could they be? If they were, that prosecution would never have been brought.
We are speaking about the current Bill, but I will pause since the noble Baroness raised a wider issue. All of us have tried to grapple with this terribly difficult and fraught issue of legacy. All of us, including me as Secretary of State, have tried to do this, but it is extremely difficult. I sympathise with the Minister, who is trying to get to grips with it, as he has done in serving as a special adviser in Northern Ireland over many years— I pay tribute to him for that. It is not easy to do. However, this Bill is not the way to do it.
I hope that the Minister will listen to all the victims and that the Secretary of State for Defence, who recently visited Belfast, will do too, because he referred to a
“merry-go-round of legacy inquests”.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge how deeply hurtful that comment was to victims and survivors. He will know, even if the Secretary of State for Defence does not, that the Ballymurphy families did not regard themselves as being part of a legal fairground entertainment as they listened to how their loved ones died and how their reputations were trashed and damned for 50 years. The Secretary of State for Defence also answered those crying out for the Government to abandon this ill-conceived legislation by saying
“give the legislation a try and see if it works.”
That casual dismissal of the pain of victims and survivors is disgraceful.
There is a second difference between what is proposed here and what has gone before: accountability. People who committed crimes were held accountable, even if the sentence they served was short. With this legislation, there is no accountability: they do not even have to pretend to express remorse or regret for their actions. They will, in effect, confess to having committed, or having been involved in the commission of, the most serious crimes—but, if their word is accepted as being true “to the best of” their “knowledge and belief”, as the Bill says, they must be granted immunity. As far as the world at large is concerned, they would not have a stain on their character. They could have committed murder, but a future employer would never know it. If I have misinterpreted the outworking of the legislation in this specific example, I would very much welcome the Minister putting me right.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to have added my name to Amendment 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. But there was a contradiction running through even the very eloquent and powerful speech that we have just heard from my friend—I deliberately call him that—the noble Lord, Lord Hain. He worked with extreme sensitivity when he had the honour to be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I saw at first hand how he agonised over things and cared about people. At the beginning of his speech, he said—in as many words—that this Bill was beyond improvement: that whatever we did to it, we could not really make it into a decent Bill. Then he went on to urge us all to support the amendments. I understand the contradiction—of course I do, because we have the Bill before us. But every word I have heard uttered in these debates—and I have heard most of them—and on Second Reading, underlines the fact that, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, in a different context, this is not fit for purpose. It really is not.
Much as I admire—and I do admire—the noble Lord, Lord Caine, as I have said before during the passage of this Bill, with all the good will in the world, and I know he has a great measure of that, he cannot really make this better. It is as if you are confronted with a cake made with poisonous fruit. Any amount of cream, any amount of icing and any amount of titivation will not make it anything other than a poisonous cake. I am afraid that the Government have, with a combination of insensitivity and ignorance—and this emphatically does not apply to my noble friend on the Front Bench—created a monster of a Bill that has alienated every community in Northern Ireland. There is only one answer, and I have said this before, and that is to go back to the drawing board and try to produce something that really does meet many of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others during the course of our debates.
While I am here because I believe that the subject is important—I care deeply about Northern Ireland, although I have never had the good fortune to live there, and have been there many times and heard many stories—I feel we are not serving the people of Northern Ireland as we should if we try to make the proverbial silk purse out of the sow’s ear that the Bill is.
For those who are not from Northern Ireland, I would say this: a fortnight ago, I had a message that somebody from Northern Ireland wished to see me. Of course, I saw him. He was a man who had appeared as a witness when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—under my chairmanship—conducted an inquiry into organised crime. We had to take a unique departure for a Select Committee—I do not think it has happened since—which was that every evidence session was taken in camera, because people were not prepared to give evidence in public as their lives were at stake. This was a man who had suffered from extortion by—I hate the term—loyalist terrorists. How you can be a loyalist and a terrorist is completely beyond me, but the term is used. He wanted to come and tell me what had happened since that day in 2006 when he gave evidence to my committee. I was moved and impressed by his courage, his resilience and his determination. He had suffered quite considerably, and suffered physically as well. How would a man like that ever buy this Bill? It is from individual examples such as that that one can try to gain an understanding of what it is like, and has been like, in Northern Ireland, and realise that we really have a duty to produce something that can be acceptable to those who have suffered so much.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I do not disagree with anything the noble Lord has said. The problem is that the House’s role is not normally—if ever—to reject a Bill, especially one that, at least in part, has a manifesto commitment in it. So we just have to do our best to make it less unacceptable. That is what my amendments have been designed to do and I am very grateful that he has supported them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
The noble Lord says that we cannot reject a Bill, but of course we can. It should be done very rarely. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 make provision for it. There have been Bills rejected during my time in Parliament—only three in the 53 years that I have been here. The War Crimes Bill was rejected by the House of Lords. Mrs Thatcher pursued it, and it went on to the statute book, but I think I am right in saying that it has never been used in this country. Similar Bills have hardly been used elsewhere; they have little application. However, we have the opportunity to say, “Sorry, up with this we will not put”. To say that is entirely consistent with our constitutional position. It is not something that I would ever likely advocate, but it is something I would contemplate—and I think we have to contemplate it in this case. I do not like saying that, because I like to think I am a good constitutionalist. My belief is that this House has a duty to ask the other place to think again; it has an opportunity, if something is irremediable, to say, “Sorry, we won’t have this”.
Of course, if the Bill is then presented in an exactly similar form a year later in the next Session of Parliament, it will go through. However, I remind your Lordships that we are more than half way through this Parliament, and it probably would not apply in this case. That makes our responsibility all the greater before we do such a thing. Clearly, the obvious answer is to pause the Bill after Committee and to not have a Report stage—that is the tidiest and most constitutional way forward. I say to my noble friend—while, again, reiterating my admiration for his determination, sincerity, knowledge and commitment; all those words apply to him—that the Bill really should not pass.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I will add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the options open to the House at present. One of those would be to support an amendment such as the one I tabled at the beginning of Committee, and to decide that the Bill should not proceed until such time as a legislative consent Motion has been obtained from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
With the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, I have indicated that Clause 18 on immunity should not stand part of the Bill. I agree that we have seen limited measures for immunity in Northern Ireland. We saw, for example, the legislative provisions which allowed the information to be supplied for the recovery of the remains of the disappeared, in which situation the information provided could not be used for a prosecution. We also saw the decommissioning of arms, the information gathered as a consequence of which could not be used for a prosecution. But we have not seen the like of this Bill before, and I do not know of any other democracy which has agreed to the like of this Bill before.
We are faced with a situation in which the obligations of the United Kingdom to provide processes for criminal investigation and prosecution, for civil action and for inquests are being removed, and in which immunity is being provided for perpetrators for their previous criminal offences. That is not compliant with our domestic and international legal obligations, which require the provision of processes to enable the investigation and prosecution of offences. For example, we have very clear obligations as high-contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Section 1, we are committed to securing that everyone in the jurisdiction has all the rights and freedoms provided for in the convention. Those rights were incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, although their application, as domestic rights, has been limited somewhat by the jurisprudence of the courts.
In addition, under the Good Friday agreement of 1998, the participants of the multiparty agreement dedicated themselves
“to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”
They stated:
“The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”
They agreed that
“neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe”
the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there should be
“a coherent and cooperative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms.”
However, the Bill does not provide that.
In England and Wales, people seem to be under the illusion that paramilitaries no longer have areas of Northern Ireland under their control—that is not the case. Paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, are still at work, and they still exercise, on occasion, brutal control in their areas. Since 1998, when the Good Friday agreement was signed, 155 people have been killed, and there have been 1,660 bombing incidents and 2,700 shooting incidents. Over 1,500 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, and 235 people have been charged with terrorist offences in the last 10 years alone. Terrorism is alive and well, although not to the scale of previous atrocities.
The mere existence of those paramilitaries means that people who may have information to give which might lead to the arrest and conviction of people for Troubles-related events will, very often, fear to do so, lest they themselves be attacked. The consequence is that it seems that many of Northern Ireland’s terrorists have, by their very existence, created for themselves de facto immunity from prosecution. Now the Government are preparing to enable immunity for those few who may come to fear that prosecution might become a reality.
It is said that the Bill owes its genesis to the statement in the Conservative Party manifesto:
“We will continue to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues that provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and do more to give veterans the protections they deserve.”
Victims across the UK have stated that the Bill is not victim-centred and that it does not provide better outcomes for victims; rather, it deconstructs the existing legal framework, creating a web of protections for perpetrators. There can be no doubt that the Bill is intended to give veterans protection, but most veterans who served in Northern Ireland did not commit criminal offences—and certainly not the most serious Troubles-related offences created by the Bill.
I have mentioned before that it is said that the state kept records while the terrorists did not. However, the state forces did not keep records of instructions not to investigate, not to transmit information or intelligence to investigators, not to arrest or to interview suspects, to lose evidence, or to contaminate physical evidence so that it would be inadmissible. Those things emerge only through painstaking investigation, usually because there are gaps in the chain of evidence, and sometimes people come forward to explain that they tried to do something but were stopped. Those processes enabled murderers to continue their nefarious business, sometimes as agents of the state, despite the best-intentioned processes, such as the passing of legislation by Parliament designed to regulate and to help in this area.
For the record, it is not the case that state actors, such as soldiers and agents, are more likely to be prosecuted than terrorists—and, of course, some state agents were terrorists. According to a House of Commons Library research briefing paper of May 2022, four soldiers have been convicted and sentenced following the Troubles, and one case is currently before the courts. Some 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner, which continued until 2007. Since 2011, 26 prosecutions have been brought by the Public Prosecution Service, 21 of which involved republicans and loyalists.
The provisions of the Bill suggest that the commission, and on very limited occasions, to some extent, the criminal law, is supposed to fill the vacuum left by the removal of criminal investigation processes, civil actions to recover damages for harms caused and inquests. Until now, we have had processes which are compliant with all our legal and moral obligations. If this Bill is passed, we will no longer have such processes.
The Government have stated that their aim is to get to those people who need it information which might help them and to achieve reconciliation. The Bill, unfortunately, has only one provision for reconciliation, and it relates to memorialisation. The response of the political parties, the victims’ groups, the NIHRC, the Equality Commission and all the international organisations, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, do not indicate any confidence that the immunity provisions will actually achieve what the Government are aiming for. The general response that I have encountered in Northern Ireland, and among those British victims to whom I have spoken, is: “Why would they tell what they know? They don’t need to. They just need to sit it out”.
There is a view that immunity clauses and the provisions about early release et cetera create a perpetrator-focused regime, under which perpetrators will be able, should they wish to do so, to provide information which really will not be capable of challenge, and through which, should they avail of it, they will be free from all fear of prosecution. Clause 18 will enable an offender to provide a statement to secure immunity for prosecution for murder and other serious crimes which comprises limited information; information which has already been supplied in other circumstances, and even information which is already in the public domain. The information must be true, but there is nothing which says that it must be complete. Will the Minister tell the House whether there is a requirement that P should tell the whole truth?
The provisions in Clause 18(11) state that the commission can grant immunity for not only all identified offences but
“all serious or connected Troubles-related offences which are within a description determined”
by the commission. Will the Minister tell us what this means? I have read it several times and am trying to work out what those offences might be.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
It is complicated. Clause 18 provides that the commission can grant immunity for not only all identified offences but
“all serious or connected Troubles-related offences which are within a description determined”
by the ICRIR. Will the Minister tell us what that means and what types of offences are envisaged by these provisions?
Clause 18 does not provide that the commission must investigate whether there is information available which may undermine or assist the verification of P’s account. The commission will have to make the decision on the basis of the information supplied by P, the information already in its possession and P’s statement that to the best of his knowledge and belief it is true.
Clause 18 is fundamentally flawed. It is in contravention of our legal and moral obligations. It is actually offensive to those who are expected to believe that the perpetrator has fulfilled his obligation to provide complete information. My experience as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, and even as chair of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel during my service on the independent steering group for Kenova, has shown that perpetrators very often do not tell the whole truth even when they are swearing that that is what they are doing. Their information is frequently disproved by other available information when the necessary investigation occurs.
One of the most questionable things about the Bill is that, under Clause 18 and government Amendment 85, and the new schedule to follow Schedule 4, a perpetrator of Troubles-related sexual offences, which includes attempted sexual offences, cannot be granted immunity but immunity will be available for murder, and for things such as dropping concrete blocks on people’s limbs, shooting them in the knee so that they will live their lives with constant pain and disability, or other forms of torture. Paramilitaries were known for torturing people to confess to that which they had not done so as to justify their subsequent murder, with bodies left mutilated and naked on country roads as a warning to others, or even concealed for ever so that they became disappeared. These are the kind of offences for which the Government intend to grant immunity from prosecution in return for information. The big question is whether the commission would ever really be in a position to know that the whole truth, or even a semblance of the truth, had been provided, even if the proposed amendments are accepted. For this reason, Clause 18 should not form part of the Bill.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I have amendments in this group. I say emphatically at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords that I am not in the business of silk purse manufacturing. But I do have amendments in this group and I will explain the purpose of them. My noble friend Lord Hain’s decades—in fact, lifetime— of commitment to human rights issues, peace and reconciliation, and latterly, for decades, to the people of Northern Ireland, is to be commended. I do not believe that he is in that business either; he explained himself the purpose of these amendments. I say in support of him that, if his Kenova amendments were accepted, we would not be dealing with this Bill. It would fundamentally change the legislation we have before us and, in my view, open up lots of other opportunities. In terms of the support for reconciliation, it may be potentially more valuable than what we have here.
Amendments 113, 115 and 119 are in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for whose support I am once again extremely grateful. They are probing amendments with the effect of ensuring that the ICRIR—the commission—must consider whether granting immunity from prosecution would be compatible with convention rights and, as important, compliant with the constitutional principle of the rule of law, as well as satisfying the interests of justice. Amendment 115 is the active amendment, Amendment 113 is a paving amendment and Amendment 119 is consequential.
The other purpose of Amendment 115 is to create an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to explore the compatibility or otherwise of the immunity provisions of the Bill with our obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutional principle of the rule of law. Also inherent in this question is the scope of the commission to deal with the question of immunities without the guiding hand of the Secretary of State, in a way that is truly and avowedly independent—a point I made in the earlier debate.
To deal briefly with that second question first—and to repeat myself in a sense, if I may—the Bill does empower the commission to make decisions relating to immunity applications. But if the only salient question precedent to the exercise of this power is whether the applicant is telling the truth “to the best of” their “knowledge and belief”, and at the same time it
“must take account of any guidance given by the Secretary of State”
about when this condition is met, it is very difficult to consider this as any genuinely independent decision at all. I ask the Minister to consider the language of the Bill here. “Take account of” could imply various widely divergent systems in practice. Does it imply oversight, indifference or interference? Given the importance of independence and the appearance of independence in the conduct of reviews and investigations, I would welcome guidance from the Minister here in clarifying what this would look like in practice.
Turning to the wider question of compatibility, I read the Government’s ECHR memorandum issued by the Northern Ireland Office with great interest. It acknowledges candidly that the Bill will
“restrict or prohibit the investigation and prosecution of offences arising out of Troubles-era deaths”
and will
“therefore engage the UK’s obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.”
But there are certain minimum requirements that investigations must meet for the state to be conforming with its duties to protect the right to life as defined by its obligations. Investigations must be independent—as we debated earlier—effective, prompt and open to public scrutiny and must involve the next of kin.
Noble Lords have considered and are considering the questions of independence and transparency elsewhere, and we may come back to them on Report. But, speaking to the questions on the involvement of the next of kin and effectiveness, I would observe that, while the involvement of the next of kin is mandated, the European court previously has ruled that the state cannot rely solely on the next of kin, but rather that
“authorities must act of their own motion, once the matter has come to their attention.”
However, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill suggest that reviews primarily will be instigated by the next of kin rather than by the state. I hope the Minister will help me to square that circle in his response.
Most of all, it is unclear just how “effective” a commission review can be said to be, considering the weakness of the body’s powers and the immunity provisions in the Bill, to which I now turn. In their ECHR memorandum, the Government argue that the conditional immunity scheme can be justified as
“a proportionate means of achieving and facilitating truth recovery and reconciliation in Northern Ireland”.
In interrogating this assertion, we must ask two questions. First, will the immunity scheme prove an effective and proportionate means of achieving reconciliation? Secondly, may amnesties be accepted at all under the European convention?
Under the Bill’s provisions, to receive immunity, a person must just offer an account of their behaviour that is
“true to the best of”
their “knowledge and belief”, even if this account is already entirely in the public domain. This contrasts with the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which demanded
“full disclosure of all the relevant facts”
as a precondition of amnesty. What fresh truths could one expect to uncover given this somewhat anaemic provision? It is hard to see how the cause of reconciliation is furthered by the spectacle of killers being granted immunity in return for partial and self-serving recollections.
Even if it were effective, it is far from clear that amnesties might be accepted at all under the ECHR. The Government acknowledge that previous amnesty schemes launched without reconciliation processes have been found to undermine Article 2, citing the case of Ould Dah v France and the court’s finding that
“an amnesty is generally incompatible with the duty incumbent on the States to investigate such acts.”
Yet the Government suggest that it is unclear in case law whether amnesties will be incompatible in all cases. The ECHR memorandum reads—this is crucial, because this is the basis of the Government’s immunity and amnesty—that the European Court of Human Rights
“has countenanced the possibility of an amnesty being compatible with Article 2 in some particular circumstances, including where a reconciliation process is in existence”.
The Government specifically cite the case of Marguš v Croatia. They go on:
“It is therefore an open question as to whether the Court would find an amnesty to be compatible with the Article 2 procedural obligation where there are alternative procedures that allow for investigation, information recovery and reconciliation.”
An “open question” where a “possibility” has been “countenanced”. This is hardly an endorsement of the Government’s legal position.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I would like to mention one factor which may be naïve and maybe I just cannot see it, but we appear to be talking about amnesty for individuals who have committed a heinous crime of some type. I wonder whether noble Lords understand what actually occurred in practical terms? This is from my own experience of living there and serving there.
Early on in the Troubles there were cowboy shoots. There were people who went out just to murder a person. But after a certain time, I would like to think that the security forces not only became better, but they also became much more numerous. There were patrols all over the place. How was it that these people—supposedly individuals, as we seem to be talking about—were not caught? I will tell you why: after several years of the Troubles, no one except a madman carried out an incident on his own. It was not one person; it was a group of people.
When they went into Derryard checkpoint and reversed a lorry in and used flamethrowers, there were about—I am not sure—six people involved. Forty people were involved in that incident in total, and they were accomplices to murder. On every occasion, there were other people involved. Sometimes there was a change of gunman at the last minute. Does that make the other person any less guilty?
What I am really coming to is this: what is the evidence the commission will ask for in order to give immunity to a person? What can he say without giving evidence on some of the other people involved? Is he expected to do that, and how would it work? What evidence does the commission require to say that it knows he is telling the truth? If the commission asks how many were involved and he says, “Nobody. I carried a Mark 5 mortar on my back, crawled down the road and blew up the police station”, which is patently rubbish because you cannot do that, what is the proof it will require? What is the threshold of admission? Does that admission include any other names? If so, what is going to happen to these other people? Can the commission take it any further? This is really getting down into the practical side of how on earth this will work.
We talk about reconciliation—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned it a minute ago—saying that the truth would lead to reconciliation. Rubbish. What on earth are we talking about? There are people there who have lost loved ones and their families, and friends, who are equally hurt. In our case, in Fermanagh—I am talking about victims of all types, but these are my examples—every single one of my soldiers who was killed was killed off duty. They were killed feeding calves in the backyard; delivering vegetables; visiting a wife who happened to be Catholic, on a housing estate which was more Catholic; driving a lorry; leaving home in the morning.
How did they kill them? It was not the next-door neighbours; it was somebody close. If he is going to tell the truth, he is also going to say that his accomplice was his next-door neighbour. Do you call that reconciliation? Let us be realistic about this. There is a big hole here. How can you give immunity to individuals when there were multiple people in every incident who are equally guilty? Sometimes more so, because the gunman could be somebody who is instructed just to do it and is told: “I will drive you there and we will make sure that there are no patrols”. They did it to such an extent that they might have laid it on five mornings previously, one after the other; but lo and behold, there was a patrol and somebody said: “Don’t do it. They are closer to you than they can be”. The gunman, although he may have pulled the trigger, may never have done it without 20 people behind him, without the planning, without everything else.
Maybe I am being naïve but I just do not know where we are going with this at all, and I agree with everybody else that it is going to create rubbish and as far as reconciliation goes, which I would like to see in my own area, it is further from completion than anything I have ever heard.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the very powerful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who brings us back to the reality of the sordid terrorism, the violence and the campaign of the IRA—and other paramilitaries —during the period of the Troubles. It struck me very powerfully because just yesterday evening, Pam Morrison, who the noble Viscount will know well, as will others in this House, came to meet us as part of the delegation from SEFF, the victims group. In the space of six years from 1981, in the county of Fermanagh, she lost her three brothers to IRA terrorism—Jimmy, Cecil and Ronnie Graham. They were all slaughtered in the manner to which the noble Viscount referred: not on duty but going about their daily business. Pam also lost her sister, who was a Greenfinch in the UDR, as a result of the violence in Northern Ireland. This is the reality of what we are talking about. She was here at Westminster, along with others who have suffered terribly, basically to plead with lawmakers here to think of them, to bear in mind their loss and not to deprive them of hope, however difficult, as one of them said. They realise more than anyone the difficulty of getting justice, but to take away the hope of justice is a terrible thing.
I will deal with the amendments briefly because we have had a long debate, but this group of amendments on immunity is an important one; it goes to the heart of the Bill and it is right that we take time to examine it in detail. I just want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said at the start of our debate on this group. He was absolutely right when he said about the concentration now by so many on this legislation that it is as if it is the first time there has been an attack on the equality of justice. We hear people in the United States complaining about this Bill. We hear people who have defended the IRA and raised money for it complaining about this Bill. We hear people in the Irish Republic who provided a safe haven over many years for terrorists and would not extradite them complaining about this Bill.
A number of examples have been listed, such as the letters of comfort to on-the-run terrorists, the royal pardons—we have never had a proper explanation of what crimes, and who, were covered by those—and, let us be frank, the 1998 agreement itself. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referenced the point about victims and that agreement, which released some of the most hardened criminals who had carried out some of the most obscene atrocities in Northern Ireland after only two years’ imprisonment. That was a grievous body blow to the victims, and many of us spoke out about it at the time. There has been a litany of issues affecting victims. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for making this point because it puts all this into context.
Having said all that, I want, if I can, to focus briefly and concisely on the amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends. The first is Amendment 149, which is
“intended to allow the offences for which immunity has been granted to be taken into account in sentencing for post-Troubles offences.”
That means offences committed after 10 April 1998. In my view, it is only right that, if a perpetrator or defendant committed a crime after that date and was convicted of that crime, a court of law should be able to take into account all previous convictions, including crimes for which they may have received immunity. Otherwise, we will have a perverse situation where post-Troubles crimes and sentencing are also affected by this legislation, which would be entirely wrong.
Amendment 114, also in my name and those of my noble friends, would
“require the Commissioner for Investigations to refer a file to the PPS when an individual is found to have provided false statements to the ICRIR in the course of its functions.”
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in relation to that. The Government have conceded that making a false statement should be an offence and that, if someone is found guilty of it, their immunity should be revoked. I very much welcome that limited progress, which my colleague, Gavin Robinson MP, spoke about and pushed an amendment on in the other place. I am glad that the Government have now come forward with something, albeit in a different form than we originally proposed, by creating an offence and then having a court revoke the immunity. However, in our view, Amendment 114 would tackle a deficiency in the Government’s drafting: the offence is established but it is not apparent who is to bring proceedings and where the burden falls. Although the Government are making provision to ensure that compelled material can be inadmissible in criminal proceedings, there is no provision to require the ICRIR to provide that material and evidence of false statements to the PPS. I just want to probe the Minister on that issue and see whether that gap can be rectified.
I very much welcome Amendment 130 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others; indeed, we sought to table the same amendment. Again, there was a bit of a competition to get some of these amendments in, but it shows the level of cross-party support on many of these issues, in an effort to improve the Bill. If it can be improved, we should try to do that as part of the function of our House. Clause 21(4), which this amendment would remove, does need to be removed. It is wrong for the ICRIR not to be required to seek information from others in relation to someone who comes forward and gives their point of view on crimes they may have committed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate because, irrespective of their party-political affiliation, where they come from in Northern Ireland or whether they reside here in Britain, all noble Lords have a deep aversion to the proposition in this Bill to eradicate, in many ways, civil actions and to provide immunity. That is very much anathema to victims and survivors.
The Minister probably finds this Bill particularly challenging. In his previous positions over many years, he will have dealt directly with many victims and survivors in discussing the various iterations of how the Government, along with others, intend to deal with the legacy issues, because that is one of the outstanding matters of the Troubles era. However, having listened to the people from SEFF yesterday evening and to other victims over the past few weeks and months, many of whom I know personally, I know that they find that part of the Bill particularly difficult. They say that this Bill is irredeemable—a word that was used last week and has been used this week.
Looking at this group of amendments, I agree that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I also agree with Amendments 120 and 121, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which probe the Government’s general definition of immunity from prosecution. Will the Minister say a few words about that? Clause 18 should definitely not stand part.
All these amendments deal with the immunity process, which, along with the denial of access to justice measures at the heart of the Bill, is very troubling for victims. What they want is the truth about what happened to their loved ones. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recounted the story of Pam Morrison. She told me last night about her three brothers and sister, who were heinously murdered in such a summary fashion. I know the Minister will be aware of the incidents in Loughinisland, where I have neighbours and indirect relations who were murdered, or executed, in a very summary fashion. These people were never involved in politics or anything like that. The way they were murdered impacts on the lives of their loved ones, because those people are no longer there; it is about the way that people decided to take them out of society.
I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in government, particularly the Secretary of State for Defence, who was in Belfast, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to, only a couple of weeks ago. He seemed to be very gung-ho about this legislation, with little cognisance of the needs of victims and survivors. The Bill provides for the granting of immunity from prosecution for gross violations of human rights on the basis of participation in the review process, through telling recollections. It does not specify whether those recollections have to be detailed or whether they can be scarce in their content. To many observers, including me, this legislation and this section on immunity are incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights. This has already been referred to by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has just written to our protocol committee about this issue.
There is no doubt that the threshold for this immunity set out in the Bill is low, with a requirement that information provided is true only to the best of the person’s knowledge or belief, and no requirement objectively to test that information against evidence. Can the Minister elaborate on this? To me, there is something inherently wrong in that. It shows a terrible fault line in this legislation and the need for the legislation not to be pursued.
Finally, the government amendments, including on penalties for lying, do not in any way attempt to make changes to this part of the Bill; I come back to the issue that there remain incredibly limited mechanisms for testing the veracity of accounts. The bottom line is that the government amendments would make no change to the immunity provisions. I ask the Minister to look at this matter, because the issue of immunity and the denial of access to civil action and inquests are causing grave concern to victims and survivors who thought they would be able to get truth recovery and justice—the very things they are looking for.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, in dealing with this group of amendments, as we have to, it is undoubtedly the case, as has been said on all sides of this Committee, that we cannot get away from the elephant in the room: no matter how good an amendment is put forward—I include the amendments I have added my name to—it cannot turn what is an unacceptable Bill into an acceptable Bill. I urge the Minister and his government colleagues to listen to the clarion voices from all sides of the Committee, from all sections of society within Northern Ireland and from all groups connected with victims that this is not the right way forward. At the heart of it is the completely unacceptable anathema of the immunity that the Bill proposes. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her call for Clause 18 not to stand part of the Bill.
However ultimately unamendable the Bill is in terms of its scope, we have no choice at this stage but to look at these amendments. It is a duty on all of us to make whatever improvements we can, however small, and at least try to take any step forward that we can, so I will touch on them briefly.
I welcome Amendments 120 and 121 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie. Along with others, I met representatives of SEFF and have spoken to other victims’ groups as well. There is undoubtedly a deep sense of hurt and betrayal among victims. It is obviously not their biggest concern, but one of the concerns that adds to their hurt is a level of confusion and anxiety over the definitions of general and specific immunity. There is a lack of clarity around that. While this will not get to the heart of the issue, at the very least, can the Minister give us some clarity around that today? I would welcome these probing amendments if they can draw out that information.
I also welcome Amendments 112 and 124, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. To move from a position in which immunity is effectively compulsory to one which gives a much greater level of discretion to the commission is a sensible step forward. I think the scope of Amendment 124 has been accepted and government Amendments 139 and 140, dealing specifically with the issues around withholding information, move in a way that was not the case a while ago: at least there has been an acceptance that, if immunity is to be granted, it cannot simply be a one-off gift and that, where there are breaches, it can be revoked. That is an important principle as well.
We believe our Amendment 114 to be complementary with the provisions on the withholding of information or the giving of wrong information, because it gives a clear pathway for those prosecutions which the offence created in Amendment 139 can progress. The giving of false information or the withholding of information are of importance for two reasons. First, if we are to be stuck with this inequity of immunity, it should not be some form of tick-box exercise that anybody can qualify for no matter what information they give. Also, if there is anything to be gained from this at all in terms of truth—I very much share the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this whole process will be entirely counterproductive rather than helpful—one of the things that will aggravate victims is if the information provided is false, if they are given false hope and wrong information about the deaths of their loved ones.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask the question of what information given to the commission by somebody seeking immunity will be made available to the victims. That is the point at which reconciliation breaks down—when the names of the other people involved will horrify most families, people who have never appeared on the radar.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
That is an entirely fair and justified point. I look forward to the Minister responding directly to it.
Where revocation takes place, there is going to be a trigger mechanism that brings that about, as in the Government’s Amendment 125. I have a slight concern—this point has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others in other amendments—about the length of time it takes for prosecution to take place and the amount of work required. That is why I think the wording of Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, which is of a similar nature to the Government’s, is better. If false information has clearly been given, where immunity pertains and continues to pertain until we reach the final point at which there is a successful prosecution for that offence, we are giving a false and wrong position of immunity to perpetrators. I prefer the wording in Amendment 126.
I have one final point to touch on; again, I do not want to reiterate everything that has been said. Our Amendment 149, which would provide for the information on immunity to be made available to the court for a post-1998 serious offence to assist with sentencing, is important for a number of reasons. As somebody who worked as a lawyer in a previous life, as many in your Lordships’ House have, I know that when you are making a claim on behalf of a client, one of the critical elements in sentencing is looking at past behaviour and, in particular, the past criminal behaviour of that individual, to establish from the court’s point of view whether the conduct of that individual is simply a one-off or whether they have a long history of similar crimes. There is protection for the guilty party in that it does not come into play until the person is convicted and found guilty. That is along the lines of what we have put forward.
This effectively brings the situation for post-1998 offences and those who have been granted immunity into line with what happens under the normal law. That is important. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, there is already a history of corruption of justice through this process, which treats perpetrators of crimes from the Troubles in a special place compared to other criminals. That is wrong. It is morally wrong, and it should be legally wrong. It is also deeply offensive and hurtful to the victims. But it is not simply a question of the impact on the past and the present. It is about what message is sent out to the future. We are seeing already in Northern Ireland, and in other jurisdictions, an almost casual attitude among some towards the Troubles, in which trite phrases are trotted out such as, “There was no alternative to violence.” If we continue to perpetrate a belief that those who were involved in Troubles-related murders are in some form of special category—that they are not really criminals on the same basis as others who have committed heinous crimes—we send a signal to current and future generations that in some way this was acceptable, and therefore there is a greater risk of it being repeated in future. It would apply only where a post-1998 conviction has taken place, rather than within a trial, but it would be a small but significant step in the direction of normality for those who have committed that crime.
I commend the range of amendments that have been put forward, but—among many in this Chamber; effectively everyone who has spoken, I think—there is a consensus that this is not the way forward. The Government, beyond this set of amendments or any of today’s amendments, need to think again, pause and withdraw.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, apart from all else that has been said, this group of amendments takes the House to the substance of what is causing so much heartache, has united opposition and is destroying hopes of reconciliation back in Northern Ireland. The two words we have all used, “victims” and “survivors”, are very easy to use. When we really think about it, we are generalising in a way, which is doing immense harm to what those words mean. We are not speaking about some group that we cannot touch, hear or understand. We are talking about men and women who, perhaps two generations on in the same family, are feeling the repercussions of what we continue to call—and here is another word—the Troubles. We are talking about the need, somehow, to find a way—if this legislation is to have any use—to do something about the real faces behind “victims” and “survivors”.
I am sitting here listening to so much that has been said, and I am hearing other voices. I am hearing those countless voices I have ministered to over the years as a priest, a bishop and then an archbishop. I have listened to the service families, those who came out of their homes and, most importantly of all, those who, when off duty, came back into their homes in the very areas where they would be in danger. Can noble Lords imagine what that was like—the constancy of anxiety and thinking about the children? One child in particular, when I had performed the burial of her father who had been slaughtered by terrorism, tugged on my robes to draw my attention and looked up at me. As I looked down at this child—I can still see her—she said, “What have you done with Daddy?” That is the sort of human reaction we are talking about this evening. We are not talking about facts—“victims” and “survivors”. We are talking about ordinary, decent people caught up in a situation that I wonder whether we will all ever understand—its causes and consequences.
I have said publicly in this House, twice at least, that I feel so strongly for the position that the Minister is in and why he has tried to do so much to feel the tenor of what we are saying to him about this legislation. I plead with him to go beyond “victims” and “survivors” to the people who are actually asking this House and the other House to treat them as human beings. That is what they are, and they are at the centre of the need in relation to which this legislation is lacking.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said. For 50 years, I ministered to the people. I was not only an elected representative for 14 and a half years in the area of Northern Ireland that was known as the “Killing Fields”—Mid Ulster, Castlederg and that area—but was a pastor. Like the noble and right reverend Lord, I have stood with many families grieving loved ones. Like him, I can still see a boy standing at the side of a street, when everyone around this little child was crying. His father had been murdered. The words he said were, “Why is everybody crying?” He did not realise that they were crying for him, because that father would never lift him again, cuddle him again, touch him again or kiss him again. Unfortunately, that has been replicated over and over again.
Here we are, some 50 years from the commencement of the Troubles, talking about the situation. Many people say, “Why don’t you just forget the past? Why don’t families just move on?” A person who says that has no idea of the hurt and grief that many to this day are carrying because their loved one has been murdered and no one has been brought to justice.
Can immunity be regarded as justice? Is an amnesty for those who have committed vile atrocities against their fellow human beings justice? The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, way back 50 years ago, desired to live in peace with their neighbours. They had no ill will against them; they wanted to live in peace and harmony. But that was all changed by the insurrection of IRA terrorism, which sought to turn neighbour from neighbour. Fear and suspicion were rampant everywhere.
I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, when he drew attention to the fact that the persons who pulled the trigger did not act on their own. Information gatherers were in the community, watching the movements of that part-time member of the security forces who was doing his daily work but going out to try to bring peace and stability to the community in which he lived. Many of those watching were his neighbours; they were watching his every movement to be able to report back, until that final occasion when a trigger was pulled or a bomb was set off. So we are left with this legacy. Indeed, the Bill is called the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.
Reconciliation is not aided by persons who are guilty of the vilest crimes getting immunity or being let off. The hope of justice is the last thing that families hold on to. I pay tribute to members of the RUC, the RUCR and the UDR—all those who stood between the communities over many years. They were vilified by so many people; the propaganda machines of the IRA were condemning them, while of course the bombs were tearing their families and communities asunder. We must never forget the sacrifice that many of these people made.
I pay tribute to the young soldiers who came to Northern Ireland. Many of them did not know the roads they were patrolling. They did not know the community. They were there only to do a job: to try to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland.
While I realise that time is limited, I will make one point. I have heard a lot of people saying that the whole Northern Ireland community is against this Bill. I can accept that—partially—but I will not accept the total hypocrisy of Sinn Féin in this situation. Make no mistake about it: Sinn Féin members are quite happy for legislation to pass so that their terrorist colleagues will escape justice—very happy. The only reason they come out with their words of condemnation of this is that they have a hatred of members of the security forces, the young soldier lads who patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, this is an extremely important debate. It may have been long, but it is extremely important. We have heard many detailed and deeply compelling speeches. I will just pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, because his intervention reminded us what this is all about. It is about people who have suffered, and it is important to focus on that.
As many noble Lords have said several times during debates on the Bill, we would have preferred it not to proceed at all, not least because of its Clause 18. I think I am not alone on these Benches in rather liking the radical noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He sometimes surprises us with his radicalism, but he was absolutely right to talk about this as trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. There are other, less polite, Scottish versions, but I will not use them today.
I will try to be brief, because time is ticking on and dinner break business is waiting. I am pleased to have added my name to Amendments 112, 124 and 135, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made a very compelling argument for them in his intervention. Clause 18 is absolutely the key clause of concern. It is at the very heart of people’s concerns about the Bill as currently drafted, and the proposals for immunity have caused a great deal of distress and anxiety to so many victims by potentially closing the door to hope. The maintenance of that hope that justice could be done has been so vital for so many victims and their families. If Clause 18 is left unamended, it is not clear to me how the Bill will be Article 2 compliant. I know that this view is shared by many others speaking in the debate, not least the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and I feel that the Minister should respond to that in his concluding remarks.
At an earlier meeting on the Bill, I asked the Minister how the “general immunity from prosecution” set out in Clause 18 would sit alongside some of the government amendments proposed, which, in some way, restrict the definition of immunity. I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me how the general immunity framed in the existing Clause 18 would sit with some of the exemptions that the Government are proposing. I would be very grateful if the Minister could shed some light on this during his concluding remarks. We all appreciate that the Minister is trying to square multiple circles with this Bill, and that he himself has expressed deep concerns about the prospect of general immunity as it stands.
In conclusion, it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether there is still scope for movement on this between Committee and Report stages. He will have heard the united view of all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken this evening. Every single Peer who has spoken in this debate is against Clause 18. The victims are against Clause 18. I know that it was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment, but it is wrong and remains wrong. We would like to hear the Minister’s views on whether we can make progress, perhaps through the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the Operation Kenova process, but, personally, I think that it should be deleted from the Bill.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very impressive, rather stunning debate. I have tabled Clause 18 stand part, which would effectively omit immunity from the Bill. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, quite rightly mentioned that this debate, and this and subsequent clauses, are at the heart of the legislation. Without them, there would be no Bill and no argument. If anybody reads in Hansard, or watches on television, the last two hours of debate in your Lordships’ House—and I hope they do—they will see how strong the feeling is across these Benches. This is not just because people do not like it but because noble Lords have spoken from deep experience over decades in Northern Ireland, from living there, being Ministers there, or whatever it might be, unanimous in the belief that this immunity, this amnesty—they are the same thing—should be dropped.
The other unanimous view in the debate was that the legislation completely ignores the victims: it is not about them, whereas it should be. Looking back over the last 25 years—particularly, I suppose, at the agreement—as I was saying to someone today, there were a number of things that we could have done and did not. We did many things when we introduced the agreement, but we could have improved on how we dealt with victims. In the years that followed, there were brave attempts: the Eames-Bradley review and others all tried to put right that which was not right a quarter of a century ago. What is certain is that this legislation does not. To the contrary, it makes things worse. Over 25 years, I have never experienced such unanimity on a difficult issue like this in Northern Ireland—I have experienced much disunity—so it cannot be right that we go ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made the interesting point about whether we should go ahead with the Bill, as it is so bad. Then the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others put their amendments forward, all first class with excellent speeches. They give an opportunity to improve it. Revocation of immunity, conditional immunity and licensing around immunity would all certainly improve it. The whole issue of trying to improve it was discussed last week in our first day of debates on Kenova. That is a dilemma for us in this House. We could have done nothing, let the Bill go through on the nod, and said that it was so bad that we would have to wait for a change of Government to repeal it, which the leader of my party has said that he will do. But there is a duty on us to try to ensure that it is not as bad as it is at the moment when it leaves this Chamber and goes back to the other place.
This part of the Bill in particular goes fundamentally against the rule of law. If I thought for one second that we could salvage some of this, that would be all well and good. But my feeling is that the Government simply want to go ahead, come what may. The amendments that they have put forward are all right, but they do not go far enough. My plea, and, I am sure, that of everybody in this Chamber, is to drop it.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say that I will try to be brief, but I fear that that might be impossible in response to a debate that has lasted for one hour and 58 minutes. I think the only debate that has lasted longer since I joined your Lordships’ House in October 2016 was on one of the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill from my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes, which lasted longer than two hours.
This has obviously been an extensive debate. I say sincerely that I am grateful to all those who have taken part. Noble Lords are absolutely right that these clauses and amendments go to the heart of the legislation before the Committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I take longer than normal in trying to respond to as many points as possible, in the knowledge that I will not be able to deal with everything but will try my best.
I start by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bew for his kind words at the outset of this group some time ago. He and others who have spoken were absolutely right to draw attention to occasions in the past when quite extraordinary changes have been made to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland: the noble Baroness referred to the decommissioning Act of 1997, the location of victims’ remains Act of 1999, and the early release scheme in the 1998 agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—the latter have caused so much difficulty, not least for my noble friends on the Democratic Unionist Benches. Those remind us that it is far from unknown for changes to be made to the normal process of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Bew referred to the importance of the commission following best practice in carrying out reviews and so on. I assure him that it is already under a clearly defined obligation in Clause 4(1)(b) not to do anything which
“would risk putting, or would put, the life or safety of any person at risk”.
It is the Government’s view that this safeguard is wide enough to offer protections of the kind to which he was referring.
A large number of amendments in this group, the vast bulk of them, consider the immunity process. It is worth reflecting at the outset that the Written Ministerial Statement of March 2020 and Command Paper of July 2021, both published by my right honourable friend Brandon Lewis when Secretary of State, envisaged a form of unconditional closure of cases which would apply to all Troubles-related offences, including offences carried out by members of terrorist organisations and the security forces. I am on record as saying that I do not support, and have never supported, a blanket statute of limitations. My position has not changed, so, as I said in the House last week, if the Government were still pursuing the position from the Command Paper of 2021, I would not be standing here taking the Bill through.
The point is that the legislation before us today is very different. Rather than a statute of limitations, it provides for a conditional immunity model whereby immunity from prosecution will be granted only on a case-by-case basis, and will depend on individuals providing an account that is assessed by the commission, using all the evidence available to it, to be true to the best of their knowledge and belief. I will go into some of the points raised in connection to that later. If individuals do not do so, they remain liable to prosecution should sufficient evidence exist or come to light. I want to be absolutely clear that prosecutions in circumstances where individuals do not engage and co-operate fully with the commission will still be possible.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I of course acknowledge that letter, since I helped get it together, and I have said in debate that criminal prosecutions will be extremely rare. In fact, I think I quoted the HET example of 2,000 cases and three convictions. That is not an issue between us. What we did not have then was proof that the Kenova operation works. Notwithstanding what the Minister said—I look forward to engaging with him—we now have a ready-made model to drop into this Bill and make it palatable.
Lord Caine (Con)
I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I pay tribute to the work of Jon Boutcher, and I hope to see him to discuss it very shortly, but we have yet to see whether prosecutions can take place. There are cases before the DPP which have been sitting there for some time, so we have yet to see any outcome; and we await his first interim report, so we should perhaps exert a bit of caution.
Turning to the noble Lord’s Amendment 112, as I have said, conditional immunity will be granted to individuals who provide an account true to the best of their knowledge and belief. In determining whether that is the case, the immunity request panel, which is chaired by the chief commissioner, who will be a senior judge, retired or serving, will of course exercise professional judgment in that respect. In our view, the noble Lord’s amendment would give the immunity request panel too broad a discretion to refuse to grant immunity, even where the statutory conditions are met, and we do not consider that appropriate. The existence of such discretion would lead to uncertainty over the terms of the process for those who might come forward with information, potentially discouraging their co-operation. Additionally, the application of such a broad discretion may undermine the perception of fairness which is critical to wider public trust.
However, the Government are tabling amendments that will enhance the robustness of the immunity process. My Amendment 139 will create a new offence for people who knowingly or recklessly make a false statement to the commission, including as part of an application for immunity. People convicted of this offence could go to prison for up to two years and face an unlimited fine. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a significant strengthening of this legislation. Amendment 43 makes an important consequential change to Clause 7, ensuring that a false statement provided to the commission can be used in evidence against the person who provided it if prosecuted for the new offence. Government Amendment 140 proposes that a person convicted of this offence in relation to a request for immunity will automatically lose that immunity and therefore, under provisions in part 2 of the new schedule to be inserted by Amendment 85, will not be able to apply for immunity for those offences again. I hope noble Lords will agree that someone who has been proven to have deliberately or recklessly provided a false account to the commission, potentially frustrating the objective of families to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones, should not retain any immunity granted in relation to that false account.
I am instinctively sympathetic to Amendment 124 from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which would attach certain licence conditions to somebody granted immunity. I am also sympathetic to the intent behind Amendment 149, in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which would widen the circumstances in which immunity could be revoked. I am very happy to commit to considering these further and sitting down with the noble Lords to discuss them between Committee and Report. I am very sympathetic to the intent behind both those amendments.
Regrettably, I am not able to say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in respect of Amendment 131, which seeks to remove subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 21, which will allow the Secretary of State to publish general guidance relating to decisions on immunity. Without going over some of the same ground that we discussed in considering the previous group, the Government are very confident that the commission will retain full operational independence in making decisions, including decisions on immunity, and the Secretary of State will have absolutely no say whatever in any specific individual immunity application. The intention of the general guidance the Secretary of State may issue, and to which the commission must have regard, is to help the commission apply the statutory criteria in a consistent and transparent manner when taking decisions. It will be important that we engage with a number of experts, including prosecutors, when developing this guidance so that it is effective and workable. On the previous group, I referred to the fact that there are examples of this in other legislation, including the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which set up the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Turning to the question of whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill, I would gently take issue here. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, said that without this clause there would not be an argument. Unfortunately, one of the reasons we are here is that there was no equivalent Clause 18 in the report compiled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley in 2009. There was no such clause in the Stormont House agreement, but there was no consensus around any of those attempts to deal with the legacy of the past. Yes, I agree that this clause is extremely challenging, and I have said on the record that it is extremely challenging for me, but to say that without it, everything would be perfect is probably mistaken.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to ask him: does he think that Clause 18 is compliant with all our international legal obligations?
Lord Caine (Con)
I dealt with this to some extent last week, but I will go on to deal with it later in the course of my remarks; I hope the noble Baroness will bear with me. I was reiterating that I completely accept that this is the most challenging part of the legislation—I have been completely up front and honest; it is challenging for me, too. However, as I said a few moments ago, the difficult reality is that the prospect of successful prosecutions is vanishingly small, and a single-minded focus on them offers the prospect of achieving very little for families and for wider society.
Again, in response to some of the comments about pausing, pulling or repealing the Bill—which is, I believe, the official position of the Opposition—the difficulty is that, if we go back to square one, it will take at least another five years to come up with something. The reality is that no Government of either colour will go anywhere near this anytime soon, if at all. Maybe I am wrong and the Opposition have a fully fleshed-out and workable model—but the noble Baroness is shaking her head, which indicates that they do not. If they are starting from scratch, I can tell her that the process is extremely laborious and will take a long time.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There is a big difference between starting from scratch and having something fully worked out. The Minister has heard the views from around this House. There is work to be done and we would like to do it.
Lord Caine (Con)
The words “I’ll believe it when I see it” spring to mind, given the experience of successive Governments over the past 25 years who have sought to grapple with this issue.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I do not want to delay things unduly but, if my noble friend were to have a round table with those who have taken part tonight, who have a fairly common view of the inadequacy of this legislation but a desire to make progress, I do not think we would be talking about five years—five months, maybe.
Lord Caine (Con)
It might well be that a round table of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate could produce some proposals within five months, but we have all seen the difficulty of getting agreement from all the political parties in Northern Ireland for legacy proposals, and the huge difficulty of getting consensus and agreement from the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland. That is a very laborious process. After the Stormont House agreement, I went through four or five years of trying to get that agreement into legislation and before your Lordships’ House; that was despite it being a manifesto commitment in 2015 and 2017 and a Queen’s Speech commitment in 2015.
It is a very long and difficult process to get consensus. With the criticism there is of this legislation—I accept that it is criticism and that it does not have widespread consensus—the onus would be on those coming forward with other proposals, alternative suggestions, to build consensus. That would take a long time, and then to turn that consensus into legislation, to legislate and to establish new bodies is not something that could be done very quickly.
Turning back to the debate itself, it is the Government’s view that the immunity test is robust. It requires individuals to apply for immunity and, in so doing, acknowledge their role in Troubles-related incidents. Immunity will be granted only in relation to conduct that individuals disclose, and only where the panel is satisfied that the conduct exposes the individual to criminal liability.
Crucially, it requires the individual to provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. In determining whether that is the case, there is a legal obligation on the commission to consider all the information that it holds that is relevant to that decision. If an individual provides an account that contains truthful information about numerous offences, but that same account includes untruthful information about just one offence, they will not be granted immunity at all. This will help prevent people from trying to minimise their role in incidents.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Does he mean that the commission will ask them who their accomplices were and that they must not refuse to name them?
Lord Caine (Con)
It is fairly straightforward. The commission will ask whatever questions it believes to be appropriate. On the basis of the answers it is given, it will have to make its decisions regarding immunity. If a person is untruthful or unwilling to give information, that will of course be taken into account.
I am delighted to say that I am sympathetic to the proposed Amendment 130 from the Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to Clause 21(4), which is designed to ensure that the commission has to take steps to seek information beyond that which it holds already for the purposes of testing an account. I am very much open to exploring further with her how this issue might be appropriately addressed, when we move to the next stage of the legislation,
I wish to focus very quickly on some other amendments that I have tabled. Under Clause 23, the commissioner for investigations currently has the power to refer for possible prosecution conduct causing death or serious injury which is the subject of the review under consideration. My Amendment 137 clarifies that the commissioner is also able to refer conduct that constitutes “connected offences” within the meaning of the Bill. These are offences which do not themselves meet the Bill’s definition of “serious offence” but are nevertheless factually connected to such offences, for example because they form part of the same incident. This would allow, for example, the commission to refer to prosecutors evidence of sexual offences connected to a death or serious injury, if it came to light during the investigation.
Noble Lords will have noticed my intention to oppose the proposition that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill. To reassure, this is simply because I propose to move provisions made by Clause 19 to the new schedule introduced by Amendment 85, titled “No immunity in certain circumstances”. This will bring together these provisions and those relating to the revocation of immunity mentioned before. Moving Clause 19—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Very briefly, his Amendment 137 refers to “other harmful conduct” that is not Troubles-related conduct serious enough to justify being dealt with under the Bill. But the Bill says that no prosecutions can be brought except in respect of Troubles-related conduct, does it not?
Lord Caine (Con)
I will need to read the clause through again and come back to the noble Baroness on that, if I may. As I was just saying, moving Clause 19 into the schedule is simply intended to make this legislation easier to follow.
The ability of commission officers to use their powers of arrest and detention as part of its investigations is important. That includes cases where a suspect, having not obtained immunity, needs to be detained for the purposes of questioning. That would happen as part of the case-building process in a criminal investigation before a file was referred to prosecutors. I have tabled Amendment 151 to remove any doubt as to the circumstances in which criminal enforcement action can be taken where immunity has not been granted, and where a referral to a prosecutor has not yet been made. In addition to allowing for the exercise of powers of arrest and detention, the amendment also ensures that the commission would be able to charge a person with an offence before a referral to a prosecutor had been made. The amendment also clarifies that those with existing powers of detention—for example, the police—may continue to use those powers where they are being exercised in connection with the commission’s functions.
Amendments 150 and 153 are related minor and technical amendments. We touched on the importance of the chief commissioner’s actions over the course of a review leading up to a report, as per Amendment 36. Under Clause 15, the chief commissioner is required to share the draft report with the person who requested the review, with victims, where applicable, and with any relevant family members as defined in the Bill. These persons will have the right to make representations, which must be considered before a report is finalised. Separately, the chief commissioner must share the draft report with any living individual subject to significant criticism in the draft report, who also has the right to make representations that must be considered before a report is finalised.
We have discussed today the referral of conduct to prosecutors. Amendments 114 and 135 specifically would expect the commissioner for investigations to refer conduct to prosecutors in cases where the threshold is met, unless there is a good reason not to do so. If the commission were under an obligation to refer all relevant conduct to prosecutors that it considered an offence, there is a risk this would place an unreasonable operational burden on it—a concern that was also relevant to the Stormont House agreement. I will try to get through this as quickly as I can.
I turn to post-Troubles sentencing, and specifically Amendment 149 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn. All offences, including terrorist-type offences, committed after 10 April 1998 will remain the investigative responsibility of the relevant police force. I recognise the intent behind this amendment but we have already tabled an amendment which could mean that people lose immunity if they are convicted of knowingly or wilfully misleading the commission. I am content to keep engaging with noble Lords and others on possible instances where we can strengthen the incentives to engage with the body and ensure adequate and proportionate penalties for those who do not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme have probed the meaning of “general immunity from prosecution” in Clause 18. To be clear, as I have said immunity will be granted only in respect of conduct disclosed by an individual as part of their application. “General immunity from prosecution” does not mean immunity for all Troubles-related conduct in which individuals may have been involved but which has not been disclosed. Clause 18(9) makes it clear that, where immunity from prosecution is framed as a grant of general immunity, it must be framed by reference to the particular conduct that the person has disclosed. In other words, it will not confer immunity in relation to other conduct. The noble Baroness is looking at me slightly quizzically; I am happy to go through this again with her.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, proposed an amendment to add an additional condition that must be met before immunity is granted: that the commission is satisfied that the grant of immunity would be compatible with convention rights, comply with the constitutional principle of the rule of law and satisfy the interests of justice. In response, the Government remain confident that the legislation is legally robust and complies with our obligations, so it is not necessary to make specific reference in the Bill to the compatibility of convention rights in respect of the commission discharging specific functions. It is the Government’s view that this is already covered.
The noble Lord referred in one of his questions to cases being initiated by the state or being initiated by families. While the commission will carry out reviews where requested to do so by a family or where a person has requested immunity, I assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State and other public officials, such as the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland, will be able to request a review where this is necessary to ensure an effective and efficient investigation for the purposes of discharging the UK’s international obligations. Those powers are there.
As I have explained before, the commission, as a public authority, will be under a duty under the Human Rights Act to act compatibly with convention rights when exercising its functions and making any of its decisions. Working together with public prosecutors and making use of its full police powers, it will also be able to institute criminal proceedings against suspected offenders in cases where conditional immunity has not been granted.
In response to the noble Baroness, who I know disagrees with me on this, I set out at length last week that the Government’s view is that the absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in a limited and conditional way is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths and serious incidents that is extremely unlikely to come to light in any other circumstances. It is through the recovery of information for the benefit of families and wider communities, in part by means of the conditional immunity process, that the new body will be enabled to contribute to moving society forward in Northern Ireland. It is therefore consistent with the Government’s stated objective to provide more information to victims and survivors in a timely and efficient manner, which would not happen if we engaged in a single-minded focus simply on criminal justice outcomes.
I have gone way over time. I have tried to answer as many points as possible, but if there are any that I have missed then I am happy to sit down with noble Lords following Committee. On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments, as I will not press mine.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2023)
Baroness O'Loan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the new Clause after Clause 5 in the name of Baroness O’Loan give the ICRIR the right to require information, documents and other material from all the organisations listed in the definition of “relevant authority”, other than the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, without justification of the reasonableness of any request.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with the requirements in Clause 5 to provide full disclosure of information to the ICRIR. They are intended to assist the ICRIR in its work and are quite simple, but slightly technical.
In normal circumstances, the Police Ombudsman and many other public policing authorities with criminal investigation powers are entitled to require information to be supplied by relevant authorities such as those in Clause 54, where a whole list of police organisations is given. The ones from which there is no power to require information are the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. Clause 5 as drafted imposes a requirement that any request for information must be reasonable. That is an unnecessary restriction, as the purposes for which the information will be required are the statutory functions of investigation. If the essential amendments providing for investigation, review and immunity are accepted, this information, which will be sought by the ICRIR, will be that required for the purposes of investigation, review and immunity.
The effect of my amendments is to take that composite group in Clause 54 of relevant authorities and divide it into two: relevant authorities and special relevant authorities. Relevant authorities will have to supply information. There will be one category of relevant authority, which will be under the obligation to provide information as provided for in Clause 5, as amended by Amendments 37 and 39. That will include all the authorities listed in Clause 54 except the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service and GCHQ. I suggest that the House remove them from the list by accepting Amendment 191. Through Amendment 197, a new category of “Special relevant authority” would be created into which the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ would be inserted.
Imposing a requirement of reasonableness on the process of making requests for information, which can be very complicated, imposes an unnecessary hurdle. When I was Police Ombudsman, I had complete power to require information, and it was delivered. There were a few early hiccups in the process, but everyone settled into it. When I was doing the non-statutory review of the Daniel Morgan inquiry for the Home Secretary, I had no power to require information and we had endless arguments about which information should and should not be required. Those arguments cost a lot of money and took a lot of time.
If the Bill is passed as drafted, there would need to be a process for determining reasonableness and a determination as to who other than a court might determine what is reasonable. This would lead to disputes and the matter ultimately would end up in court, particularly if a relevant authority is reluctant to disclose information about, for example, the handling of an informant or the way in which physical evidence was managed. To impose the restriction of a requirement of reasonableness, which will be assessed, on the ICRIR, would impact on the perception and reality of its independence and powers. For this reason, Amendment 37 simply excludes “reasonably” from Clause 5(1). That would make it consistent with current law as it applies, for example, to the Police Ombudsman and the police. It would apply to all the authorities listed as relevant authorities, as I said, except the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ.
Amendment 39 adds to the list of those required to provide reasonable assistance to facilitate the effective use of information, documents and other material. When one gets information from policing organisations, the way in which it has previously been handled can often be very helpful, particularly if it is on a digitised account such as the HOLMES investigation accounts. If there is a requirement, as there is in Clause 5, to provide reasonable assistance, the policing organisation supplying the material would also have to provide assistance to access those databases, et cetera.
The reason I suggest that other organisations should be included under Amendment 39 is that some of the criminal offences the ICRIR will investigate or review relate to events such as the bombings in Hyde Park, Manchester, London, et cetera, which were not investigated by the PSNI but by other police forces. The clause as it stands requires only the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman to provide assistance, but I suggest to your Lordships that all the other policing organisations should be under a similar obligation. Without this amendment, those providing information as relevant authorities would not be under the same obligation as, say, the PSNI to assist in the effective use of the information. Amendment 39 is therefore designed to assist the ICRIR in conducting its investigations.
Because we have to deal with GCHQ, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service, Amendment 197 suggests a new category of “special relevant authority” in which those three organisations would sit. They would be required to supply information if the request by the ICRIR was reasonable. I would prefer that they had to provide it without a reasonableness requirement, but I understand that noble Lords might be reluctant to impose an obligation on the security services to provide information. This would enable those agencies to protect national security, which is their function. To give effect to that new special category of three organisations for which there would be a reasonableness requirement, a new clause, Clause 5A, would be required. That is provided by Amendment 40.
Amendment 185 is very simple: it would include the director-general of the NCA in the list of chief officers of police for the purposes of the Bill, to enable them to assist the ICRIR. It may be that the National Crime Agency will not have material relevant to the ICRIR, but it is distinctly possible that it will. It is important that it be empowered to provide information.
Finally, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, which relates to the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 31 about biometric materials and raises the level of procedure required for such regulations to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name, and I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Amendment 145 is quite different from most of the other amendments put forward to the Bill. I am aware that it might sound a bit geeky, but much legislation brought forward by His Majesty’s Government seems to include sweeping powers for Secretaries of State in whichever department. This Bill does not have quite as many egregious cases of Henry VIII clauses but with Clause 31, about retention of biometric material, there is some concern that the Secretary of State can make regulations for which there would be very little scrutiny and by which, potentially, individuals’ rights are interfered with.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for bringing forward these amendments, which I think are very helpful. However, she said earlier—the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referenced it as well—that while many in your Lordships’ House, perhaps everyone, think that this Bill is not fit for purpose and should not be brought, there is an obligation on us to do what we can to improve legislation. That is our role, and I think her amendments today and the way in which she has spoken to them illustrate that sharply.
They are a very helpful amendments because surely at the heart of any investigation is access to information. I was struck by the noble Baroness’s comment about there not being clarity if there is a test or qualification about getting that information, as it can take longer, be more expensive and does not do the job that this clause is probably intended to do.
As we know from other Troubles-related investigations, relevant information can be held by different authorities and different agencies. One of the things that the commission—I say that to save having to go through the initials and stumble over them—will have to do is access that information quickly if it is to gain as complete a picture as possible. I will be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say and hope that he will view the amendments sympathetically when he comes to respond.
I understand the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has put forward the amendments about the affirmative resolution. I think there is a general issue about government regulations; they seem to be heavily weighted. If we were to look at a chart of how many decisions are made or how much legislation can be done by secondary legislation, I think we would see quite a sharp incline in recent years. It is not a big leap from a negative to an affirmative procedure; it just guarantees that it will come before both Houses. But these are quite big issues. If something cannot be in the Bill, and if there are reasons why it has to be done by regulation, then it seems perfectly reasonable to have the affirmative procedure. Will that be enough, given that, as we all know, statutory instruments are an adequate of way of legislating when everything is set out first in the primary legislation? As I understand it, this is about looking at individual cases. I hope the Minister can give some reassurances on that. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has done the Committee a service by bringing forward these amendments today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have put forward these amendments. In responding, I am conscious of the experience in these matters of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, both in her role as police ombudsman and in the subsequent investigations and reviews that she has carried out.
The noble Baroness’s Amendments 37, 40, 191 and 197 aim to redefine the disclosure requirements of certain relevant authorities by, as she pointed out, creating a new tier of “special relevant authority”. This would mean that any authorities left in the “relevant authority” category, such as the ombudsman or the chief constable of the PSNI, would be required to disclose all material to the ICRIR regardless of whether or not it is reasonably required, while certain other agencies, such as MI5 and MI6—the Secret Intelligence Service—would be able to rely on the provisions as drafted, being required to provide information only where reasonably required.
The Government’s view is that the amendments are unnecessary, as we are clear that the disclosure provisions in the Bill already go further than ever before in statute in terms of putting relevant authorities under a duty to disclose information if it is reasonably required by the commission for its investigations.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way; I know that it is late. I just want to let him know that, as police ombudsman, I had a power to require information. There was no requirement of reasonableness in the requests; clearly, the requests were reasonable, but there was no requirement for them to be so. This is a new requirement.
Lord Caine (Con)
I totally accept what the noble Baroness says about her experience as police ombudsman; I think that it has been less straightforward in the case of information from other bodies over the years. That is why the Government have placed this obligation on bodies to disclose information, which goes further than ever before. Indeed, the provisions directly mirror those included in the draft legislation to give effect to the 2014 Stormont House agreement, so they have been around for some time, certainly in draft form.
The noble Baroness will be aware that “reasonableness” is not a term created or policed by the Government. It is widely used and understood; it is included in other legislation, such as the Finance Act 2008; and it has a specific purpose in terms of creating obligations on others to provide information. The law requires all public bodies to exercise their powers reasonably and proportionately. It is open to authorities to challenge an assessment of reasonableness, of course, but our expectation is that the ICRIR would request the information only if it were reasonably required for the purposes of discharging its functions, so any challenge would be likely to fail if the commission followed this practice. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide whether the commission has acted reasonably in any case.
On Amendments 39 and 185, which would add to the list of individuals who may be required to assist the commission in handling information that they have disclosed under Clause 5, the Government are confident that all relevant individuals are already listed in the legislation. However, I am happy to take that away and look at the clause again.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, pointed out, Amendment 145 in her name—I welcome her to our debates—would require regulations regarding the retention of biometric material under Clause 31 to be made by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I assure her that the Government take their international obligations in this area—and in other areas, I hasten to add—very seriously. We are confident that our approach to the retention of legacy biometrics, if I can use that term, is compliant with the relevant European Court of Human Rights rulings in this area.
To remain compliant at all times, the commission will need to carry out regular, periodic reviews of the data that it retains for the purposes of its investigations, as set out in Clause 31(2)(a). This will of necessity involve the commission making decisions regarding the deletion or retention of certain data based on strict proportionality criteria that we will outline in secondary legislation. We feel that the negative procedure will provide an appropriate level of scrutiny for a power such as this, that is very limited in scope in the sense that it exists solely to ensure ECHR compliance in this area through the appropriate management of biometric material retained by the commission. The regulation-making power ensures that the commission retains only a limited category of biometric material in prescribed circumstances, for a limited purpose and a limited amount of time, after which it will fall for deletion.
The power allows only relevant biometrics to be retained and used by the commission to ensure there can be effective Article 2 investigations, while also ensuring compatibility with the provisions of Article 8 relating to the right to a private life. It also allows for biometric data no longer needed by the commission to be deleted, again to ensure ECHR compliance. So, in our view the power is proportionate and does not, for example, enable the commission to take new biometric data from individuals, but if the noble Baroness still has concerns about this, again, I am very happy to sit down with her. On that basis, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This increases the maximum penalty for failure to comply with an information notice under section 14 from £1,000 to £5,000.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I plan to be brief. At the introduction, the Bill made provision for amendments to the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, with the effect that a person convicted of a Troubles-related offence could, in future, apply for immediate release from prison, regardless of the amount of time served, thus removing even the current two-year minimum requirement. This reflected a focus on reconciliation. But a number of Members in the other place, as the Bill was going through, questioned the rationale behind this approach, arguing that it would not encourage people who may have information to come forward and provide it in seeking immunity. This is a very fair and reasonable challenge, and one which was also raised by a number of interested groups and parties during the engagement that I have been extensively carrying out since the summer. I have therefore carefully reflected on this, and I am pleased to bring forward an amendment that will address this issue and, in the Government’s view, strengthen the Bill. Under these amendments, only certain categories of people will be eligible for the early release scheme in future. These are people who were convicted before the establishment of the Bill’s conditional immunity scheme as well as people who were convicted after it but following a prosecution that began before.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, with respect, I am not sure why these measures are described as incentives. Certainly, the victims and survivors whom I met yesterday did not regard them in any way as incentives, and it does not seem to me or them that those who hold information that may be of use to the ICRIR and do not provide it in accordance with the notice under Clause 14 are likely to be incentivised by an increase in the possible fine from £1,000 to £5,000. I will simply say that I do not see this as providing any incentive to someone to provide information if they are reluctant to do so. Bearing in mind that the information may reveal that the person or organisation they represent may have done something that relates to, or constitutes part of, a Troubles-related offence, that reputational issue, with all its potential consequential damage, could be a compelling reason not to disclose information. I think the changes made by Amendments 168 to 170 are not of great significance because they seem to apply to a very limited subset of people.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I want briefly to ask the Minister how he feels people should be incentivised and whether this is the case in the Bill. The reality, as we have heard in previous debates, is that in many cases the consequences of not co-operating are nothing. If you do not co-operate, nothing happens. If the risk of co-operating is increased from £1,000 to £5,000, it is neither here nor there. Would the Minister explain why making that change would significantly affect the number of people who co-operate? Does he accept that victims are somewhat concerned that there is a desire to incentivise certain people to come forward and not others? It will do nothing to ensure that they get the information, knowledge or understanding that they need.
I know that the Minister is trying to reassure people that he is balancing the needs of victims with the concerns of veterans. The danger is that he ends up satisfying neither and alienating both. To what extent does he feel that this contributes constructively to the effective working of the commission?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
These are reasonably sensible amendments, but they go only so far. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are valid and we look forward to the Minister’s reply. If these amendments came to a vote, it is highly unlikely that we would oppose them. It was quite good that the Minister had, for example on Amendment 84, listened to the victims’ commissioner. We look forward to his reply.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to those who took part in this short debate. By way of a brief response, I disagree on the point about incentives. I have spoken to a number of victims’ groups and political parties that, while they might not like other parts of the Bill, have no issue with this and think it a sensible strengthening of the incentives to co-operate and the disincentives not to.
Having reflected on the earlier versions of the Bill, the Government think it right and proportionate that somebody who chooses not to co-operate with the commission on an investigation, if they are subsequently prosecuted and convicted in the normal way, should face and be liable to a full sentence. In many of the circumstances covered by this legislation, such as the Troubles-related offences, that could mean a sentence of life imprisonment. As a matter of common sense, that would be a stronger incentive to co-operate than an individual perhaps serving two years or no sentence at all. This is a sensible and proportionate change to the Bill which should genuinely encourage people to co-operate. If they do not co-operate, they do so in the knowledge that, if someone comes knocking on their door and they are convicted, they are liable for a lengthy prison term. I withdraw the amendment for now.
Baroness Suttie
“(c) allow those persons to submit, for inclusion in the final report, a victim impact statement which sets out the physical, emotional, social or financial impact upon them of the matters contained in the report.(4A) The ICRIR must produce guidance on the support available to assist in drafting the statement in subsection (4)(c) and suggested matters for inclusion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to give victims and survivors a voice within the ICRIR process by providing the opportunity to set out the impact upon them of the matters contained in the ICRIR report.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 94 and 95, tabled in my name and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The Minister will recognise that these amendments are from the victims’ commissioner and that they seek to focus the Bill more on the needs of victims. The amendments aim to give victims and survivors a greater voice within the new commission process by allowing those victims who want to do so to submit an impact assessment to be included in the final report. These statements would allow victims to set out in detail the physical, emotional, social or financial impact that the matters contained in the report have had on their lives.
The second section of each of these amendments would require the ICRIR to provide guidance on the support that should be made available to the victims to produce these statements. These seem to me to be fairly straightforward and reasonable amendments, and a relatively small set to add to the Bill. These changes would provide at least some additional support for victims in the process. I hope the Minister might feel able to concede this. I would be very happy to discuss them in more detail between now and Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have been a signatory to these amendments and to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in dealing with the needs of victims. The need for these amendments became very apparent last night, when we were talking to the victims associated with SEFF. As we have already explained, many of them experienced undue suffering and terrible hardship as a result of the summary execution of their loved ones, whether they were members of the security forces or ordinary members of the community.
The victims’ commissioner and his commission are absolutely correct in their assertion, based on feedback from members of the Victims and Survivors Forum and victims themselves: it is important that they can tell their story and the impact of that immediate and summary loss on them, their families and their wider community. That is vitally important and should be permitted. I make a plea to the Minister to give due consideration to these amendments. Maybe the Government would consider coming back on Report and inserting them in the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which provide for the inclusion of victim impact assessments, which are now part of normal criminal justice processes, in the consideration of a final report on a review or an investigation.
I cannot help noticing that the word “victims” appears but twice in the Bill. One is in Clause 49, which states that the designated persons are to be appointed by the Secretary of State under Clause 50 if he
“is satisfied that the person would make a significant contribution to the performance of the functions which are imposed by sections 43, 44 and 46”,
in Part 4, “Memorialising the Troubles”. Clause 50 states:
“When deciding whether to designate a person, the Secretary of State must have regard to whether the person is supported by different communities in Northern Ireland and will act independently of the influence of any other persons.”
Questions must arise here. Do they have to be supported by different communities? What are different communities? Are we back to sectarian headcounts? The legislation provides that:
“The designated persons must use their best endeavours to establish an advisory forum consisting of other persons”—
simply “use their best endeavours”, not just establish it—including
“persons who represent the views of victims and survivors of events and conduct forming part of the Troubles”.
The only other reference to victims appears in paragraph 5 of Schedule 11, which relates to the situation in which a person asks the Secretary of State for information about any application which may have been made for release under the sentences Act by a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for at least five years or for life. Two fairly insignificant changes are made to the information to be provided to the victim about the convicted person. In a Bill that the Government have presented as being designed to bring reconciliation to Northern Ireland, these minor but very important amendments would do something to promote the interests of victims.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I too want to give some support to this amendment because it touches on what we were crying out for in earlier debates, which is a small but significant voice for victims. As I tried to say this afternoon, these are real people who would perceive in some ways the legislation as it stands as being tilted against the victimhood that they had suffered. I want to see some more thought given to what that means, but I support the pith and substance of what is involved.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I too support Amendments 94 and 96 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, but I shall speak briefly to the amendment that I have tabled, Amendment 166. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, most strikingly.
For many interested parties, the starting point for any legacy case should be to find the truth of what happened to the families affected. Families want to be heard and acknowledged and they want a robust and independent investigation to find the truth, and that is what Operation Kenova does very effectively and why it is so popular. Victims and families are realistic about the prospects of bringing the culprits to justice. Many families and victims for a variety of reasons do not want criminal prosecutions; they want to discover the truth. The Minister referred to that indirectly. The reasons for not wanting a prosecution include toxic residual attitudes within the communities towards the Troubles and towards the prosecution of paramilitaries or the security forces. The culpability of the various terrorist groups involved, the unwanted media and public attention that the legacy cases attract, especially where the state might have failed its citizens, and the time that legacy cases take to prosecute all cause strong reactions. These reactions and issues can lead to the intimidation and further traumatising of victims and bereaved families. Therefore, their views must be considered by the Police Service of Northern Ireland when taking prosecution decisions.
The voice of those most seriously affected—victims and the bereaved families—was not considered when the Good Friday agreement resulted in paramilitaries being released, paramilitary weapons being decommissioned beyond forensic examination and those involved in violence being allowed into power sharing. These were undoubtedly important and necessary elements that thankfully brought peace, but we must now allow victims to have at least a voice in the prosecutor deciding the direction of their case. These decisions can have serious consequences for victims and families. This can be provided for through a new codification of the public interest test for legacy cases that permits the opinion of the victim and the family to be considered by the prosecutor. That is what Amendment 166 seeks to achieve, and I hope the Government will consider supporting it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I think we have to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has pointed out something very significant. I suspect many have not noticed it but, with her forensic mind, she has drawn our attention to the fact that “victim” is mentioned only twice in the Bill. That has concerned my party for quite some time. We have always contended —I know it has been said by others—that this Bill should have victims at its heart and soul. That is what it should be about.
It has to be remembered that more than 3,000 people were killed. I do not cast them all as victims because there were those who were caught in their own explosions and blew themselves to pieces, so judgment was swift there, but I include all innocent victims from whatever side—I care little about it—of the community they may have come. However, I am firmly of the opinion, as are others, that this Bill is not amendable. Maybe we would have done this House, the Minister and everybody else more justice if we had not put in any amendments and had said, “This is just not doable.”
I see that even the Minister’s own Back-Benchers have, to all intents and purposes, forsaken him. He cannot just blame the Opposition, the Lib Dems, the Cross-Benchers or the DUP—and we often get blamed for everything. He will have to blame his own side for not coming in and covering his back this evening; but I do not lay the blame at his feet. I believe that he is here with some degree of reluctance. He has been asked to steer a Bill in which I do not think he has great confidence; having listened to everybody this evening, I think he will go home with even less.
I certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. As I said earlier, we owe her a debt for pointing out very clearly that “victim” is mentioned twice; I do not think we need to hear much more.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, having had a long debate, we are now moving at pace. These are interesting amendments. Just as the immunity debate went to the heart of the Bill, in many ways this one does as well. Although we have not seen victims mentioned much in the Bill, it is entitled the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, and if victims are not at the heart of what we do here, it is hard to see how reconciliation follows. That is what prompted the amendments before us today.
I have said before in this place that one of the most profound experiences I had was as victims and survivors Minister for Northern Ireland, which I did for about two and a half years. There is not a homogenous design whereby you can say, “Victims want this.” Different people have had different experiences, and different things have happened to them in different ways. There is not one experience whereby everyone can say, “Yes, that is how I feel; this is what I want.” They are looking for different things, and that is what makes this so complex and these amendments so important.
As has been noted, some will be saying, “We want justice. We know who is responsible. There should be action.” Others say, “I just need to know the truth. I want to know what happened”, because the agony of not knowing is so great. In some cases, knowing what happened creates additional agony. I remember a discussion where the truth for one individual was going to be awful. They wanted it and needed it, but it was not a pleasant experience for them in any way at all. Others just want acknowledgement that this is what they and their families went through. When we are talking about victims and survivors, one thing that was brought home to us all by those we met during the process of this Bill is that the trauma of what happened can survive several generations. It is not just the individual who has been through the experience of the Troubles; the family can be affected, whether financially, emotionally or physically.
This group of amendments is really helpful and goes to the heart of what the Bill should be about. Possibly the biggest failure of the Government is not recognising that. There have been a lot of warm words for the Minister, and they are well deserved, but he is there to support the Government in defending this Bill and he may be disappointed that only one member of his party is behind him to offer support. We have all been there; it can be a lonely experience on the Front Bench in those circumstances—although I am not sure I have ever been in quite the same circumstances. That is why, if he cannot say tonight that he will accept these amendments, it would do the Government well if he can say what he will bring forward to address the issues that have been raised.
My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lady Ritchie have signed these amendments, which allow family members to provide a victim impact statement as part of the review process. Without that, this will be one of the biggest failures of the Bill—and we have mentioned many tonight.
The Bill allows family members to refer cases and make general representations, but it is not clear what the family member gains from that process. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has proposed, the Bill explicitly allows statements and for the proper resourcing of that process, that would go some way towards some resolution of that issue. It would not go the whole way; I think the Bill is so badly drafted and ill-conceived that it cannot address all the issues. The noble Lord made the point that has been made many times today in every part of the Bill: we would not start from here, but as Members of this House we have a duty to do what we can and fulfil our role—though I have been struck by how many of the individuals and organisations that I have spoken to have said they almost feel they are compromising their own integrity by bringing forward and suggesting amendments and changes to us.
I commend my noble friend Lord Hain on the different approach that he has taken. It is not one that I had considered before and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on it. My noble friend is suggesting that we amend the code for prosecutors, and he talks about how that could be done: it would take account of
“the likelihood of the accused re-offending … the time elapsed since the offence … the volume and seriousness of the crime, and … the character and behaviour of the accused since offending.”
The code would have to
“ensure that the views, interests and well-being of victims, and of the families of deceased victims, are considered when determining whether criminal proceedings should be instituted for a Troubles-related offence.”
I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that tonight. If he cannot give any satisfaction then I hope he will agree to have further meetings so that we can progress it. It seems to me that this is one of the biggest failings of the Bill, and it is what has caused so much upset and unhappiness among those who will be affected by this legislation.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords. When the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and my noble friend Lord Morrow were referring to the lack of members of my own party sitting behind me tonight, I could not help but reflect on the famous poster, with which noble Lords behind me at least will be very familiar, from the period of the third home rule Bill, with the caption:
“Deserted! Well—I can stand alone.”
Lord Caine (Con)
Maybe, like Ulster in 1912, I have no choice.
I appreciate the sentiments behind these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the fact that victims groups are not a homogenous group of people. People are looking for different things. She referred to her time as victims Minister. As I have said before, I have probably met more groups over many decades than any person, certainly any politician, who does not live in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday was the 51st anniversary of the events of Bloody Sunday. I vividly recall that, a few weeks after David Cameron responded to the Saville inquiry in June 2010, I went with the then Secretary of State to the City Hotel in Derry, where we met members of the Bloody Sunday families. It will not be any surprise that they did not all speak with one voice. Some of them thought that what had happened with Saville and David Cameron’s response was fantastic: “We can now move on and get on with the rest of our lives”. Others said to us, “It was fantastic, we really appreciate it, but now we want to see the next phase of this, which is prosecutions”. I have referred to the later time when it came to taking a decision on that. Another group—by far the smallest—said to us, “Well, the Saville inquiry did not finger Edward Heath, Brian Faulkner or the military top brass and so on, therefore it’s a whitewash and, 12 years and £200 million later, we need another inquiry”. So I was struck that, even on an issue such as that, where most people suggest that the Government got it right in June 2010, not everybody was satisfied and people wanted different outcomes.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very positive and indeed united short debate, and I thank all noble Lords who participated. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for signing my amendment. Like others, I was very struck by the fact that there are only two references in the Bill to victims. The Minister might want to take that away and think about it.
I was also very struck by the phrase used by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. He said that these amendments would be a small but significant step forward in giving a greater voice to victims. It is very welcome that the Minister is making positive noises, and I look forward to speaking to him before Report and perhaps continuing a conversation with Ian Jeffers, the victims’ commissioner, about how they could reflect victims’ views as transferred to him. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 29th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (27 Mar 2023)
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
‘‘(6A) Condition D: the immunity requests panel is satisfied that P is not engaged in activity that is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as precluding reconciliation.(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), “activity” means conduct, speech or writing of any description by P which serves to publicise and promote P’s disclosed conduct or glorify the commission, preparation or instigation of any Troubles-related offence.(6C) For the purposes of subsection (6A), “activity” means any activity described in subsection (6B) irrespective of whether P seeks or receives financial reward.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in this group, I will speak to Amendments 116, 117, 118, 127, 132 and 177 in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment 116 would
“require an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution.”
Of course, at Second Reading, we debated at some length the general issues regarding the Bill, but we now come to the glorification of terrorism, which has become a very real issue in Northern Ireland over recent months and the last number of years, with the rising tide of people engaged in such activity. We have seen sickening videos of many young people, born long after the ceasefires and the Belfast agreement, seemingly revelling in glorifying IRA terrorism. Others engage in other activities on their side as well, but it seems particularly prevalent among young republicans, and it is causing real concern that there seems to be a sanitisation of the IRA’s murderous campaign.
This is not helped by the vice-president of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who has gone around telling people that there was no alternative to the IRA’s campaign. But of course, as the leaders of democratic nationalism made clear during all of those years, there always was an alternative and there was never an excuse for murder, violence and mayhem. When that is the sort of leadership—or lack of leadership —provided, it is little wonder that people now take their lead from that and say, “If this is what our leaders are saying, we should glorify these people and celebrate them”, rather than making it clear that there was no space for such murderous activity. That is of course compounded by numerous examples of leading Sinn Féin elected representatives attending memorials, eulogising terrorists, praising their past activities and justifying murder today. It is one thing to have supported this kind of murderous campaign at the time, but still to eulogise that murderous activity nowadays is totally unacceptable.
The building in which the MP for South Down has his office is named after two IRA terrorists. You can hardly say that that is inclusive and welcoming. You have GAA clubs commemorating IRA terrorists on their property—not in their capacity as members of the GAA club, or even as part of the GAA in general, but as volunteers in the Provisional IRA in East Tyrone. This is doing absolutely nothing for people’s faith in the restoration of the devolved Administration at Stormont. We debated earlier the issues around that, including all the concerns, difficulties and challenges. There is a very toxic situation in Northern Ireland at the moment, and there are many examples where those elected to the Stormont Assembly are acting in a way which is, I fear, stoking the flames of sectarianism and stoking this toxic atmosphere in which violence is eulogised and glorified.
In this group of amendments, we are putting forward an attempt to tackle some of those issues, and we are seeking for the Government to take on board the real concerns in this area—reconciliation and legacy. We need to address seriously the ongoing problem of the glorification of violence. I thank the Minister for his engagement with me and my colleagues and for our discussions thus far. I hope that we can find a way forward to try to deal with this matter as part of the Bill.
“Reconciliation”, which I have already mentioned, is contained in the title of the Bill. But, as we have noted, it appears that there is not much of substance in relation to reconciliation in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others have pointed out. There is very little reference to the concept. We believe that it should be made clear in Clause 18 that the conditions for immunity—which are outlined in Clause 18(1)—should be applied not just at the point when the perpetrator applies for immunity but thereafter, so that, if an individual is engaged in activity which could be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation by glorifying violence, eroding support for the rule of law or retraumatising victims, that will have an effect on their status of immunity, if the Bill is to go through.
Of course, it is important to stress that the harm posed by such activity extends much further than just the injustice of a perpetrator seeking or obtaining personal reward or profit from his or her criminal deeds. That is why, while I have no difficulty with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, Amendments 148 and 167, I do not believe that they go far enough. This condition should also capture any conduct, speech or written material that has the effect, or can be reasonably regarded to have the effect, of influencing public opinion on the past in such a way that justifies and sanitises violence. It should also cover the situation in which an individual attempts to contact relatives of victims without their consent.
I shall go reasonably quickly through the amendments, because it has been a long day thus far, but it is important to outline briefly what they attempt to do. Amendment 117 would
“require the Commissioner for Investigations to refer a file to the PPS when an individual is found to have engaged in activity likely to prevent reconciliation”.
In a scenario where the immunity request panel receives conclusive evidence that an applicant or recipient of immunity is engaged in activity that runs against the grain of reconciliation for the crimes that they have perpetrated, the ICRIR should be under an obligation to assess whether they have committed an offence under the Terrorism Act or the separate, aggravated offence that we propose in respect of the glorification of terrorism in Amendment 177. There should be a duty to pass a file to the Public Prosecution Service for direction. That link between potential possible identified offences and criminal enforcement should be clear in the Bill.
Amendment 118
“is intended to prevent the grant of immunity to any person subject to active proceedings who has moved abroad to escape prosecution”.
This is a separate amendment, not so much on the issue that I have spoken about thus far but related to it. We have had examples of well-known individuals who have left the jurisdiction, gone abroad and escaped prosecution. As drafted, the Bill could have the effect of encouraging such people to return to Northern Ireland to live out their final days there in close proximity to those whom they have terrorised. That is because there is no stipulation for anyone previously subject to a warrant, arrest or charge, who subsequently fled Northern Ireland, to be prohibited from claiming immunity. The amendment seeks to address that issue.
Amendment 127
“is intended to clarify that the granting of immunity under this Bill does not preclude prosecution of an individual for offences of encouraging and glorifying terrorism”.
Legitimate concerns have been raised surrounding the framing of general immunity. In the other place, colleagues tabled amendments in an effort to get more clarity on the parameters of this issue. It is prudent that the wording of Clause 18 should prevent the perpetrator from contending that the scope of his or her immunity extends to waiving criminal liability for activities that encourage or glorify terrorism. Immunity must be specific to offences that the conduct disclosed by an individual clearly identifies involvement in. Precluding prosecution for a Troubles-related offence under certain conditions is entirely different from that offence no longer being treated as criminal under the law. In truth, those lines should never have been allowed to become blurred.
I have referred to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and we have a lot of sympathy with them, as I say. But we believe that, in ruling out the idea of profit from people’s crimes, the legislation should go further. It is not enough simply to say that a recipient of immunity cannot obtain reward from exploiting their offence: the act of speaking or writing about the offence in such a way that promotes or glorifies it should itself be prohibited, whether or not reward is in play.
I beg to move, and look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and noble Baronesses.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I ask the Committee to consider them not in the detail of the proposed wording but in the entirety of their spirit and background, with which the Minister is very well acquainted. It is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has just said, that we take a wide view of what should be removed from immunity.
I have devoted a great deal—in fact, most—of my adult life to working for reconciliation. In the process, I have met many young people sucked into the paramilitary machine, not always realising what was happening to them—that was the human tragedy of it—but living to regret that they had allowed this to happen in their lives. I see these amendments in terms of those young people. I have seen what some of them have managed to do with their lives You might perhaps call it reconciliation; I prefer to call it a reawakening of conscience and of isolation from paramilitary activity. The success stories that I have seen have been from those who recognised that there was not an easy path to follow but that it was worth following. Those are the young people who these amendments are mostly targeted at.
I have seen those who have paid the price for what they have done. They have served their time and have managed to build some sort of decency to their lives. But I have also seen some who are extremely subtle in the way in which they have embarked on a continuing career that encourages others to be involved in criminal activity. I put it on the record, and ask the Minister to consider in his response, that we have to take the broadest possible attitude to the way in which society deals with what we call reconciliation, particularly in Northern Ireland terms. It is easy to write about it, to make money out of it and to establish it in programmes, the media and published work—you name it, it is there. This group of amendments reminds the Committee that we have to be realistic and to recognise that these things do happen and that there is no way in which any society moving forward can grant immunity to those who constantly find ways of escaping the net that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has spoken of.
Lastly, in supporting these amendments, I urge the Minister to recognise that there is a reality about them that perhaps was not captured by the title of this legislation. The reality is that reconciliation can be judged only by your actions, your way of life and the purpose to which you put it, rather than just saying it with your lips.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments and I support what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, just said about children. Children are the future for Northern Ireland, and integrated education and more understanding between the communities are all-important. This form of glorification is directly appealing to them. The integrated schools are fine. We are also moving into joint campuses—or I hope we are. In my local village of Brookeborough, they currently do one day of joint education between the Catholic maintained school and the state primary school. Half the school goes each way; I happened to go and visit it the other day. It was really good and the children were really enjoying it; it was fantastic. Another school further up the country was meant to be on the list but has been taken off the list because it was not doing joint education before and the parents all objected. The key is that integrating schools is by choice. The future is that these schools will be integrated because that is the only place they will have to go to school, but all this glorification—these songs and everything else—is in direct conflict with that.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, anyone who lived through the years of Northern Ireland’s violent past will understand that we want to save the present generation and generations to come from such an awful fate. Practically every week I meet a family that still feels the hurt and endures the scars of the past, whether it be the widow who still grieves or the little boy or girl who has had to be raised without a father because their father was brutally murdered.
In light of the serious, severe threat for the future that has now been announced by the Secretary of State, we need to be very careful. If folks are glorifying acts of terrorism, young people can easily get sucked into this and think that it is just a bit of a thrill. The lives of those who get involved will be scarred. I am speaking about those who are actually involved in acts of terrorism, because their lives, their conscience, will never be the same again. Quite a number of them cannot live with their conscience and quite a number have done themselves to death.
The glorification of murder cannot be accepted. It is very sad when the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland excuses the years of murder and mayhem that the Province experienced, stating that there was no alternative. Ministers in the past have rightly said that there always was an alternative, and that was the pathway of democracy. But the reason Michelle O’Neill says this is that they are rewriting history. They want to excuse and cover up the bloodthirsty past that many of them have.
I am fearful that this is the mindset that, even today, political leaders in Sinn Féin engender in the hearts of their young people. From their earliest days, they have ingrained in their minds a deep hatred of Britishness and those who desire to remain British. When I was growing up in Northern Ireland, people could live together. They could have completely different political outlooks but nevertheless lived within one community. They lived and let live.
History reminds us that there is a small step from holding that hatred in your heart to its expression in acts of murder and brutality. It is disgusting that over recent months we have seen an increasing number of incidents where young nationalists and republicans chant “Up the Ra!”, whether it be at Gaelic matches, in bars or at west Belfast community events, glorifying some of the vilest past atrocities that many of us lived through.
Skulking behind a hedge in the darkness and gunning down a member of the security forces during the Troubles was not an act of bravery. Neither was it courageous to set up your workmate, who fed you from his lunchbox, only to plant a bomb under his van at work, as happened in West Tyrone to a young man I knew very well. In Nan Rices Bar in Newry, social media displays crowds of young people singing this republican propaganda. Can anyone imagine what the innocent victims of terrorism feel when they hear this laughter and singing commemorating some of the vilest atrocities in our Province? It opens up deep wounds that only those who have experienced it will understand.
There is nothing to be proud of in acts of terror of any community. We must therefore do everything within our power to ensure that terrorists are taken off the backs of the people of the Province and that the Government never again permit through appeasement, as they have in the past, terrorists to get a grip of the community. I wholeheartedly support the amendments in my noble friend’s name.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Clause 18 and immunity from prosecution. Those provisions are profoundly flawed, as was stated just two weeks ago by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which condemned the immunity provisions.
This group of amendments is described as relating to glorification. They seek to ensure that a person seeking to avail themselves of the immunity provisions that we have discussed, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, is not engaged in activity which precludes reconciliation. For that reason, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord. We have seen a whole range of activity which undermines attempts at reconciliation on both sides of the community and activity referring to past atrocities and glorifying those involved. The noble Lord gave a very graphic example in South Down.
I think also of the murals, in particular one in north Belfast that I regard almost with terror; it depicts two hooded gunmen who say, “Prepared for peace, ready for war”. It is a declaration of war and has stayed there regardless of all the attempts at promoting reconciliation. Many of these murals have been painted over, but some very deliberately have not. The problem is that there is nothing to be glorified in shootings, bombings, torture or exile. We all know that what results from those is pain, trauma and terror that sometimes lasts a lifetime.
I have worked with people who were at some of those incidents, where gunmen arrived to shoot somebody in a workman’s hut, or something like that, and 20 or 30 years on they still live in terror of those who came, because they did not get shot dead and others did. So I do support those amendments.
I have put my name to Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because that seeks to prevent individuals who have been granted immunity from profiting from their conduct, in relation to the offence for which they might be granted immunity, through empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit such activity.
I have put my name also to Amendment 177, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, which creates a new offence of glorifying terrorism. I think it could be quite difficult to prosecute and it may need a little fine-tuning. Perhaps the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has indicated how we should approach this, namely by accepting the purpose of the amendment and agreeing on that.
For the moment, the immunity provisions themselves have been roundly condemned, nationally and internationally; there is no merit in them. I hope that, ultimately, your Lordships will reject not only immunity provisions but the Bill also.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, in terms of this group of amendments, I think most of us would be of the view that we do not regard the Bill itself as being acceptable, so this is not an attempt to turn something that is unacceptable into being acceptable, but there is, at least, a duty on us to try to make what improvements we can.
We do not agree with concept of immunity, but it is undoubtedly the case that, if there is some provision for immunity, it has to be on the strictest conditions. Therefore, provisions that are contained within these amendments, which rule it out in circumstances where somebody is preventing reconciliation or glorifying terrorism, is a step in the right direction. There is deep hurt caused to victims of terrorism and their families whenever they see those who have been engaged with terrorism glorifying it. I think this is not the intention of the Bill, but there is a danger that, if the Bill were to go through unamended, it could inadvertently facilitate these “terror tours” or “terror talks”, and unfortunately almost act as encouragement, because those who have previously been involved in those activities will feel they have a level of carte blanche to do that. It is important we do not see a rewriting of history.
It is also the case that the glorification of terrorism per se is wrong. It does not matter whether it is a glorification of republican or loyalist terrorism, or terrorism from another part of the world; it is deeply wrong. As others have said, this is not simply about the past; it is about the future also, and it is deeply concerning that at times we are seeing the casualisation of the celebration of terrorism, and the embracing of it, particularly by a generation who never experienced it.
I will give two recent examples which are not hearsay; one of them is on social media. Shortly after the Omagh shooting, police moved in to make arrests and they arrested a young man who was not even born at the time of the Good Friday agreement. Somebody videoed that occasion, when some of the neighbours were coming out and applauding the person as they were being arrested. That is deeply worrying. On another occasion very recently, a friend of mine sent me a screenshot of a product that is available not on some niche website or from a paramilitary-linked group, but from a mainstream, UK-wide online shopping facility. It was a card you could buy for £3.50. It had a picture of someone in paramilitary uniform, wearing a balaclava and a beret, and had the phrase “Tiocfaidh Ár Lá” on it. Underneath it said, “Happy Mother’s Day”, which is quite chilling. And that is the problem. We are, unfortunately, reaching a point where there is a normalisation of the glorification of terrorism, so I believe that these are important steps to take and I hope that the Committee can unite around these amendments.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. As someone who, like others in this Chamber, has been the victim of terrorism, it really galls me to see people who for a number of years did not do this—I think the fact that they left a space between the end of the violence and now is quite deliberate—and are now encouraging and romanticising what happened during those dark days of what are euphemistically called the Troubles.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I rise very briefly to say that I do not think anyone could not support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and indeed all the amendments in this group. We should all abhor the glorification of terrorism, but we have to recognise that it has sometimes come about because of a longer period of sanitising terrorism. As a society in Northern Ireland, we have accepted unrepentant terrorists being able to end up on the Policing Board and other agencies within government. If unrepentant terrorists are given or can achieve such positions, that sends a message out. I understand why this is, given the way our system works in Northern Ireland, but it does not help in telling young people that there is something wrong with terrorism if you can end up in such a position, or in government, without having in any way repented, or said that what happened was wrong, or condemned it.
One other thing which may come up later, either tonight or another time, is that through the definition of a victim in Northern Ireland, we have somehow also sanitised terrorism. The definition of a victim in Northern Ireland can be someone who perpetrated an act and put the bomb wherever it went off. That is just not acceptable. They would not be seen as a victim in the rest of the United Kingdom. So, we have to look ourselves at some ways that we have actually helped to get to a situation where young people now feel that there is absolutely nothing wrong in chanting and singing support for the IRA. Indeed, the First Minister herself said that there was no alternative, and we have then had the threat level going up this week. We have to think that there might be some kind of effect there, with people thinking, “Well, clearly there was no alternative then, so there is obviously still no alternative”. Therefore, we have actually encouraged the sanitisation of terrorism.
I will say one mild thing to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. Yes, integrated schools are fine, but do not let us go away with this idea that somehow state grammar or secondary schools are not doing their bit. For example, at the state grammar school I went to, Belfast Royal Academy, now nearly 40% of the young people are from a Catholic background. When I was there, there were hardly any young people from Catholic backgrounds but there were a large number of people from a Jewish background. Unfortunately, many of the Jewish people in Northern Ireland left and we have a very small Jewish community now. This idea that a Catholic in a certain area is stopped from going to a state school is just wrong. We have to say that the Catholic Church has a lot to do with this; I do not think there is any point in trying to ignore that. Therefore, integrated schools are fine, but they are much better if they come naturally.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
To place this on the record, does the noble Baroness agree that Catholic schools now have a significant proportion of Protestant pupils as well? This movement of children is dominated and dictated by the quality of the schools.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right; that is happening on all sides of the community. However, if you become an integrated school, you get a lot of extra money. A lot of schools now are becoming integrated—of course they have to sign up to the whole ethos of it. I am just putting in a slight point that integrated education is not this panacea that it somehow gets taken for. Particularly for the diaspora from Northern Ireland in England, that is the sort of thing it gets involved in, calling for integrated education.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are important and I hope that when we come to the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, will have found a way of getting this into the final Bill.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, obviously I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments. I have never really agreed with the phrase that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. There is never any sort of justification for killing innocent people, particularly women and children and people going about their business. The only killing I suppose you can justify—and even that is doubtful—is in wars, if you have to do it in self-defence or whatever. There is no justification for the wickedness that accompanies such terrorism—none whatsoever. It offends both my human and my Christian principles; you cannot glorify these things.
However, I accept that there is a generational problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, for example. Just after the Good Friday agreement, there was a different feeling about the place, and as the generations go on and they forget what everybody has talked about today, things change and people’s attitudes change. Perhaps they ought to look at some pictures of the mayhem, murder and destruction caused by terrorism. I have said it before in the Chamber that one of the worst times in my political life, if not the worst, was when I had to go to Omagh two days after the bombing and talk to the relatives of the children who had been killed there. How on earth can we justify that sort of activity? There is no justification.
My own amendments refer specifically to people making money out of glorifying terrorism and that they should not be allowed so to do. The issue that the Minister faces is that, although everybody agrees that this is the wrong thing to do, how we then incorporate that into law and at the same time ensure that we all take into account what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said to us today: this is all about reconciliation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, and I am in great sympathy with just about every word that has been said. I can remember a number of years ago being in the Northern Ireland Office when a Republican parade was organised in Castlederg to commemorate two IRA bombers who had blown themselves up when taking a bomb into the town in the early 1970s. I remember meeting the Derg Valley victims’ group on that occasion and the total distress and anger that the parade was causing. At the time, we condemned it in pretty unequivocal terms. Noble Lords have referred to more recent examples such as young children chanting slogans such as “Up the Ra”. I recall last year that an Irish language rap group called Kneecap, which noble Lords will understand has a specific meaning in Northern Ireland, performed at a festival where they even unveiled a mural depicting a burning police car. It is horrendous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to sanitisation and my noble friend Lord Weir to the casualisation of terrorism. Other friends of mine have referred to the Disneyfication of terrorism, and it has become quite a problem. For the sake of absolute clarity, in condemning any glorification of terrorism I apply that equally to any attempts to glorify the activities of loyalist paramilitaries over the years. It remains my view, and the Government’s view, that no taking of human life was ever justified in the Troubles. To paraphrase John Hume, I think it was, no injustice, whether perceived or real, ever justified the taking of a single life in Northern Ireland.
In response to the specific amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dodds, noble Lords will know that the Terrorism Act 2006 already makes illegal the encouragement of terrorism, and nothing in this Bill would prevent the prosecution of individuals who were deemed to have committed an offence under that legislation. However, we understand and sympathise with the principles and intent behind the amendments. It is clear that the society will never grow stronger and more united while individuals and organisations are involved in activities that risk progress on reconciliation and building a genuinely shared future for everybody. As ever, I take on the wise words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames.
Any conduct that has the potential to retraumatise victims is clearly not something the Government will ever support. However, it is important to consider properly any amendment on these matters, including potential legal implications. I affirm that the Government remain open to constructive dialogue with noble Lords and all interested parties about how this issue of glorification might be appropriately addressed.
I turn to the issue of moving abroad to evade prosecution and Amendment 118 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn. If prior to entry into force of the Bill a decision has already been taken to prosecute an individual, that individual will not be able to apply for immunity. That would include somebody who has fled the jurisdiction in order to evade justice. Geographical location will have no impact on an individual’s liability for prosecution, or on the requirements which must be met to obtain immunity from prosecution. Individuals who reside abroad but who are not subject to an ongoing prosecution will, to be granted immunity by the commission, have to participate fully in this process on the same terms as everyone else. By applying for immunity, they will have to acknowledge their role in a Troubles-related incident—something they may be doing for the first time. They will then have to provide an account to the commission that the judge-led panel assesses as true to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the commission is not satisfied that the account provided is true to the best of an individual’s knowledge and belief, and should evidence exist, they remain liable for prosecution.
I turn to Amendments 148 and 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. The Government understand and sympathise with their principle, which is to ensure that individuals who are granted immunity cannot subsequently participate in actions that financially reward them for the very same conduct for which they have received immunity.
The hour is late; we have been here a long time today. I will finish on this note. I remain open to constructive dialogue with noble Lords between now and Report about how these issues might be appropriately addressed. On that basis, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who took part in this short but important debate. It is good to have the opportunity to put on record the unanimous view of everyone who has spoken, from all sides, the horror of violence and terrorism, and the unacceptability of the eulogising of the same today. I think we are all united in our desire to try to tackle this and, as in the wise words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, to get to the root of the problem and really tackle it, especially for young people, going forward.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (10 May 2023)
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment deletes “continued or” from Clause 34(1).
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 155 and 156, and to consequential amendments 152 and 157 to 161. These are supported variously by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. My preference would be to see the removal of Clauses 39 and 40 from the Bill, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lady Ritchie and Lord Hain. However, I will restrict myself to the amendments in my name.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his continued engagement on the Bill with me and others. I am sure we will have an opportunity in future to discuss some of the significant lengths he has gone to since the Committee last met to deal with some of the issues we have raised. In my view, some of these amendments make parts of the Bill—which I do not fundamentally support, but that is another matter—slightly more palatable. The Minister is very open and has done prodigious work in this regard, as have his officials, who are doing a very good job. They are admired by all noble Lords who have been engaged in this process.
Truth and justice are not merely two sides of the same coin; they exist in active relation to one another. They both are—and must be—indispensable elements of an alloy that can carry and sustain a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Amendment 146 and its consequential amendments delete the time-limiting element of Clause 34, thus preventing criminal investigations being discontinued precipitately. I do not wish to stray into broader territory that is more customarily the stuff of Second Reading debates, but I wish to adduce an example that shows why this is important. In August 1974, John Pat Cunningham was shot and killed by a British serviceman. The soldier in question was finally put on trial in Belfast in 2021, 47 years later.
There are other families from all communities in Northern Ireland in that position—seeking justice for the deaths of loved ones. In earlier debates on this subject we heard of the case of Malvern Moffitt, murdered by IRA terrorists around 40 years ago. That is not an uncomfortable footnote in history but a tragedy whose concentric circles continue to lap at his family. His widow has expressed her profound upset at the prospect of the Bill in its current form receiving Royal Assent. His children gave a powerful and moving television interview in response to the Committee stage in the other place last year—something that should give us pause today.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the rule 9 submission by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, dated 16 August 2022, which specifically focuses on this Bill. The submission is informed by a year’s close monitoring of the Government’s legacy proposals, engagement with the different stakeholders and, during a week-long visit, engagement with the Minister and his officials in the NIO.
I direct your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 15 of that well-written and comprehensive submission, which reads:
“In her September 2021 letter, the Commissioner already highlighted the importance of the interaction of different mechanisms in ensuring justice, truth and reconciliation. With regard to justice, it was noted throughout the visit that other mechanisms than prosecutions, such as inquests, Police Ombudsman investigations and civil proceedings have often been instrumental in uncovering information that could subsequently be used to ensure accountability. Furthermore, the various mechanisms have been able, to some extent, to cater for the different needs of victims, since these will not be the same for all. At the end of her visit, the Commissioner noted in this respect that ‘unilaterally shutting down options that many victims and families value greatly as part of their way of dealing with the past ignores their needs and wishes, and is causing many of them deep distress’”.
This is a question not merely of fairness but of compliance under our Article 2 ECHR obligations. In raising the question of these obligations, I realise that I am failing to conform with recent innovations whereby breaching these obligations is advertised as a bold innovation rather than a prohibition. In the case of Armani Da Silva v the UK, the court ruled that:
“Having regard to its fundamental character, Article 2 of the Convention contains a procedural obligation … to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches of its substantive limb”.
The question of effectiveness is crucial. I will quote further from that decision, as it speaks directly to what constitutes an effective investigation. If an investigation is to meet the preconditions of effectiveness, it must have the possibility of leading to punishment. The relevant passage runs:
“In order to be ‘effective’ as this expression is to be understood in the context of Article 2 of the Convention, an investigation must firstly be adequate … This means that it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and of identifying and—if appropriate—punishing those responsible … This is not an obligation of result, but of means”.
This seems both compelling and clear. It would be useful to know with what elements of that judgment the Government wish to disagree and upon what authority such a disagreement might rest. In this context, it may be worth recalling the words of the Minister for Veterans Affairs, who, in giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2020, conceded that there had been
“a serious generational problem with the standards of investigations”
carried out into the conduct of British servicemen and that
“a lot of the investigations have not withstood rigour as regards ECHR compliance”.
He concluded those remarks by stating boldly that that
“has been a major problem”.
I regret to say that as it stands, this Bill will deepen and not mitigate that problem.
This same question of Article 2 compliance also underlies Amendments 155 and 156, together with their consequential amendments. Probing Amendment 155 would delete Clause 39(1) from the Bill. That subsection states:
“A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force”.
Again, this seems to breach not only the demands of natural justice but our Article 2 obligations. Amendment 156 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy seeks to defang this particular risk by deleting the words “on or after” from Clause 39(2) and substituting “three years after”. The amendment would ensure that a Troubles-related civil action can be brought up to three years after the coming into force of Clause 38.
Amendments 155A, 161A, 161B and 178A are easy to explain. Clause 52(8)(c) refers to the
“actual date of the First Reading”.
The actual date was 17 May 2022, so the formula proposed in Clause 52(8)(c) is unnecessary if the Bill is otherwise amended to refer to 17 May 2022, which is exactly what this group of amendments does.
Lastly, I turn to the role of the Secretary of State in curtailing criminal investigations. Under these provisions, as it stands, it threatens incompatibility with Section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998. Two committees of the Scottish Parliament examined the Bill, and the consequent legislative consent memorandum points out that the Bill makes “novel and unwelcome changes” to the functions of the Lord Advocate as the head of the systems of criminal prosecution in Scotland. In particular, the power of the ICRIR to refuse to refer appropriate cases to the Lord Advocate compromises their independence, a supposedly inviolable principle under-pinning the whole architecture of the Scottish legal system. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear why, and in what way, he believes that the role of the Lord Advocate is not compromised as I have outlined. Passing legislation aimed at bringing harmony to one constituent part of the United Kingdom by creating constitutional problems in another seems at the very least a somewhat quixotic way to proceed.
I would be grateful if the Minster could answer these questions of compatibility. If he is not disposed to accept these amendments, could he further explain how the Government will ensure that these provisions do not breach our obligations, both in the context of my earlier points on Article 2 of the ECHR and this Bill’s compliance with the Scotland Act 1998? I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 154A. I apologise for my late arrival to the debate on this important Bill, and for the lateness of this amendment, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Godson.
At first sight, noble Lords may be a little bewildered as to where the amendment is directed. It arises out of a decision of the Supreme Court in a case concerning Gerry Adams. The decision was given on 13 May 2020.The only judgment of the court was given by Lord Kerr, who described the regime in Northern Ireland, commonly known as internment. As many noble lords will be aware, the way in which interment operated was initially by an interim custody order, or ICO, which was made when the Secretary of State considered that an individual was involved in terrorism. That person was taken into custody and had to be detained there, to be released within 28 days unless the chief constable referred the matter to a commissioner. Detention continued while the commissioner considered the matter. If satisfied that the person was involved in terrorism, the commissioner would make a detention order. If not so satisfied, the release of the person detained would be ordered.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Faulks. The principal point I want to make is that this amendment is not about the justice of internment as a general principle or the justice of the internment of a particular individual. It is purely about whether an individual should receive compensation because there was found to be a glitch in the procedure in ordering the internment because the Secretary of State did not personally consider it.
As has been said, such orders were signed by Ministers acting under the authority of the Secretary of State in accordance with the very well-established Carltona principle. That was certainly something that has always been understood by the Civil Service, and the reversal of it would have quite serious consequences for government. But whether or not there was a procedural glitch, the issue in my mind is whether compensation should be paid, not for an injustice but for such an error in procedure. I submit that the Government are entitled to protect themselves from having to pay compensation from the public purse for what is not an injustice but a procedural glitch. On those grounds, I support Amendment 154A.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I want to briefly offer some words of support for that amendment. In their paper, Professor Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, make a compelling argument that the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment was wrong. I will not address that, because it is not important for the purposes of the amendment. What is important is that they also make a compelling argument for the deleterious practical consequences that are likely to flow from Adams because of the importance of the Carltona principle to the good and smooth running of government. That is beyond argument, and the risk here is that that principle has been in some way undermined.
Let me give an analogy. As your Lordships will be aware, a number of the most serious and sensitive criminal cases require the consent of the DPP before they may proceed. But the system has always been that the Director of Public Prosecutions designates a small number of his or her most senior prosecutors to exercise this consent function on the DPP’s behalf. Of course, if the DPP wishes to call in a particular case to consider himself or herself, that will and does happen. But if it were ever to be the case that every file requiring DPP consent had to be placed before the DPP in person, the system would swiftly grind to a halt; or, the DPP would exercise that consent allegedly personally but really and practically on the basis of advice that he or she had received elsewhere. So the present system is the more honest. The individual giving the consent, exercising the consent function, is the individual who has actually read and considered the papers. To the extent that this amendment will protect and fortify the Carltona principle, it has my full support.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I strenuously support this amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Faulks, supported by my noble friend Lord Godson, and for two specific and extremely important reasons.
The first is simply this. If your Lordships go back to the 1972 detention of terrorists order passed through the House of Commons and this House, they will find specific provision in the text of that order for 28-day and night ICOs to be signed by Ministers of State, junior Ministers or other officials. We were doing that—I had the privilege of being involved in taking it through the House of Commons at the time—not just to reinforce the eminently sensible Carltona principle but for the most practical, hard-headed considerations of the circumstances in which these matters would have to be handled.
What we were dealing with seems to have fallen out of the memory of many people. Although we said that it was not a war, the Provisional IRA said it was, and indeed there was talk from Dublin of the same thing. We were having to deal with war conditions, whether or not we accepted that a war was being waged against the United Kingdom. The practicality of that was that the Secretary of State—Mr William Whitelaw at the time, under whom I served—was having to move very quickly between Belfast and the Cabinet, handling the situation in the Houses of Parliament and a variety of other commitments as well. It was perfectly obvious that, for the smooth working of the procedures and the empowerment of the detention of terrorists order and many other pieces of legislation, he would need support of all kinds in handling these matters—in particular, in accordance with the detention of terrorists order and Carltona.
Much of the discussion since has been detached from the context and intense pressures in which we were working after the fall of Stormont and the arrival of the Whitelaw mission in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, this had the support of the whole House. The House of Commons supported it unanimously; there were maybe one or two queries but no amendments at all.
The second reason for my support for this amendment is that, while I do not wish to criticise the courts in anyway—I would not dare do so—I am absolutely baffled that legal and court procedures in a complex matter of this kind, going back in history, did not involve calling any witness of any kind to corroborate what actually happened and what went on in Stormont and in the procedures we are discussing. Ministers should have been called in those proceedings. It happens that I am the only Minister left from the Whitelaw team who is still alive, and I should have expected to be asked exactly how these things went on. What happened when one was asked on a Sunday night to sign an ICO? Who was consulted? To what extent did one talk to the Secretary of State beforehand, or to other Ministers of State or important witnesses from the police and other authorities? This was extensive but none of it was ever discussed.
It is utterly bizarre that somehow the court procedures should ignore what was specifically provided for in the original order. This seems to be almost incomprehensible. I therefore ask strongly that the Government reconsider what my noble friend Lord Faulks has put so eloquently and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has rightly argued about the procedure. Was there really a procedural glitch? No one knows; it was never discussed, and yet here we are with the prospect of millions of pounds being claimed on the basis of a judgment that appears to be based on sand—on nothing.
This is a very serious matter; it is a dangerous and costly matter. It may encourage many more difficult feelings at a time when—heaven knows—the whole balance and fragility of Northern Ireland is once again in question. It would be a great mistake not to accept the validity behind this clause, even if it needs amending in certain ways, and to pass it by or cast it aside on the grounds of matters settled. This is not settled; it is unsettled and most unsatisfactory. It needs very serious determination and consideration now.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the discussion on Amendment 154A shows the importance of getting legislation right in the first instance. I speak in support of Amendment 146 to Clause 34, to which I have put my name. This amendment and Amendment 152 will remove the provision that all existing investigations must transfer from the existing investigation body to the ICRIR. Chief officers of police have to notify the Secretary of State of all criminal investigations of Troubles-related matters. The only exception to this under the Bill arises when a prosecution is under way and the investigation is pursuant to the prosecution.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, as we return to the Bill in Committee, it is right, given the inevitable focus, often, on the actions of the security forces, to pay tribute to the Army, the UDR, the RUC—part-time and full-time members—the security services and all who worked to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland through some of the worst days in the decades of Troubles and to remember the innocent victims who were cut down by terrorism, whether it came from loyalists or republicans. It is worth putting on record, every time we debate these matters, that the overwhelming number of deaths and murders were carried out by terrorists.
In the context of the fight against terrorism, I think it is appropriate to add a personal tribute to Lord Robert Carswell, who recently passed away. He was a Member of your Lordships’ House and from 1984 to 2004 was a senior judge and Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland who valiantly upheld the principles of legal justice in Northern Ireland through some of the darkest days. People like Lord Carswell and others are often bypassed. Many who engaged in violence over the years have been elevated into personalities and lauded by world leaders, but it is people like Lord Carswell who deserve the thanks and gratitude of so many in Northern Ireland for the work they did during the Troubles.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I heard the Secretary of State, I think it was yesterday in Northern Ireland Questions in the other place, refer to amendments to the Bill that will be coming forth as “game-changers”. He was very adamant that these would be very significant amendments indeed, and it seems a shame that we should be kept waiting, having gone through the entire Committee, now into our fourth day, and be told that there will be game-changing amendments.
I hope the Minister can tell the Committee what these game-changing amendments may prefigure and are likely to do, because it seems wrong that we should be left to debate them on Report. I certainly look forward to examining them in detail, although I share the reservations of others about their likely content.
This is the fourth day of Committee. We have seen other Bills dropped; the protocol Bill has been dropped, there has been massive change to the retained EU law Bill and there is speculation that other major planks of government legislation will be dropped. Still, this Bill, which is unwanted and has no support in Northern Ireland—neither among the political parties nor in the Assembly—persists. It grinds on, unwanted and unloved. The only people who seem to be driving it forward are the Government. For the life of me, I fail to understand why they cling to this obnoxious piece of legislation.
While that is our view of the Bill overall, it is our duty to examine these matters in detail and try to mitigate it if it is going to proceed on to the statute book. I fully support Amendment 154A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, which is very timely; the decision taken by the Supreme Court mystified and astounded many commentators and those who follow these things closely. The Carltona principle has been embedded in British political life for many decades, and the prospect that tens of millions of pounds could be spent in compensation for some technicality, at a time when we are struggling to fund vital services in Northern Ireland, will cause outrage on all sides there. Nobody will support this. The Government should take on board this very considered amendment and I hope they will adopt it quickly.
Amendment 154, which has already been referred to, is in my name and those of my noble friends. Its purpose is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when the file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. It is entirely wrong for the Government to cast aside the significant work that has gone into a number of high-profile investigations, such as Operation Kenova, which deals with the actions of the leading informer and head of the IRA’s so-called internal security unit, Freddie Scappaticci. This investigation must be able to conclude irrespective of whether a decision to prosecute has been made by the time the Bill’s provisions come into force. However, it is not just about that investigation or others. The principle is worth defending. The prohibition of criminal enforcement action under this Bill’s provisions is immoral and contrary to the principles of natural justice. This amendment attempts to mitigate that damage.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the Committee that, due to an earlier engagement, I will unfortunately have to leave before the end of this group. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will speak briefly now. I agree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said about the general approach to the Bill. This is the fourth day and we continue to have tremendous dissatisfaction with it, notwithstanding the generally positive approach of the Minister, who has been exemplary in his ability to listen to us and respond at every stage.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Butler, and others for their explanation of newly tabled Amendment 154A, but it is potentially quite a detailed change. We should discuss it in much more detail, perhaps on Report. It could have significant consequences, so I hope we can look at it in more detail before then. I look forward to at least reading the Minister’s response in Hansard.
These Benches strongly agree with the powerful and detailed speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. These primarily probing amendments correctly ask the Government to explain their position on the continuation of investigations. The amendments from the noble Baroness seeking to remove Clauses 39 and 40 raise some extremely important points. I look forward to reading the Minister’s response to many of the issues she raised, because they are still unresolved and we have not yet had satisfactory answers to them. As a general point, can he reassure the many victims and their families that their hopes of justice will not be undermined by those two clauses as drafted? Can he clarify the situation for those who had been given additional hope through an investigation, inquiry or inquest having started, and give us more details on the process and timescale proposed in this Bill?
The Minister knows that we are all very grateful for his active engagement on this Bill. He has shown repeatedly that he is prepared to listen and respond. However, I suggest that discussions with noble Lords such as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has so much experience to share, about some of the realities and consequences of Clauses 39 and 40 would be very welcome—indeed, necessary—between now and Report.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to which I was a signatory along with my noble friend Lord Murphy on the Front Bench, because we are firmly opposed to the removal of access to inquests for victims. The standard bearer in all this should be adherence to the rights, needs and requirements of the many victims and survivors, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is clearly also saying in his amendment. Victims and survivors should have primacy.
In all the debates on this Bill, noble Lords from Northern Ireland and across the House, political parties in Northern Ireland, the Commission for Victims and Survivors and all those organisations that represent the needs of victims and survivors have clearly enunciated their opposition to it as drafted because it does not provide for the needs of victims and survivors.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I heard the Secretary of State refer yesterday to “game-changing amendments”, to which reference has been made today on the BBC Northern Ireland website. Can the Minister tell us what those game-changing amendments are that will be brought forward on Report? The only amendments should be those that reject this Bill; like all the other Bills that have been withdrawn or substantially changed, it should be withdrawn.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 154A tabled by my noble friends Lord Godson and Lord Faulks. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading.
As others have explained, the Supreme Court reached a decision which surprised many legal observers. In this respect, I commend to the Minister and his officials the Policy Exchange paper of May 2020, which explains the well-established Carltona principle, how the Supreme Court reached its decision, what it did not refer to and, in particular, what was said in the debates leading up to this Order in Council being passed—it is necessary to look at that. I am not going to go into that now; I shall be short.
For a long time, the principle has meant that officials and junior Ministers routinely act in the name of the Secretary of State, whose personal involvement in each and every decision is not required. Noble Lords who have much experience in this field—I refer in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Howell and Lord Macdonald, all of whom have great experience with or as Ministers, or as the Director of Public Prosecutions—have explained the significance of the Carltona principle to our system, and agreed that the Supreme Court’s interpretation was, if I may put it this way, somewhat implausible.
It is plain that the Minister, in this case, acted in good faith and, I suggest, without negligence and in accordance with the well-established principles. Quite simply, this amendment does not overturn the acquittal, which was founded on a Supreme Court decision, but it will ensure that damages should not flow. It will also have the benefit of restoring the Carltona principle to its necessary place in jurisprudence. I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I make no apology for the fact that my contributions to the debates on this Bill and legislation stem from my personal experience over the years with victims and survivors, and their families. If noble Lords had a similar experience, they would live with it and continue to live with it until the end of their lives.
At this juncture in our debates, we are addressing for technical reasons—which I accept—and for reasons of jurisprudence and legality, what is, I believe, the greatest failure of this proposed legislation. It is proposed that victims and survivors will be denied the last jurisprudential opportunity to gain some answer to their doubts, worries and concerns, and above all their search for justice.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recently referred to the death of my long-term colleague and friend, who began, as I did, to study law at Queen’s, all those years ago, and who ended up as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. For reasons that must be obvious, I personally know something of the strain that he encountered during the Troubles, and the honesty, integrity and decency of Bob Carswell needs no defence from me. I pay tribute today to a man who often sat beside me on these Benches of latter years.
I cannot speak too strongly of the feeling of so many people who have encountered grief, loss and sorrow during the Troubles when they view the proposals of this Bill, and in particular the amendments and the area that surrounds them that we are looking at currently. They are to be denied the possibility of answers to their questions, and denied the justice that they feel is not just a legal necessity but a legal obligation. They are to be denied the possibility of having their questions answered and doubts removed. Now we see what is proposed in our legislation. To say that it is adding salt to the wounds is too little; it will be devastating in its effect. We must put on record that this Committee recognises, beyond the technicalities that our legal friends are now explaining to us, the human side of what is happening and what is proposed.
Many tributes have been paid to the Minister, and I add my name to them, for I do not know how he has had the patience to listen to so many approaches. But I say to him that, on this occasion, he must recognise above all else that, in guiding us through this legislation, he is defending something that we who live and work there, and who have had our being in Northern Ireland, find extremely hard to accept. That must be said plainly. Above all else, if this Committee does not hear those voices and those claims, we are failing to do the duty that we are obliged to fulfil.
The last thing I will say at this stage is simply this. Whatever the future of this proposed legislation, whatever the future of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and whatever the future for the new generation coming up who will read in the history books what so many of us have lived through—whatever the answers to those questions are—what remains fundamental is justice in its widest human sense. For that reason, I add my support to these amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I give my support to Amendment 154A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson. We are now on the fourth day of Committee, but it has been six months since this Bill was first introduced to the Lords. I kept hoping that, as time went on and on, somebody in the Government would think that this was one of the Bills that they should be retreating on and getting rid of, as they seem to be doing with so many other Bills. But here we are, and so we want to ensure that we end up with the best Bill possible.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support the various amendments brought forward by my noble friend Lord Browne, which aim to give room for ongoing criminal investigations to conclude and to allow space for civil action to be brought for an additional three years. I very much understand the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put forward regarding the closing off of other routes to justice under Clauses 39 and 40.
I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I sometimes disagree with him, but today I agreed with absolutely every word he said, particularly when he opened his remarks by making reference and paying tribute to those in the security services who lost their lives, and indeed the tens of thousands of other people who lost their lives over 30 years in Northern Ireland. I also agreed with his tribute and that of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, to Lord Carswell, who I knew very well too. Our interest was not simply legal or political; we were both great lovers of classical music. He was a great expert—much more than I was—and I think that we in this House will all miss his wise words.
My noble friend Lord Browne referred to the fact that the First Reading of the Bill took place in the other place one year ago, and we are nowhere near finished. This is the fourth day in Committee—it seems a bit longer to me—over the last number of months in which we have been dealing with this, and there seems no end to it. I honestly think—and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I think most Members in the Committee would agree—that it is time to dump the Bill. There is no support for it. All my experience in Northern Ireland has been based on the fact that if there is not support across the community for something, it is doomed. I think it premature to advertise for the office of commissioner. I believe it is wrong that something as controversial as this can go ahead unless there is community support, political support and legal support, both here and, in particular, in Northern Ireland. There is still time. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the fact that a number of Bills have been dumped. The Schools Bill was the other one that he did not mention, I think, but there are others. Now is the time to do that.
To refer particularly to the new amendment that has been introduced, Amendment 154A, I am glad that I am not the Minister answering this. I am sure that the Minister will have an answer, at least a temporary one, to this very interesting amendment. I do not want to comment on an individual case, obviously, but I do want to comment on the implications of what happened as a result of that case. I had never heard of the Carltona principle before, so I have learned something today, but I obviously operated under it when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, more significantly, when I was Minister of State for Northern Ireland, because as Minister of State I undoubtedly signed warrants on behalf of the Secretary of State at the time, understanding that everything I did was perfectly legal and right. Obviously, that has now been brought into doubt.
Very often, a Secretary of State’s name is used in tens of thousands of communications and letters for technical reasons, but this is not a technicality in Northern Ireland. This is about actually locking people up, tapping their phones or whatever it might be, so it really has to be got right—not least the issue of compensation, which could be absolutely horrendous. The Minister is not going to give us a complete answer to this today, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that by the time we get to Report, which I guess is not that long away, the Government will be taking action on this important measure.
I hope that the Minister, who has been extremely patient over the last seven or eight months with the Bill and with us, will look not just at that amendment but at the other amendments. They go to the heart of the criticism of the Bill: that the Government are wiping out any legal routes to ensure that there is some redress for the terrible things that have happened to people in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to the past seven or eight months—I assure him that, from this side of the Committee, it seems much longer. He, my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, somewhat pre-empted my opening comments on this group of amendments by referring to the sad passing of Lord Carswell. As this is my first opportunity to address your Lordships since his death, I join those who pass on their condolences to his friends and family. Lord Carswell spent many years as a very dedicated public servant, including as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, as a Law Lord and as a distinguished Member of this House. We will miss his very wise and profound contributions.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for their references to the security forces. I intend to touch on that at slightly greater length in replying to the next group of amendments, but I concur with every word that was said.
As has become customary on the Bill, this has been a thorough debate. Before I respond directly, I would like to take a couple of moments to make an announcement in the Chamber. Last month, on 20 April, I laid in the Library of the House a paper setting out the selection process for the chief commissioner of the ICRIR. I am pleased to announce today that, following recommendations from the three Chief Justices across the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State has identified the right honourable Sir Declan Morgan KC to be appointed to the role of chief commissioner of the commission upon Royal Assent. The Secretary of State is today laying a Written Ministerial Statement providing more detail.
It is important that a chief commissioner be identified now in order to help victims, survivors and their families receive the answers they need with minimal delay, should this legislation receive Royal Assent. Sir Declan brings a wealth of experience from his previous role as former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland from 2009 to 2021. A hallmark of his distinguished career has been his commitment to addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. I am confident that he will bring the highest level of experience, expertise and integrity to this post, and that this will help build public confidence in the work of the commission.
Sir Declan will begin work early next month to identify other commissioners and design how the new commission will carry out its role. Formal appointment as chief commissioner will take place only following Royal Assent and the establishment of the commission, taking account of any further considerations and final requirements of the Act. In particular, the chief commissioner will lead the process to recruit the commissioner for investigations and provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The role is currently advertised and subject to a fair and open competition, with appointment on merit. I trust that noble Lords across the House will warmly welcome this appointment.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Does it not seem slightly precipitate to be engaging the services of the chief commissioner and other commissioners when the powers and duties of the commission have yet to be decided by your Lordships’ House? It seems to me that, notwithstanding the amount of time needed to establish the new offices, the Bill is not yet in a state in which the chief commissioner can approach commissioners and say to them, “This is what we’re going to do, and this is how we’re going to do it”, because the House has not decided those issues.
Lord Caine (Con)
As I just made clear in my remarks, the appointment is as chief commissioner-designate, and the formal appointment will not take place until after Royal Assent. That will take into account any further considerations that the House will have upon this legislation. It is important to enable the work of the commissioner to start now in order that, once Royal Assent is—I hope—received, the commission’s work can begin without delay.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, could the Minister indicate in more detail the functions that Sir Declan Morgan will undertake in this interim period before Royal Assent is given?
Lord Caine (Con)
As I just said, the Secretary of State is laying a Written Ministerial Statement today which should be available very shortly, and I refer the noble Baroness to it for further detail on that.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Very briefly, could the noble Lord answer my question about who decided the salary and whether the person will be paid before Royal Assent?
Lord Caine (Con)
The salary is based on judicial pay scales, as set out by the Ministry of Justice. I cannot off the top of my head tell the noble Baroness precisely what day his remuneration will begin, but I will get back to her on that. However, it is consistent with the MoJ’s judicial pay scales.
I turn to the amendments on criminal investigations, and first to Amendments 146 and 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Under the Bill, the only existing criminal investigations that will be allowed to continue will be those where a decision to prosecute has been reached by the time of the Act’s commencement, currently two months after Royal Assent.
As the noble Lord knows, it has long been the Government’s view that to allow too many existing processes to continue alongside the ICRIR’s establishment would dilute the commission’s credibility as the sole investigator of Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries, and the wider objectives of the legislation to encourage information recovery and—an issue on which many noble Lords have touched today—the truth of what happened. In the Government’s view, the legislation as drafted strikes the right balance between allowing existing criminal cases that have made significant progress in the prosecutorial process to continue while giving the ICRIR the space it needs to become established as the sole responsible body for these types of investigations.
The legislation does not prevent the new commission, once it is operational and subject to a request being made, resuming criminal standard investigations into deaths or serious injury which the police have been prevented from pursuing under Clause 34(1). As we have discussed many times in the past, the commissioner for investigations will have the full powers of a police constable.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
It has to be said that the powers of investigation conferred on the commissioner for investigations in the statute are not the same powers as the powers—for example, to access information, and other powers—which are held by an ordinary chief constable and his officers. The powers of investigation in the Bill are circumscribed by the role of the Secretary of State and the interventions which he can make.
Lord Caine (Con)
I disagree with the noble Baroness. The commissioner for investigations will have the powers of a police constable and will have access to far greater information and records than is currently the case. We have been over this many times before. It is written into legislation that the commission will have access to far more archive and intelligence material than has ever been made available before.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, quoted the decision of Armani Da Silva v the UK in regard to what constitutes an effective investigation. Again, we have debated this at length on previous days in Committee. To reiterate a point I made during those debates, the commission, working together with public prosecutors and making full use of the police powers to which I have just referred, will be able to institute criminal proceedings against suspected offenders in cases where conditional immunity has not been granted.
In the Government’s view, the absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in a limited and conditional way is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths and serious incidents that is extremely unlikely to come to light in any other circumstances. It is therefore consistent with the Government’s stated objective to provide more information to victims and survivors of the Troubles in a timely and efficient manner.
In response to his question about the compatibility of the Bill with the Scotland Act 1998, it has always been our expectation that the power of referral will be exercised in consultation with the relevant prosecuting authorities, including the Lord Advocate, and I commit to consider this matter further in advance of Report.
In response to Amendment 154 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, where a decision to prosecute has already been made, the case will be allowed to continue to trial and the individual involved will not be able to apply for immunity until its conclusion. If they are convicted of an offence, they will not of course be able to apply for immunity from that offence, as we have discussed previously.
Clause 6 designates the commissioner for investigations as a person having the powers and privileges of a constable, as I referred to a few moments ago, and they have access to the functions they need to carry out robust investigations.
On the very important Amendment 154A, in the name of my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, I am very aware of the issues being raised following the Supreme Court ruling in 2019—indeed, I was a special adviser in the Northern Ireland Office at the time that that ruling was made by Lord Kerr. It has been brought back into focus following a court judgment in the past few days and I am aware of its importance. I hope my noble friend will understand, as he alluded to in his comments, that, given the lateness with which the amendment appeared and important legal considerations on which it touches, I am not in a position to give him or other noble Lords a full response today. But I do take on board the very powerful points made by a number of noble Lords: the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Macdonald and Lord Murphy of Torfaen, my noble friend, Lord Howell, who reminded the House that he was indeed a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office in 1972 with some responsibility for these matters, and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. All upheld the importance of the Carltona principle. As I say, I cannot give a definitive response today, but I do commit to discussing it further before Report and possibly returning to this when the Bill comes back on Report.
I turn to the group of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and other noble Lords, to address some of the concerns raised over the inclusion of a number of clauses. I begin by reminding the House that, as regards civil cases, over 700 writs were issued against the state in legacy civil claims before the First Reading of the Bill a year ago on 17 May 2022.
As has been stated many times, the Government’s policy intent regarding civil claims is to reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland civil courts—which currently have a huge case load backlog to work through—while enabling the commission to establish itself as the sole investigative body looking at Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries. It is the Government’s intent that families should no longer have to go through the strained civil court system in order to receive the answers they seek.
In the Government’s view, there is a danger that these amendments in the name of the noble Lord and others would significantly dilute both of those aims, taking potential casework away from the ICRIR and putting it back into an already clogged system that on current estimates will take decades to work through. In our view, this is much less likely to provide answers for families in an efficient manner, which again sits in opposition to our stated aims.
On Amendment 156 specifically, filing claims can be done relatively quickly. This means that if a three-year grace period were to be given, it is possible that a huge number of claims would be filed, as a clear deadline would be in sight, and would remain in existence for a number of years. That would mean that the system would be hugely clogged up and have to deal with an even higher case burden than is currently the case.
Our current position will allow existing claims that were filed before the Bill’s introduction to continue to conclusion while bringing to an end new processes, to ensure that not too many concurrent cases are running once the ICRIR is established. Clause 39(7) simply allows any civil cases where a final judgment has been reached before commencement to continue to conclusion, where they would otherwise be caught by the prohibition in Clause 39(1). We believe that this is a reasonable approach to ensuring that the prohibition on civil claims does not interfere with cases where the court has handed down a final judgment when the prohibition would otherwise apply.
I appreciate that coronial inquests are a matter of huge concern to a number of noble Lords. I gave a commitment that this Government would not rush the legacy Bill through this House, and that we would prioritise steady passage and provide ample time for continued engagement. That is what we have done, in good faith. As noble Lords will be aware, the original working assumption was that the ICRIR would be fully operational by 1 May 2023 at the latest, on the assumption that Royal Assent would have been received some time before then. At that point, the intention was that those inquests which had reached an advanced stage would continue, while those which had not would move into the new commission. It will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that 1 May 2023 has come and gone without Royal Assent, and that the establishment of the new commission has not yet happened, largely due to the extra time that we have given for thorough consideration of this legislation. However, this raises important issues that we must address. I will discuss this further with noble Lords between now and Report.
As the Bill has not yet become law, all current criminal justice processes may, for now, continue as normal. In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked me how many PSNI investigations have been initiated since the introduction of the Bill. That information rests with the PSNI, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is operationally independent from the Government, but I will seek an answer.
As Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan demonstrated his leadership and his determination to provide answers for families of victims, through the work of coroners’ courts in legacy inquests. Sir Declan’s commitment to providing effective, efficient and independent coronial investigations won the respect and trust of countless families and the wider community in Northern Ireland. I am confident that he will take forward the work of the ICRIR with the same determination and commitment. The Government believe that once the commission is established there should be one process for investigating the past that is available equally to all those—I repeat, all those—who have lost loved ones, providing parity to all families, victims and survivors, while allowing other organisations to focus on contemporary issues.
While the coronial process has proved more effective than other mechanisms in providing information, accountability and acknowledgement to some families, including in some very high-profile cases, it is undeniably a resource-intensive process that can tackle only a small number of Troubles-related cases when compared with the many families who still wait for similar outcomes. The commission seeks to provide this, and it is worth reminding noble Lords that the commission will have easier access. The noble Baroness and I disagree here, but it will have easier access to more information than coronial inquests, through the obligation of full disclosure from relevant authorities, as outlined in Clause 5. This is particularly relevant to information that is national security sensitive. The commission will also have comparable powers to compel witnesses, and only on the basis of evidence will be able to make findings public via a final report, in a manner similar to an inquest.
The Government are confident that the legislation provides the chief commissioner with all the requisite tools to fulfil the commission’s functions fully and effectively. Indeed, it is fair to say that any chief commissioner, given their senior status within the judiciary, will be very cognisant of the legal obligations on all public authorities, including the commission, to meet the requirements of the ECHR.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, will there be any process by which complainant compensation or damages can be awarded after Clause 39 comes into effect, or will anybody who was injured or whose loved one was killed have no right of action at all and no route to compensation? Is this the end of the road for any right to compensation in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, claims that were filed before the introduction of the Bill last year will be allowed to continue, but there will be a cut-off thereafter. As she is also aware, other avenues are available for compensation which Parliament has introduced in recent years, such as payments for those who were injured and so on in the Troubles.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his characteristic way of responding to debates such as this. Subject to a few interventions on parts of the argument that noble Lords thought he had not dealt with, he covered the debate, as he always does, very comprehensively. He is probably the most open Minister I have ever been involved with in debates in your Lordships’ House. He did it at speed, though, so this issue probably bears some consideration between now and Report. In any event, he is inviting us to do that and will be doing it himself.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendments were probing in nature, but once grouped with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, this became a comprehensive debate on issues that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, correctly described as, in the view of many, the greatest failure of this legislation. This debate is about the scale of that failure. I admire the Minister’s ability always to defend the Government’s policy intent, but we have an argument with that intent. The fundamental challenge of this debate is that others, almost universally, think that the policy intent is wrong and that the sacrifices having to be made in other areas, such as the needs of survivors and victims, should not be made. In any event, I do not propose to say anything further on this.
Before I sit down, however, I must make some reference to Amendment 154A, and I do this in a personal context. Between 2001 and 2003, I was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office. I signed a number of warrants—thankfully, none authorising an interim custody order—some of which were on behalf of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen when he was Secretary of State. So, if the implications of the current state of the law are sufficiently far-reaching, they may reach me as well. I am not sure that they are: I got notice of this amendment very late and have had insufficient time to look at it and its implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will appreciate that, while, on the face of it, I was persuaded of the importance of this amendment—or at least part of it—by his introduction and the other contributions, I will keep my powder dry until Report, when I am sure it will come back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Faulks
“Authorisation of interim custody orders under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
(1) Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is to be treated as always having had effect as authorising an interim custody order under that article in relation to a Troubles-related offence to be made by and with the authority of any Minister of the Crown whose signature was required for the making of such an order (and not just by and with the authority of the Secretary of State personally).(2) Subsection (1) does not revive any criminal conviction quashed before the coming into force of this section.(3) But a person whose conviction for any Troubles-related offence (whether or not quashed) or whose detention (whether or not as a consequence of such a conviction) depended, directly or indirectly, on the validity of such an interim custody order is not entitled, by or under any enactment or otherwise, to receive any damages or compensation in respect of that conviction or detention if the only reason for impugning its validity relates to whether the order was made by and with the authority of the Secretary of State, personally.(4) Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the claim for damages or compensation was made before or after the coming into force of this section.”
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I thank all those who took part in the debate for the support that has been given— wholeheartedly in some instances and with some reservations in others. I am grateful for the debate that it generated. I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I wholly understand why he was not able to give a fuller response at this stage, and I welcome his reassurance that we will visit the matter between now and Report. This is an important amendment, as I endeavoured to make clear during the course of the debate. It is important in terms of the large number of claims which may result from the decision and in establishing once more the primacy of the Carltona principle in the way the Government work.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Amendment of the Code for Prosecutors for Troubles-related offences
In section 37 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Code for Prosecutors), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The code must ensure that the views, interests and well-being of victims, and of the families of deceased victims, are considered when determining whether criminal proceedings should be instituted for a Troubles-related offence.(3B) In relation to a Troubles-related offence the code must take account of—(a) the likelihood of the accused re-offending,(b) the time elapsed since the offence,(c) the volume and seriousness of the crime, and(d) the character and behaviour of the accused since offending.””
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I must make an apology because the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is unable to be in his place and I did not leap up quickly enough to speak to Amendment 147. I shall infuse into my comments on Amendment 166 some of what I would have said on Amendment 147.
My approach here is going to be brief. I am no expert on Northern Ireland. There are many people who live there and are experts. I spent two years as HMIC for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and I was head of the Met, which leads on counterterrorism investigations for the United Kingdom. That is the extent of my experience.
My interest in this Bill stems from a couple of things. First, my instinct is always that murderers and others who commit serious crime should not get away with it. However, I would subsume that interest if the people involved believe that no further action should be taken. The more this Bill has been heard in its various stages, the more I have been persuaded that no one from Northern Ireland supports this Bill and nor do many other people, which makes it rather difficult to support it in principle. My comments are really about how to mitigate some of the damages, should the Bill became law rather than whether it should become law, because it seems that it does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland or, most importantly, the families and people who were most affected by the Troubles.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his intervention on this amendment. We have debated these issues at length so I do not propose to detain the House for long at this stage, but I commit to speaking further with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in whose name the amendment stands.
The noble Lord has referred to Kenova. I am on record as saying that we are deeply appreciative of the work of Jon Boutcher and the way that he has gone about his business over the past number of years. As I say, I do not intend to detain the House, but I will engage with both noble Lords between now and Report.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(2A) The designated persons have an overarching duty to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in this group we have come to memorialisation. I want to say a few words on the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment 172 is
“intended to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences”.
Clause 48 says that “designated persons” carrying out the Troubles-related work programmes
“must have regard to the need to ensure that—(a) there is support from different communities in Northern Ireland for the way in which that programme is carried out, and (b) a variety of views of the Troubles is taken into account in carrying out that programme”.
This focus on “a variety of views” is problematic given that, sadly, a significant number of people in our community repeatedly not only refuse to disavow violence and terrorism but go further and eulogise and glorify acts of terrorism.
They want to put on a pedestal those who carried out acts of violence. They do this through parades, vigils, rallies and the installation of memorials and so on at sports grounds, on housing executive property and on roadsides. This is to continue what has been referred to throughout these debates as the revision of history—the rewriting of the history of the Troubles, so that those in the security forces who stood fast in the way of terrorism are denigrated to a large extent in the eyes of some. The terrorists are elevated by some to have been engaged in noble acts of warfare.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to his experience. The sad reality is that we know the sordid, grubby, filthy acts of terrorism and violence that were carried out against innocent men, women and children daily in Northern Ireland, at times on the mainland as well and even on the continent of Europe in pursuit of the aims of violent men and women of terrorism.
Look at some of these daily events. Children witnessed the murder of their father or mother. Wives ran down lanes having heard the gunshots that cut down their farmer husband at the end of the lane. Consider the case of a young wife who had just given birth in hospital and who had been visited by her husband. As he left and went down into the car park, he was murdered. Then, at the funeral, they gloated over his murder. I know a young boy—now a man—who had lost his mother. His father was made to kneel down and was shot through the head in front of him; he ran down the lane to try to get help.
This is the reality of terrorism and what these people carried out, yet we have a situation where these people are eulogised and young people in Northern Ireland are shouting “Up the Ra”. We have a designate First Minister of Northern Ireland who says she wants to reach out to people but who continually goes to the eulogies of terrorists, continually defends the actions of terrorists and men of violence and puts these murderers on a pedestal. Until Sinn Féin disavows that, it will never reach out successfully to the unionist community or indeed to families on all sides of the community.
There will never truly be a peace process and a political process in Northern Ireland that is stable and enduring unless people move forward and stop eulogising violence. It is one of the main causes of community dislocation and the continued problems that we have in Northern Ireland. We are told continuously to move ahead, but these people continue to point backwards and eulogise the actions of terror. Today, in 2023, they are still doing it.
My Amendment 172 is intended to ensure that the designated persons will not have as part of their duties allowing terrorist activities to become the subject of glorification or justification—they should be under a duty to prevent this. They cannot be held to ransom by those who would rewrite history.
My Amendment 173 is intended to ensure that only innocent victims are included as victims in the memorialisation strategy under the Bill. It is critical that any Troubles-related work programme does not give credence to terrorists injured or killed by their own hand. They should not be considered victims in the same way as those whom they went out to maim and murder. The need to avoid drawing a moral equivalence between the victim and the perpetrator has been accepted as part of the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. We on these Benches and in the other place fought hard and long to ensure that that distinction was made, and Regulation 6 of the 2020 regulations made that part of the law. It is time that we saw this reflected in primary legislation. There should be a UK-wide definition of a victim that does not include the perpetrators of violence.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said and his Amendments 172 and—in particular—173; it has been a long time coming, and we need to make that definition of victim the same across the United Kingdom.
I will speak to my Amendments 174ZA and 174A. Amendment 174ZA addresses a problem with the Government’s funding body, UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—councils. Many of us who are interested in legacy are concerned about what seems the one-sided nature of much of the academic research into our past and the way that UKRI funding has been monopolised by what seems to be a single legal view. That view is radical and investigates faults only with the United Kingdom state and its security responses during the Troubles.
I cite here Queen’s University’s transitional justice department, which produced the model legacy bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and others. Almost alone, that department has received some £4 million in UKRI funding. It works in conjunction with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a largely nationalist body in Belfast that encourages legacy litigation. I note with concern that the speakers’ list at the transitional justice institute’s seminars during the events at Queen’s University on the recent 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement was drawn from one outlook only.
The wording of my Amendment 174ZA stems from an Answer that I received on 8 November last year from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He said that UKRI funding on legacy
“is allocated according to research excellence as assessed by independent peer review”.
I am aware—I am sure that many noble Lords will also be—that peer reviews can often become what you could call “chum reviews”, especially when few other academics work in the same field. One academic, Dr Cillian McGrattan, wrote that
“the UKRI record does not bode well for the government’s plan to create a multi-disciplinary history that encourages the acceptance of ‘different narratives’ that transcend and challenge ethnic taboos; that is plural rather than single-identity; that is based upon the actual historical record rather than after the event collective and communal memories; and that fosters reconciliation rather than continued division”.
This lack of balance of legacy and justice at Queen’s University makes it essential that the Bill has more safeguards about academic diversity and fair funding—hence this amendment, which dovetails with others in the group that the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, have endorsed.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, this part of the Bill provides for history and memorialisation. It is about creating as true and honest an account as possible—one which has integrity—of what happened during our tortured, troubled past.
This is hugely sensitive. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. All I will add is that, given the fact that the eyes of the whole community will be on those who are attempting to deal with these matters, it is vital that there is equity and fairness for all.
I fully support Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in particular. It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences. We see at regular intervals events from different sections of the community, not just the republican community, which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions that caused immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Such events cause great pain; they can reignite the terrors and agony of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I rise to support the amendments tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, but also to give a broad welcome to this group in its entirety—notwithstanding some of the major concerns that have been expressed by ourselves and others from across the Chamber about the overall contents of the Bill. From that point of view, no amendments can make the Bill itself acceptable. Nevertheless, actions that we can take to deal with the issue of memorialisation have a level of importance.
Memorialisation can be a force potentially for good, but we also need to be aware that it can also be a major force for further problems and further evil. If done correctly, memorialisation can be beneficial in helping to remember innocent victims and, one hopes, helping towards a level of reconciliation. If we get the conditions right, that can be something of benefit to society and, potentially, to some families. But there is a real danger that memorialisation can be got wrong, which is the thrust of the amendments that we have proposed. It is about trying to provide a level of consistency.
As in previous groups of amendments, we are talking about the real danger of a glorification of terrorism, which must be prevented—certainly from anybody who seeks to benefit from this legislation. It is also the case that, if memorialisation is used as a back door to glorify or justify terrorism, it would be deeply damaging to society. It is not simply a question of rubbing salt in the wounds of the innocent victims and their families—although, if there were no other consideration, that would be a reason why Amendment 172 needed to be proposed and supported completely. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated, it goes beyond simply dealing with the legacy of the past; it is about the implications for the future and the present day.
We have a generation growing up who did not experience the Troubles but who are clearly susceptible to the message that there was no alternative to violence in the past and that terrorism could be justified today and into the future. That is not simply an academic concern or one that might be moot. We have seen dissident organisations sucking in those young people to be directly involved in terrorism. That is the real danger for the future. Let us send out by this legislation, or at least through these amendments that we are putting forward, a very clear and unambiguous statement: there was always an alternative to violence. That is why, throughout the entire history of the Troubles, there was never a majority in either community for violence; it was opposed by the ordinary people throughout, and it was a minority on both the loyalist and republican sides who engaged in that terrorism and the wickedness and pain that it caused. It is critical that we send out the clear message that there was no justification for terrorism and that there was always a democratic alternative.
Allied to that, we cannot be ambiguous about those who went out to perpetrate the evil of terrorism, from whatever side they came, and those who were the innocent victims. Therefore, it is right that we draw this distinction, which is in line with some changes that the Government have made in other spheres. That is why Amendment 173 is also critical.
It is also the case—and why I welcome the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—that, overall, it is critical that memorialisation is approached with academic rigour and diversity, and a balanced approach that provides a fair and accurate summary of what happened. Again, if this is a one-sided process or one that in some way gives some level of light to those who would argue for violence in the past, it will do irreparable harm. Therefore, the academic approach that needs to be taken is critical.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, on an overall tone in regard to the Troubles. One thing that has struck me as a former Education Minister is that, unfortunately, at times, we see the ignorance of history. We see young people who simply do not know what happened. It is therefore important that we educate people in a neutral and fair way. There is no doubt that there are contested opinions and views as regards Northern Ireland but there cannot be contested facts. That is why we need to approach this with a level of academic rigour, and that is why I welcome the amendments.
Finally, there is an iterative process to be done, particularly with victims’ families, regarding memorialisation. It may well be that, as part of that process, there is the gathering of an oral history of the stories of the Troubles. It is important that people are able to do that through organisations with a good track record of fairness and balance, and organisations which we can trust. I declare an interest as a member of the Linen Hall Library, which for many years has taken a wide range of views and worked with all parties on reflecting the troubles in a fair and historic manner. It is a role that the library and others can play. We need to make sure that that is not one-sided or biased in any way, and in particular that we draw a clear-cut distinction between, on the one side, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who simply wanted to get on with their lives and the victims, and, on the other side, the perpetrators.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, in particular those in the names of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is an important issue. The last time we were in Committee on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, was speaking about reconciliation, and we spent some time on that. Reconciliation will come only if there is an understanding that the things that happened in the past in Northern Ireland were wrong. To do that we need a factual history, because there has been a lot of rewriting of what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 35 or 40 years.
Just this week, Gerry Adams was reported to have spoken in a podcast to Rory Stewart about the attempted murder of Baroness Margaret Thatcher back in 1984. When he was challenged by Rory Stewart about the violence, Gerry Adams said, “We never went to war, you came to me”. That is a skewed view of what happened in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s but a predictable source of rewriting of what went on at that time. But sometimes we have unpredictable sources of rewriting. It was distressing, not just for victims of terrorism but for many of us living in Northern Ireland, to hear the current Secretary of State, in an address to Queen’s University at the 25th anniversary event that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, refer to Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed IRA commander, as a man of courage and leadership. That was astonishing, and many victims voiced their opinion and distress at those comments. Ann Travers, a victims’ advocate whose sister was murdered by the IRA on her way home from mass, said that those comments insulted innocent victims of republican terrorists. And so it continues, this rewriting of what actually happened in Northern Ireland.
Last year, we had the putative First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, telling us that there was no alternative to the violence that happened in Northern Ireland—no alternative to terrorism: that there was no alternative to the bomb in Enniskillen in 1987, when people went to remember the dead of the World Wars; that there was no alternative to the attempted murder of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, when he visited his son in hospital; that there was no alternative to placing a bomb on the bus that I was going to school on because the man driving the bus was a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. What about the alternative to lying in a hedge and waiting for police officers coming home from their day’s work, only to murder them as they stepped out of their cars?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 174B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson. I apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but I was buried in a Secret Squirrel Intelligence and Security Committee meeting for four hours, which I have just managed to break out of.
Almost on a daily basis, for many years through the Troubles, members of the IRA and its splinter groups went out to cause death and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland. On a daily basis, the police and the Army went out with the aim of looking after the security and safety of the people in Northern Ireland. There is no moral equivalence whatever, yet there seems to be a surge of information that paints a different picture of what actually happened. We need a clear, objective view of the things that happened there.
It was a dreadful period, as has been said by a number of speakers. People did not need to be involved in terrorism; they could have achieved things in other ways. This needs to be highlighted and shown, but we obviously need an objective and proper history of what happened, which people can read and have easy access to. For example, towards the end of the Troubles, the Army and police had learned lots of lessons and were doing things better, and the terrorist groups had been penetrated and all sorts of things were happening to them. These things need to be reflected in the history, so that we know what went on. It is very important that we have accurate, precise, unbiased history, so that future generations can understand this. Apart from anything else, they will understand that terrorist violence does not really achieve your aims; that needs to be laid out starkly.
Lord Godson (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 174 and 174B to 176. I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their support for these amendments, including the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Carlile of Berriew, in particular. I spoke at Second Reading about the memorialisation of the Troubles and expressed my concerns that the oral history project commissioned by the Bill will be politicised and will become another weapon in the battle to recast the Troubles from an anti-state perspective that seeks to justify the actions of terrorists and to denigrate the security forces, as noble Lords have pointed out. Any attempt at equivalence between those who upheld our civic values and law and order for those three decades and those who waged Europe’s worst terrorist campaign must be robustly guarded against.
One defence against this blatant revisionism designed to retell the Troubles as a conflict which republicans had no choice but to fight is the production of an official history based on proper and considered documentary evidence. The Government have confirmed that they are now committed to such a history, but there is still no mention of it in the Bill. No doubt, there are reasons for this: after all, legislation is not needed for an official history and there is still an official history programme for which, in theory, this could be produced. However, it needs to be said now that there are major problems in excluding an official history from the scope of the Bill. The official history programme budget remains small and is not designed for a project of this scale, nor to deliver it in time for it to realise the purposes which the Government have in mind.
The subject matter of the Troubles, as has been rightly pointed out, is vast, with official documents from many government departments in London and Belfast, as well as from the agencies—the RUC previously and the PSNI, perhaps, now—and the Army. It is a task for a team of historians, supported by researchers, requiring a level of funding well beyond the parameters and experience of the current official history programme. It would hardly dent the £250 million already set aside by the Northern Ireland Office for the legacy projects set out in the Bill, as stated in the UK government response to a question from the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg in June of last year.
An official history also needs to be published at a price that is in reach of ordinary readers and marketed to them, not least those in Northern Ireland, who deserve to be able to read it for themselves. This does not fit into the current official history programme’s publishing model, with limited print runs and prices, in some cases, of £40 for a paperback and £130 for a hardback—prices that self-evidently exclude the vast majority of the public. All this cannot be right; it would be a serious mistake and it should be rectified.
Producing an official history of the Troubles that can play its role in addressing legacy and reconciliation is possible only by placing the requirement for production of an official history within the Bill and giving the Secretary of State responsibility for ensuring that it is completed in time to be a support to the broader memorialisation strategy. Established on this basis, it will provide a major additional—and credible—strand of that memorialisation and will add much value across the whole programme. I believe that that would also be its chief legacy.
With that in mind, I am proposing, in Amendment 174B, a new section to follow Clause 46, to ensure that a public history—this being the term recommended by Sir Joe Pilling, the former Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, in his 2009 review of the official history programme—is produced. The expression “official history” suggests that it is the Government’s view that is being put forward. Historically, that has never been the case: official histories are authored by leading historians granted access to official papers. A public history, recast as such, far better reflects what it is, and all this deserves to be in the Bill.
There are other matters of concern about the proposals for academic research set out in the Bill. A substantial role will be accorded to the UK Research and Innovation councils, which will determine the projects to be funded under it. Over the last 15 years they have financially supported the work of a small group of “transitional” academics at Queen’s University Belfast, referred to by several noble Lords. This is associated with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a lobby group focused largely on state-perpetrated violence and abuse. This has created what Dr Cillian McGrattan of the University of Ulster, whose work has been referred to, has called
“a monopolistic capture of legacy ideas, ideology and policy within Northern Ireland”.
Not only are non-violent unionist and nationalist voices and their collective memory unwelcome, but the voices of those who were oppressed and manipulated by terrorist gangs in their own neighbourhoods on whatever side of the divide are unlikely to be sought, even though they are among the most affected communities. Were such a monopoly to be replicated in the academic research into the Troubles, as the Bill presently proposes, it would be contrary to two of the six Stormont House agreement principles: that it promote reconciliation and that it be
“balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable”.
To address these matters, I tabled Amendments 174, 175 and 176 to Part 4 of the Bill, requiring that memorialisation activity promotes a culture of anti-sectarianism, that the advisory forum is not dominated by any particular ideology or outlook and that in carrying out their duties the designated persons should have due regard to the historical records of deaths as required under Clause 24 of the Bill.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I crave your Lordships’ indulgence as a relatively new Member of the House—in fact, you can still smell the leather on my satchel. I came into the House only towards the tail end of last year, so I was not even here when this Bill came from the other place. As those who know me will be aware, I was a Minister of State for Northern Ireland between 2010 and 2012 and continue to have a passionate interest in not only what goes on there currently but what has happened in the past.
I am acutely aware of the divisions that a very one-sided approach can cause. As my noble friend the Minister will know—he was our esteemed special adviser at the time and was far more involved than I—I was a Minister of State during the publication of the Bloody Sunday report, on which David Cameron did extremely well, and the Finucane report we commissioned from Sir Desmond de Silva that followed in 2012. I gently point out that the Saville inquiry cost about £191 million by its end; we do not want to replicate that in this instance.
I support my noble friend’s eminently sensible amendments. I remember discussing all kinds of issues surrounding truth and reconciliation, such as whether to have a South African model—we went round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Critical for any public history of what went on is the co-operation of the bodies that were involved in some way, ranging from the DFA in Dublin and, critically, the Irish Government to the Security Service, Libya, the Church, Sinn Féin, former loyalist paramilitaries, perhaps the Royal Archives and Washington. We would want all these organisations to come up with any evidence that would contribute towards what we are all trying to get: an official version of the truth which everyone can subscribe to. Of course, not everybody will—there will be those who maintain their own versions of the truth, as we have heard today, but if we can get cross-party consent for such a history, we will move the dial on this.
I reiterate my support for the amendments. It was the 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said:
“Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being”.
This public history could be just such a mode.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and to comment on Amendment 174B in particular; he has given a full exposition of the thinking that lies behind it. I would like to add one thing, and one thing only, to his exposition: the reference to the way in which the Saville inquiry created a kind of patent for this type of investigation. We definitely need a public history. I have long been an advocate of it; it is now a point in time when it is a job for a younger cadre of historian to carry out the work.
Let us stop and think what happens if we do not do that. I was a historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which led to the very eloquent apology given by David Cameron, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred. As a professional historian, you are often scrubbing around for documents, pleading with the Government and the Public Record Office for them. The amazing thing about the inquiry was that they were delivered to my door by trucks, and the material is still in my garage, now published by the Saville inquiry. It lays out a lot of really sensitive stuff: Cabinet minutes and discussions about Northern Ireland which were not then in the public domain—they mostly are now, but they certainly were not at the time of the inquiry —and intelligence documents about the debriefing of IRA informers and discussing the role of Martin McGuinness. These are really sensitive things which were released to me to work on. I produced an analysis which played into the statement to the inquiry by Christopher Clarke KC. In a Leverhulme lecture on contemporary British history, I was subsequently allowed to give my own take on what those documents meant.
That is why I strongly support Amendment 174B: that type of openness should be the patent for any subsequent work or research carried out. The world did not fall in; I have tried to indicate that this material was sensitive—it included discussions between the most senior military officers in the days and weeks before Bloody Sunday. This was not low-grade stuff. We did it, we published it, we took an honest decision about what it all meant—there was other evidence that Lord Saville had to consider—and we had the final conclusion, reached by David Cameron. However, if we say, “That’s it”, we will be saying that the only real public history the UK Government are interested in is—let us be clear—one of the very embarrassing moments of British history and the British state’s role in Northern Ireland, and that we are not interested in the rest of it. We will reveal stuff, and spend money and resources for that purpose, but we are not going to discuss in the round what really happened, which will inevitably lead to other occasions which are less than glorious.
None the less, it seems to me a simple proposition: if you do not support this proposal for a public history, you are saying that we need to deal only with that one particular inquiry—that is all; the rest is closed. For some reason not clear to me, it is the only time we are going to open to scholars the sensitive material which will allow—as it did—a full evaluation of the political, military and other dimensions to Bloody Sunday. It is in the interest of totality and a broader approach to history that I strongly support Amendment 174B.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and Amendment 174B, to enshrine in law the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure the production of an independent public history of the Troubles. I came as a boy, accompanying my late father, General Bilimoria, when he was a lieutenant colonel attached to the British Army at the School of Infantry in Warminster. Even as a young boy, I can remember the high security, the fear under which everyone lived, and the sad stories of people we knew and heard about on a regular basis. Fast forward to when I came to London as a student in the late 1980s, and then when I started my business: we lived under this fear, on a constant basis, and we witnessed the atrocities and tragedies that took place right until 1998 and the Good Friday agreement.
Successive Governments—of all political parties, to be fair—have sought to maintain peace during the Troubles, and at what a price. It is important that we record and acknowledge the history of those awful and terrible years, and the Government correctly regard a public history as playing an important role in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. However, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is no mention of it in the Bill. It could in theory be managed through the Cabinet Office’s official history programme, but to my understanding that programme has been in a state of limbo in recent years. It is also insufficiently resourced to produce an official history on the Troubles—a topic that is going to be vast and require a huge amount of work from leading historians with substantial research support.
If the Government intend that the public history should support other academic research support programmes proposed by the Bill, we should note that these are to be concluded within seven years. Unless this public history is properly resourced through the Bill’s memorialisation programme, it is unlikely to be able to add meaningful value to other memorialisation activities within this timeframe.
We require an authoritative history to be produced in good time and to act as an absolute gold standard, and that this thoroughly informed history be communicated to the public, being both affordable and available to everyone who wants to read it. Additionally, it is a matter of equal concern to Ireland as well.
It is crucial that we support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for an additional clause in Part 4 after Clause 46, and I encourage the Government to accept this change.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; there is clearly a desire to have an objective record of a dark and troubled time, but it is a hugely sensitive issue that is going to present major challenges.
I absolutely agree that any history that glorifies terrorism or violence has no validity and can have no place. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, people have looked at different examples such as in South Africa, and the genocide memorial in Rwanda is shocking and stunning and creates an impact. We also have to recognise that we have talked about the Troubles as a defined period, as if they just ended and the Good Friday agreement started, but we know that the divisions have not gone away. You even see in the Republic of Ireland newly elected representatives shouting, “Up the Ra”, so we are still in very difficult times.
I hear the call for an objective history, but I wonder how easy it would be to produce one and to ensure that it reflects the balance. I am not suggesting that it should not be tried, but we should not underestimate the challenges involved. At the end of the day, what would be the purpose of this history? The only fundamental purpose seems to be to ensure that, right across all sections of the community, it leads to a cry of “Never again”.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate. For 17 years before I entered the House of Commons I taught history, and I thought that it had prepared me for the various jobs that I eventually had to do. When I became Minister of State in Northern Ireland, helping to negotiate the Good Friday agreement, I realised that it had not prepared me at all for what was up against me. Month after month, virtually every day, was occupied by a history lesson, which I was not teaching but which came from the different participants in the talks—of course, there were very different versions of what had happened over the last 30 or 40 years before then.
Teaching history had also not prepared me for the extent to which—as has been touched on a number of times in this debate—almost every single family in Northern Ireland was affected by violence in some form or another, either by people or their relatives being killed or by physical or mental injury. It struck me when I went back to Belfast a couple of weeks ago for the commemoration proceedings that, within 24 hours of getting there, I talked to two middle-aged men about their own history. In both cases, coincidentally, their fathers had been murdered. One had been murdered by the IRA, and the other had been murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. That was a coincidence; I did not seek it out. It just happened. It is the background of that communal history among people from all communities in Northern Ireland which makes this task immensely difficult. I am not saying that it should not be attempted, because I think it should be, but it will not be an easy task. It should be done by ensuring that there is as much impartiality and diversity as possible, which is a difficult combination to get together, so that it is written. The sensitivity behind this is enormous.
I make a very brief reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and what I thought was a very good speech in terms of her reference to the gay community in Northern Ireland and how it suffered in a different way. There is particular resonance in my own constituency’s history because my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for Pontypool was Leo Abse, who in 1967 was responsible for the legislation which decriminalised homosexuality in Great Britain. Many people never realised that it was not replicated in Northern Ireland; it took many years before that was to happen. So, I think that this should be part of the history project as well.
When the Minister winds up, I am sure he will give us some good thoughts on what we should do about an official history. He might suggest the odd historian or two—there are one or two in here who might be very good at it—but at the same time he must understand that these matters, important as they are, have to be dealt with using the utmost sensitivity.
Lord Caine (Con)
Once again, my Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. We have heard a number of very moving contributions over the last 53 minutes or so. I was going to say that a number of noble Lords were, in my case, preaching to the converted—I do not need to be converted at all, and I agree with many of the sentiments that have been expressed throughout the past number of minutes.
Part 4 of the Bill builds in large part on the commitments made in the Stormont House agreement of 2014, such as the oral history initiative and new academic research, to help promote reconciliation and a better understanding of the past. A number of noble Lords will be aware that I was involved in all 11 weeks of negotiating that agreement in 2014. It underlines the importance of this work being carried out free of political influence, which has been one of our guiding principles—in fact, it has been our overriding guiding principle throughout.
To reiterate, in approaching these issues over many years, both this Government and I have been very clear from the outset that we will never accept any attempt to rewrite history in ways that seek to denigrate the contribution of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces—the overwhelming majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and to whose dedication and courage we owe an enormous debt of gratitude. As I have said many times in this House and outside it, without their service and sacrifice there would have been no peace process, as was acknowledged by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister during his recent speech at the Whitla Hall in Belfast to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1998 agreement.
Politically motivated violence in Northern Ireland, whether it was carried out by republicans or loyalists, was never justified, and as the noble Lord, Lord West, and my noble friends Lady Foster and Lord Weir made clear, there was always an alternative to violence in Northern Ireland. We will never accept any suggestion of moral equivalence between the terrorists who sought to destroy democracy and those who in many cases paid the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. In light of the fact that he has, as usual, promised to go away and reflect on the amendments, including those in my name and those of my noble friends, and to have further discussions, I am very content to withdraw Amendment 172.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 21st June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37—R—I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (20 Jun 2023)
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that the ICRIR will have between one and five other Commissioners (in addition to the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioner for Investigations), with the actual number to be decided (as currently) by the Secretary of State under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I will take a moment to mark, on the longest day of the year, the annual day of reflection to remember the losses experienced by so many during the Troubles. It is also an opportunity to remind ourselves of how far Northern Ireland has come since the most difficult days of the Troubles; to remember the steps that have been taken since 1998 to build a more peaceful, prosperous and stable Northern Ireland; and to ensure that the experiences and horrors of the Troubles are never repeated.
I remind the House that this is Report, and the Bill has been debated extensively in Committee. I have held countless meetings with noble Lords over recent weeks and months. In accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, I will seek to be brief, and I hope that other noble Lords will attempt to follow suit.
I have always maintained that central to the effective delivery of this legislation is the need for an independent body to carry out reviews and, where an individual co-operates properly with the body, to grant immunity from prosecution. The Government fully recognise the need for the commission to have credibility, expertise and legitimacy so that effective investigations can be carried out and information provided to families as soon as possible.
As I mentioned, we debated the independence of the commission extensively in Committee, and I have sought to address as many concerns as possible. On the final day of Committee, I announced the intended appointment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, as the chief commissioner, having obtained input from the Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland and England and Wales, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland.
To allay further concerns around the integrity and independence of the immunity process, I tabled Amendments 79 to 83, placing a duty on the commission to produce guidance related to determining a request for immunity. This will replace the power that, in the Bill as currently drafted, sits with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was the subject of some debate, as noble Lords will recall.
Alongside this, I retabled Amendments 132, 133 and 137 to 140, seeking to ensure that there is international expertise among the commissioners and requiring consultation with the relevant senior judge where the appointee no longer holds high judicial office. This is complemented by Amendments 1 and 131, increasing the number of possible commissioners from five to seven, which helps to ensure that there is an appropriate range of skills, experience and independent scrutiny across the commission.
Amendments 141 and 142 ensure that terms of appointment of the commissioners do not exceed a period of five years. In our view, that will facilitate the periodic refreshment of commissioners to provide new perspective, impetus, views and specialist expertise, while ensuring that there is also continuity. These amendments will strengthen the independence of the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister in remembering those who suffered violence over the last number of years and thank him for the way in which he has engaged with Members of this House and beyond. His amendments generally improve the Bill, but I suspect that he will find this evening that they do not go far enough for those with fundamental objections to the Bill. We shall certainly not vote against them today or Monday, as they do, as I say, improve it.
The Minister made reference to Sir Declan Morgan, who has been appointed as the chief commissioner designate—a clever move on the Government’s part, because he is a man of huge integrity, experience and expertise. There is some doubt as to whether it should have been announced quite this early, but I understand why the Government decided so to do.
I am sure that this evening we will hear a number of important points on the many issues, from immunity to prosecution and other matters. I hope that the House will be able to give consideration briefly to those points.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I echo a lot of the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has just made, and the Minister’s comments about remembering. It is very important that we never forget all those impacted and killed by the Troubles.
I too start by thanking the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged on the Bill, given the constraints that he faces at the other end of the building. He has always shown himself willing to meet and discuss, and I know that he has dedicated a considerable amount of time to the Bill, including during the summer holiday last year, perhaps. For that we thank him.
Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, most of us feel that, although the amendments are to a very large degree to be welcomed, they are not game-changing; they have not really changed the Bill to the extent to which many of us would have liked to see. I am sure that we will return to that issue at later stages, but this group is a positive example of amendments that these Benches are happy to welcome.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord and noble Baroness for their support and kind words, and I hope that this year I might actually get some time off during the summer. That might be the triumph of hope over experience, but you never know. I take great heart from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, when he describes the Government as having made a “clever move”. I welcome that, and I am very grateful. The amendments that I have proposed will strengthen the independence of the commission.
Lord Caine
“(3A) The principal objective of the ICRIR in exercising its functions is to promote reconciliation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would impose the principal objective of promoting reconciliation on the exercise of the ICRIR’s functions.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading I committed to carrying out extensive engagement, which has just been recognised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness—and I hope it is recognised more widely across the House that this is exactly what I have done. The amendments that I am bringing forward in this group seek to take on board and respond to a number of concerns raised in the House and elsewhere, as far as possible.
The Government remain committed to delivering better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles by providing more information in a more timely manner to more people than is possible under current mechanisms. This is a hugely difficult task, and the legislation—as I have admitted both in this House and in the media—requires some finely balanced political and moral choices that are challenging for many, myself included. We must be realistic about what we can deliver. I have reflected on how we can strengthen the Bill and I am thankful for the many conversations that I have had on this, including with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, Ian Jeffers. While we have our differences, I am grateful for the way in which he has always conducted our meetings. It is widely recognised that the current mechanisms for addressing legacy issues provide satisfactory outcomes to very few of those affected, leaving far too many victims and families—including many of those who died while serving the state—empty-handed.
Amendments 2, 3 and 7 to Clause 2 in my name place the commission, when exercising its functions, under a duty to have regard to the general interests of persons affected by Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries. These amendments also provide that, in exercising its functions, the commission’s principal objective is to promote reconciliation. It is our view that putting more information in the public domain via an effective information recovery process, subject to the exceptions set out in Clause 4, will help to do that. These amendments seek to strengthen our commitment to victims, provide greater direction to the commissioner and respond to the debate in Committee, where your Lordships raised concerns over the extent to which the commission would take a victim-centred approach to its work.
Amendment 85 will place the commissioner under a new duty to offer victims and their families the opportunity to submit personal impact statements setting out how they have been affected by a Troubles-related death or serious injury. Amendment 86 creates a corresponding duty to publish those statements, subject to limited exceptions. This will give families a voice in the process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, put it in Committee:
“Without that, this will be one of the biggest failures of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 31/1/23; col. 646.]
That is something that we are attempting to rectify. The new duty corresponds to recommendations made by the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Ian Jeffers, and is complemented by a separate duty to publish the statement if the individual so wishes. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for raising this amendment in Committee.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments in this group about making the Bill more victim-centred. Undoubtedly, the most important people in all this are the victims. Many of them have passed on and their families—some of whom have passed on, through the passage of time—have not seen justice and truth: the very things they were looking for. I acknowledge what both the Minister and my noble friend Lord Murphy said, on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, which is the day that victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland are remembered.
In relation to Amendment 2, can the Minister, in his wind-up, explain the practical application of the amendment on the operation of the ICRIR. How will the amendment really promote reconciliation in the exercise of those functions, given that the Bill has been opposed by legal representatives, such as the European Council of Ministers, political representatives from the Irish Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and the victims and survivors—a wide spectrum?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, first, my colleagues and I associate ourselves with the earlier remarks noting and indeed supporting real victims of the Troubles. It is important that they are at the forefront of our mind as we debate all these amendments today.
I acknowledge that the amendments before us in this group all represent very small steps forward. They are small ameliorations and small improvements. It is difficult to quibble with their exact wording; there is nothing that we would seek to divide on in this group of amendments. However, by their very nature, they are symptomatic of the wider problems with this Bill. Whatever small improvements are made, they cannot turn the irreconcilable and the unacceptable into something that is acceptable and worthy of legislation. They omit some of the most important aspects. Indeed, part of the problem with these amendments is that they have sins of omission, rather than sins of commission. What do I mean by that? If we first take Amendment 2, we see that it introduces the concept of reconciliation, which is on the face of the Bill, directly into the work of the commission, but there is a danger of that being seen as tokenistic. At no stage does the Bill actually define what the objectives of reconciliation are. There is a danger that this has been thrown in simply so that there can be a direct reference to reconciliation, but with no meat put on the substance.
The other, more fundamental, issue regarding reconciliation is that many victims will see this legislation as being entirely unacceptable, taking away from them any prospect at all of justice and granting immunity to those who carried out some of the most heinous crimes during the Troubles. Therefore, the idea of reconciliation being at the heart of the Bill while immunity from prosecution remains is a central paradox of the Bill that is not properly addressed by Amendment 2.
On Amendment 3, the weakness is in the reference to the
“general interests of persons affected”
by the Troubles. Having a victim-centred is something that no one would disagree with but, in this wording, no distinction is drawn, for example, between a perpetrator and a victim. Someone who, for example, could have suffered injuries or death as a result of their own terrorist actions is put on the same plain as those innocent victims. I think that, again, there has been a problem of successive Governments failing to tackle this particular problem.
Finally, on Amendment 85 and 86, the involvement of victim statements is generally welcomed but, again, this belies the flaws within this process as a whole. Victim statements are commonplace within the criminal law and give an opportunity for those who have suffered directly to have their views taken into account. However, with that, the norm is that a victim impact assessment is taken into account by the courts to establish, for example, whether a tariff should be greater or less than would otherwise be imposed. The views of the victims can genuinely be taken into account. In this case, however, while it is welcome that those views will be published, it will have no impact whatever on the potential immunity. Therefore, the question for many victims will be: what is the point if whatever they say has no impact whatever?
We do not oppose these amendments and will not be dividing on them, but they fundamentally do not change the flawed nature of this Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, today, the Day of Reflection, was proposed many years ago by Healing Through Remembering. It is a very symbolic day, as noble Lords have noted, for families of victims, and we tonight, as they remember the dead and support the injured, are debating a Bill which takes away the rights they have under the law. They do not want the Bill; it is important to say that.
I thank the Minister for the amendments he has tabled that reflect my earlier comments during the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be here today, I thank him for the meetings he held with the noble Lord and with me.
It may seem desirable—admirable, indeed—that the Minister has introduced a requirement in government Amendment 2 that the principal objective of the ICRIR in exercising its functions is to promote reconciliation. However, it seems to me that there may be a contradiction between the promotion of reconciliation and the conduct of an investigation. How does one conduct an independent, impartial investigation with the principal objective of promoting reconciliation? Does that objective detract from the duty to investigate fearlessly, regardless of what the outcome of an investigation may be, so that people can be assured that the Government act in accordance with their obligations under the rule of law?
Investigation can lead to the exposure of matters that were hitherto unknown or unconfirmed but which may demonstrate, for example, that a named individual or individuals were responsible for a particular atrocity, and that can cause massive concern, particularly in circumstances in which terrorist perpetrators regard their activities as justified by circumstances, or where state actors did not take action to prevent a planned murder of which they were aware. It may certainly lead to hostility and distrust, rather than promoting reconciliation. I do not know what the answer to this is, but I think there is a conflict there, or a dissonance.
I welcome the two government Amendments 85 and 86, which provide for victim statements and the publication of those statements. The Government have yet to provide, as the NIHRC has stated, that victims or family members are informed when an individual has applied for immunity. Victims or family members are not currently expressly required to be informed of the outcome of the immunity request. There is no express requirement for the independent commission to provide reasons why it is or is not granting immunity, and there is no proposed option for an individual requesting immunity, or an interested person, to appeal a decision on immunity made by the ICRIR. In short, the Bill still does not comply, in this context, with the requirements of the victims’ rights directive in its provision for victims.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister was at pains to point out that Amendment 2 is all about reconciliation, yet no matter how much you search through the Bill, there is no definition of reconciliation in it. I am having difficulty, as are my colleagues, in being reconciled to the Bill and to have reconciliation with it, but I hope the Minister will—and I am sure he will—when he is winding up on Clause 2, give his definition of reconciliation. It seems to me that reconciliation means different things to different people. I am sure he will have observed that all the victims groups that have spoken about the Bill have not spoken in favour of it; therefore, I think he has a job to do. However, as my noble friend Lord Weir has said, we will not be dividing the House on this, but I earnestly ask the Minister why there is no definition of reconciliation in the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I know my noble friend Lord Weir touched on this, but Amendment 3 requires the ICRIR to
“have regard to the general interests of persons affected by Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries”.
I ask the Minister to clarify: have the Government failed conclusively to rule out perpetrators, including those who died or were injured at their own hand, from the scope of this duty which is now being placed upon the ICRIR? It would certainly be wrong that those who have been perpetrators and died or were injured at their own hand should be placed on the same level as those who are innocent victims.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the Minister for introducing Amendments 85 and 86, which, in essence, as he has said, are the same amendments that I tabled in Committee and were recommended by the victims’ commissioner, Ian Jeffers. It is a very welcome and common-sense change to the Bill, allowing for individuals affected by death and other harmful conduct to provide and publish personal statements to the ICRIR. I am very grateful that he is willing to make this small but important change, notwithstanding my earlier comments about the bigger picture of the Bill, including, in particular, immunity and other issues that we will get to later this evening. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about the potential conflict between reconciliation and investigation.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every word spoken by every Member of this House who has taken part in this very brief debate. First, I thank the Minister for certainly improving what was there before—there is no question about that—but it does not, of course, go to the heart of the issue of why it is that victims, victims groups and the victims’ commissioner are probably the people most opposed to the Bill as a whole. Putting the word “reconciliation” in it does not mean to say it makes it any better, because, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, there is a vagueness about the definition, so it does not actually mean very much at the end of the day.
What is purposeful, I think, is the fact that there are going to be victim statements. I think that is a distinct improvement, but ultimately the reason that victims and their families and their advocates in Northern Ireland are opposed to the Bill is because of the proposals on immunity, which we will reach a little later this evening. However, the Opposition will not oppose the amendments.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, again, I am very grateful to those who have participated in the admirably short debate on this group of amendments.
Returning briefly to the issue of personal impact statements, as I set out, these are designed to give victims and families a voice in the process, and an opportunity to set out how they have been personally affected by the Troubles. The noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, referred to the way in which the amendment is drafted and the fact that the victim’s impact statement will not be part of the immunity process. The Government’s clear view is that determinations for applications for immunity must be solely a matter for the chief commissioner of the new ICRIR to determine within the framework of the legislation. The commission will decide, of course, to what extent families should be involved in the immunity process more generally.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady O’Loan, touched on the issue of the potential conflict between the duty on reconciliation and investigations. As the amendments set out, the primary objective of reconciliation does not contradict the functions of the ICRIR—I shall say “the commission” for short—which are focused on the provision of information to families and the powers of the ICRIR will facilitate that. There is no question of the duty getting in the way of investigations. Certainly, when it comes to family reports, the only thing that will not form part of the final family report will be those that are referred to in Clause 4 regarding national security and the duty to keep people safe and secure and not to put people’s lives at risk.
In response generally to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I touched on the issue of reconciliation way back at Second Reading in November, when I said that no Government can legislate to reconcile people or to impose reconciliation on people. However, we can try to put in place as many measures as possible to promote reconciliation. In my view, reconciliation in Northern Ireland means a place where society is peaceful and prosperous and which most people who live there would be proud to call home. I hope that deals with some of those points.
On the point made by the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Weir, the Government have never accepted any kind of moral equivalence between those who injured themselves at their own hands and the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We made it quite clear when we passed the victims’ payment scheme in this House a few years ago that we did not accept any equivalence and there is certainly no intention to do so here.
On that note, I hope that I have managed to respond to a number of points and beg to move.
Lord Caine
“(4A) In exercising its functions, the ICRIR must have regard to the general interests of persons affected by Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the ICRIR to have regard to the interests of various categories of person when carrying out its functions.
Lord Caine
“(4A) At least three months before the start of each financial year the ICRIR must—(a) produce and publish a work plan for that year, and (b) give a copy of the plan to the Secretary of State.But this duty does not apply in relation to any financial year which starts before 1 April 2025.(4B) A work plan must deal with the following matters—(a) the caseload which the ICRIR is expecting;(b) the plans which the ICRIR has for dealing with its caseload;(c) the plans which the ICRIR has for engaging with persons entitled to request reviews of deaths and other harmful conduct;(d) policies which the ICRIR is planning to introduce, review or change;(e) such other matters as the ICRIR considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the ICRIR to produce a work plan for each financial year before the start of the year.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I will again try to be mercifully brief given that, with one technical exception, I have retabled these amendments from Committee, where they were debated extensively. They are designed to amend operational matters in the legislation. I hope noble Lords will bear with me as they are very technical.
Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 to Clause 2 and Amendment 125 to Clause 54 ensure that the commission produces and publishes a work plan for each financial year. This will ensure that the commission has properly considered and planned for its expected caseload in each financial year. The work plan will set out the commission’s engagement strategy and any plans to make policy changes. This will ensure that it has properly considered and planned for its expected caseload.
Amendment 127 is entirely technical in nature. It seeks to change the definition of “reserved provision” in regard to this legislation, reflecting the fact that Section 8(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires consent to a Bill for an Act, rather than to the Act itself. This will simply tidy up the drafting.
Amendment 130 to Schedule 1 will require the commission to keep accounts, prepare an annual statement of accounts and provide that statement to the Secretary of State and the National Audit Office, which will be under a duty to audit the commission with audits laid in Parliament. Amendment 134 to Schedule 1 deletes a reference to a commissioner having been removed from office on grounds of ill health, as ill health is not a ground for removal from office, as is standard for such posts.
Amendment 135 to Schedule 1 provides a definition for being insolvent in regard to this legislation. Amendments 136 and 143 update the provisions about the application to the commissioners and ICRIR officers of the law relating to the rehabilitation of offenders, which ensures that the Bill reflects the current approach taken in law.
Amendment 144 to Schedule 1 ensures that the commissioner for investigations, who is also an ICRIR officer, falls only within paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, as a commissioner, and not also within paragraph 20 of that schedule as an ICRIR officer. Paragraphs 14 and 20 make equivalent provision to ensure that the prohibitions on trade union activity which govern the police do not apply to the ICRIR, which I am sure noble Lords opposite will welcome.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, most of the amendments in this group are unexceptional. I have tabled Amendments 21 and 26 to Clause 9, which provides that close family members will have to apply to have their cases reviewed. There is a definition of “close family members” which effectively excludes those who are not parents, spouses, partners, children, brothers, sisters, half-brothers or half-sisters. For example, it does not include cousins, aunts and grandparents. This does not reflect modern families, who are much smaller than previously, where the deceased may be an only child with no issue or where the only surviving relatives are more distant but may be close.
In such cases, while a family member can make a request, the decision over whether it is appropriate will be made by the investigation commissioner. My Amendments 21 and 26 to Clause 9 remove from them that power to decide whether it is appropriate for a family member to make a request and leave it where it should belong—with the family member in question. This would be a victim-informed approach and go some way to meeting the requirements of the victims’ directive.
I hope the Minister will see that these two amendments are simply designed to give effect to the rights of victims, taking a victim-centred view of those who might not fit within the definition of a close family member but might well have been very close to the deceased person—even if they have felt forced by circumstances such as a threat by paramilitaries to leave Northern Ireland and therefore have not been able to return or have found it too traumatic to do so.
To respond to the Minister’s comments on the removal of access to communications data and the removal of the RIPA scheduling which was originally provided for in this Bill, this is not such a remote matter as he appears to think. Those powers were used most recently in Operation Kenova, which is investigating matters that occurred during the period covered by this Act. Those powers were used and should remain in the Bill.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, there are a lot of technical amendments to this and obviously we support those, as we support the other amendments in this group. Annual reports, work plans—all very sensible—but, in the nature of things, this is a relatively small part of this controversial Bill, and we will not oppose the amendments.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I wish to return to something I focused on in Committee: the role of the ICRIR and its officers. Tomorrow, I have the honour of addressing former Chief Constable Boutcher’s staff who are working on the Kenova inquiry. There are some 80 staff and a budget, so far, of over £40 million. We must have in our mind’s eye the criteria for people who work for the ICRIR. The concerns I had in the past have been greatly mollified by the fact that Sir Declan Morgan will now play such a key role in this new body. It is important to recall that there is no obstacle to employment in the ICRIR for those officers with, for example, HET experience, who did a good job, and former officers of the PSNI, and I am simply asking for reaffirmation of this from the Minister. We have to think about the complexity of issues, such as expense. Kenova is running to a cost of £40 million now, dealing with only a tiny percentage of the case load that the ICRIR might have, and therefore we do need experienced officers who know the ground working in this area. The Minister has been helpful in the past, but I am looking for a degree of reassurance.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I have a question. He talks about the tiny proportion of the cases which are dealt with by Operation Kenova. The reality is that Operation Kenova has dealt with over 200 cases of the 1,000 which currently remain to be dealt with. My understanding is that the budget of the ICRIR is to be £50 million a year, which will come to £250 million, so the approximate cost will be very much the same.
Lord Bew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the intervention. I did not express it quite correctly; I was thinking of the likely number of prosecutions, which is a substantially lower number. She is right to make the correction.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I turn first to Amendment 10 to Clause 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The legislation is clear in relation to the powers provided to the ICRIR to assist in the performance of its functions. That includes Clause 5, in relation to disclosure, and Clause 6, which provides for ICRIR officers to have the powers and privileges of a constable. Clause 14 provides the ICRIR with the power to compel individuals to provide information, a power which is not provided to police officers but, in the Government’s view, is necessary to ensure that the commission can deliver effective legacy mechanisms while complying with our international obligations. Although I am sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment, I suggest that it is not necessary.
In respect of the noble Lord’s comments about the employment of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers—former members of the Historical Enquiries Team—there is absolutely no prohibition, as I made clear in earlier comments in Committee. I think he is aware of my steadfast support and gratitude for the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over many years.
I turn to Amendments 21 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. We had an extensive discussion about this issue yesterday afternoon so she will be unsurprised by my response. In our view, the Bill’s definition of a “close family member” is already extensive and covers spouses, civil partners, cohabitees, children, parents and siblings, as well as stepchildren, step-parents and half-step-siblings, and the ICRIR must accept a request for a review from any of these individuals. Therefore, this is a provision which is unlikely to be required in the majority of cases, given the comprehensive scope of the definition of close family member. However, where no close family member exists, it is right that the ICRIR has discretion—I repeat, discretion—to consider whether that request is appropriate. This could, for example, be considering the nature of the relationship to the deceased by the person requesting the review, both in terms of how they are related or the reality of that relationship. Factors such as whether they were estranged or were closely involved in the individual’s life could be relevant.
In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness about data, we discussed this extensively. I am afraid I do not know the details of the circumstances in which Kenova has made the request to which she referred, but I think the Government’s position on this is solid.
Lord Caine
“(5) No later than six months after the end of each financial year, the ICRIR must— (a) produce and publish an annual report in relation to that year, and(b) give a copy of the annual report to the Secretary of State.(5A) An annual report must deal with the following matters—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the existing provision about annual reports so that it takes the same form as the new provision in the amendment in Lord Caine’s name about work plans (including by imposing a time limit for producing the reports and requiring the reports to relate to financial years).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name which amends the existing provision about annual reports.
“(9) In this section “persons affected by Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries” means—(a) family members of persons whose deaths were caused directly by conduct forming part of the Troubles (and the reference to those deaths has the meaning given in section 9(9)), (b) persons who suffered serious physical or mental harm that was caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles, and(c) family members of persons who suffered such harm and have subsequently died.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name about the duty to have regard to certain persons’ interests.
“(9) In this Act “financial year”, in relation to the ICRIR, means—(a) the period which—(i) begins with the day on which this section comes into force, and(ii) ends with the following 31 March; and(b) each subsequent period of one year which ends with 31 March.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name about work plans and annual reports.
Lord Eames
“ICRIR: immunity consent
(1) The ICRIR process must have as its central feature the requirement for a close family member of a deceased person to grant consent prior to the granting of specific immunity for deaths caused by a troubles-related offence, subject to section (Objections to request for immunity)(3).(2) If there is an objection raised to a request for immunity in relation to deaths then the ICRIR may not exercise any powers in section 14, 15 or 16, subject to section (Objections to request for immunity)(3).(3) The Chief Commissioner may still conduct a review under section 9(3) to (6) if they deem it to be proportionate and in the public interest.(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 23.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the victim’s consent to be central to the process. In the absence of such consent in regards offences causing death, there can be no immunity (subject to subsection (3) of the new clause in Lord Eames' name after Clause 12). If there is no consent, it is also the case that the ICRIR may not supply information or produce a public report, but nevertheless may still exercise the power in section 23 to refer to prosecutors.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendment 9, recognising the consequential relationship of Amendments 20, 27, 29, 59, 61, 62 and 69. In Committee, I frequently reminded noble Lords of the centrality of the urgency of victims’ needs. I also referred to my personal experience, over my adult life, of being in close contact with so many victims. No later than this week, knowing this debate was taking place, I have been reminded of this by two families who are not members of any organisation for victimhood, but who quietly and with dignity carry the wounds of their victimhood in the privacy of their own homes.
It is that morass of emotions which prompted me to table this amendment, because back home in Northern Ireland there is almost universal opposition to this Bill. The more you think about it and try to analyse it, you come up with a conclusion that, first, we differ on what reconciliation means; secondly, any attempt through legislation to define reconciliation is going to run into a multitude of difficulties; and, thirdly, the reconciliation in the Bill is, for many of us who have experience of the Troubles, nothing short of hypocrisy. My amendment seeks to recognise the need of victimhood not just to be recognised as a term but to be experienced in the process of reaching what the Bill is set out to aim for: reconciliation with a small R.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a signatory to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the amendments that follow from it, I support it very strongly. Realistically, we know that the Government are going to push the Bill through, so rather than trying to wreck it completely, it is important that we try to make it as good as it can be.
Fundamentally, Amendment 9 seeks to make what is imperfect legislation that little bit less imperfect. It would do so by at least making the immunity process absolutely victim centred. To put it simply, save for exceptional circumstances which we have set out in the amendment—such as a disagreement among family members as to whether to consent—the core principle will be that an immunity certificate cannot be granted unless there is the consent of a victim.
We have built in a provision whereby if a close family member requests a review, that is taken as consent. Once consent is given, a perpetrator—within the scope set out in the Bill—can obtain immunity, the family can obtain information and the chief commissioner can publish a report of his findings. But crucially, if there is no family consent, none of those things can happen. The chief commissioner may still conduct a review if a referral is made by one of the specified statutory bodies, but he may not grant immunity, provide information to families or publish a report if there is no consent. That means that the wishes of victims’ families are central to the process.
We would prefer that the Bill in this format was not here at all—but it is. These amendments seek to make the best of a bad situation and at least give victims, in all but exceptional cases, a veto over perpetrator immunity.
It should be noted—I raise it now because it is central to the whole issue of outcomes for victims—that if you look at paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 11, it appears that Section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is being amended to, in effect, reduce the tariff to zero or at the most one day. At the moment, it works out as a two-year sentence for anyone convicted of a pre-1998 offence. On the face of it, this seems to mean that even if one were to be convicted of an offence on referral to the DPP by the chief commissioner, there would be a term of imprisonment of, in effect, one day maximum. That may not be called an amnesty, but it is a de facto amnesty. I am very sad about that and regret it. It is wrong. It was wrong in 1998, it is wrong now and it will be for ever wrong.
If the Government are determined to force the Bill through, at least our amendment would put victims at the centre of an imperfect process. I ask a simple question: how could anyone reasonably object to elevating the interests of victims over those of perpetrators?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, first, I join with other noble Lords who have thanked the Minister for his engagement in relation to both the amendments he has tabled on Report and the amendments we considered in Committee and have brought forward again on Report. I think it has been a genuine engagement. I am pleased that the Minister has listened to some extent and that there have been improvements as a result of the discussions that have taken place, and indeed following amendments tabled in the other place which the Government responded to.
In paying tribute to the Minister, we should also pay tribute, as others have, to the innocent victims of terrorism, murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland over many years. We should pay tribute to their enormous tenacity and fortitude in the face of what has been happening in recent days in Northern Ireland, with the continuing eulogy and glorification of murderers and criminals by elected representatives, including those who purport to be the First Minister “for all”.
In relation to the Bill being brought back, given the pause and the length of time that has passed, and the universal opposition to it, some had hoped that this would be one area where the Government might actually listen to all the parties in Northern Ireland, but that does not appear to be the case. The Minister and your Lordships will be aware that on 19 June, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, and others wrote to the Prime Minister asking, even at this stage, for the proposals to be withdrawn. The letter restated our fundamental opposition to an amnesty—which is what the Bill in effect creates—paid tribute to the victims and recognised that while we and other noble Lords have tabled amendments, that should not be misconstrued in any shape or form as providing tacit consent to this regime, which undermines confidence in the rule of law and has done so much harm to victims.
I will speak to the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends, but I say initially that I have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 9, moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on putting the victims at the centre of this immunity process if we are to have it. It talks about those cases that involve death; I would prefer it to cover all cases. Having said that, I think it is worthy of support, and I hope the Government will consider it.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, talked about hypocrisy in relation to mentioning reconciliation, yet we have the Bill before us. That was a very powerful but correct description, and I often hear that word mentioned by victims in relation to the approach taken in the Bill by the Government.
Amendment 59A, standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends, would require the commissioner for investigations to refer a file to the PPS when an individual is found to have provided false statements to the ICRIR. At present there is no explicit provision in the Bill to require the ICRIR to provide material evidence of false statements to the prosecutor in aid of proceedings. I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds, he can address that point and reassure your Lordships that this is not some kind of loophole that can be exploited but that, in the absence of this amendment, there will be no gap and that we will ensure that there is a joined-up approach to pursuing convictions.
Amendment 61A would require an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution, Although the concept of immunity is in our view irredeemable, a further problem is that the Bill as drafted places no impediment to a perpetrator gaining the protection of immunity and then going on to publicise, promote or commemorate—the favourite word now used by terrorist apologists—his or her deeds in such a way that harms victims and generally offends the cause of peace and reconciliation. The Government have brought forward new proposals allowing immunity to be revoked in instances of glorification of terror, and I welcome that. However, I think it could go further in capturing activities that do not necessarily constitute offending but which will cause deep harm to victims, survivors and their families. Our Amendment 86A follows on by requiring the permanent revocation of immunity of individuals engaged in the sort of activity that I have outlined.
It should not be acceptable in general terms that political representatives of the IRA and Sinn Féin, including the potential First Minister or anyone else, and especially people who have taken advantage of this system, should go around the country, not doing enough to fall foul of the “glorification of terrorism” legislation but doing enormous harm psychologically to victims and their families by their continuing commemoration, eulogising and glorification of the perpetrators of some of the most heinous criminal and obscene acts that we have seen anywhere over the last 30 years. The purpose of these amendments is to address that point and to urge that the Government do something about it. It is not only causing trauma to victims and retraumatising their families but is toxifying the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland as people try to get the Assembly up and running again.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, we are now on one of the main debates in this Bill: the issue of amnesty and immunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, this issue goes to the heart of the legislation, but it also drives a dagger through victims in Northern Ireland—people who have endured immeasurable suffering because of the loss of their loved ones in unexplained circumstances, because many of them have not been told how or why that loss happened, or the nature of the wounds inflicted on them. Those who are victims suffer many wounds in later life that can never be measured in terms of compensation or monetarily but can be measured only in terms of loss of family lives and family time, because they have lost their loved ones. We all know many of those people, whose lives have been totally turned around by the actions of paramilitaries and—we cannot deny it—of state forces.
However, this issue of immunity strikes at the heart of everybody. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, there is universal opposition to this Bill and this particular part of it on immunity, and the clauses dealing with the withdrawal of access to inquiries and investigations. That is very much a denial of basic human rights in any normal democracy.
In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Hain, I will speak to Amendment 63, which is in his name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. As the Bill stands with the Government’s amendments, there are only two circumstances in which immunity for some of the most heinous crimes imaginable can be revoked: if there is a conviction for misleading the ICRIR or for a subsequent terrorist offence. This is not good enough. Amendment 63 sets out other circumstances which would put in place at least some accountability measures as to the future conduct of perpetrators.
Are the Government seriously saying that, as far as they are concerned, someone who has confessed to a sectarian murder, for example, is perfectly free to harass that person’s family, laugh at their grief, celebrate their loss and still retain their immunity? Are they saying that they should still retain their immunity if they are a threat to the public? Where in this legislation is there any element of accountability for perpetrators? They do not even have to express remorse or regret for their actions. Presumably, they could appear before the ICRIR, describe what they have done to the best of their knowledge and belief, say, “By the way, I would do it all over again”, and still walk away with lifelong immunity in their pocket. As far as the world at large is concerned, they will not have a stain on their character, but we will never forget, nor will those who were the victims. They will carry the cross of the loss of their loved ones, in the most heinous circumstances, to their graves.
If we let this element of the legislation go through as the Government currently propose, we will be telling victims and survivors that we care more about the perpetrators than we do about them. I cannot believe that that is the message this House wants to send. The clauses regarding conditional immunity and those dealing with the eradication of inquests and investigations undoubtedly go to the very heart of this legacy debate. To impose conditional immunity and remove access to inquests and inquiries is a denial of basic civil liberties.
It is worth noting the following from the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, who spoke yesterday on immunity. She said:
“Despite this, the UK government has decided to go ahead with the Bill in a way that does not recognise Northern Ireland’s violent past or honours the suffering of victims. While the government has recently published amendments, these leave the fundamental problems with the Bill intact, such as the conditional immunity scheme that would result in impunity for serious human rights violations”.
She went on to talk about the cutting off of
“avenues to justice for victims”,
and questioned the ability of the ICRIR
“to deliver outcomes that would meet human rights standards”.
I would like the Minister to comment on the commissioner’s words and the actions the Government will take on foot of that.
It is noteworthy that victims organisations throughout Northern Ireland, such as Amnesty, the CAJ and the Human Rights Commission, have asserted in their submissions that the government amendments are not compliant with the provisions required by the ECHR—a point denied by the Secretary of State yesterday.
I am told that the Secretary of State relies on the amnesty provisions in the weapons Act as a basis for the amnesty in this Bill. When he was Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, later Lord Mayhew—a former colleague of the Minister—said on the then Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill that that amnesty was “tightly defined”, and
“available only to those who adhere to the strict terms of a decommissioning scheme, and only for offences that they technically commit in respect of anything done in accordance with such a scheme”—
mainly offences of a possessory nature. He continued by saying that these provisions
“in no sense constitute some form of general amnesty covering other offences: the security forces will go on with undiminished resolution pursuing and bringing to justice those responsible for other crimes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/1996; col. 24.]
How does that square with this information and this clause on immunity? Maybe the Minister could comment on that in the light of the Government’s current Bill.
For all these reasons, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy. If my noble friend Lord Murphy pushes Amendment 66 to a vote on Monday, I will support him in the Division.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I must apologise to the House. I omitted to declare my interest as a member of the Operation Kenova steering group when I spoke on it previously.
The amendments in this group cover a massive range of issues affecting the proposed immunity provisions, which are contrary to the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights and are not consistent with the Government’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement. They will provide immunity from prosecution for murder, torture and other terrible crimes that have left people dead or with life-changing, life-limiting injuries. The only crimes for which immunity will not be possible are sexual ones.
Northern Ireland has not previously had immunity from prosecution. What we had were prosecutions that, on conviction, resulted in a maximum two-year sentence. We also had law that said that certain evidence was not admissible in a case. So, where information led to the recovery of one of those whom the IRA disappeared, that information could not be used for the purpose of prosecution. Similarly, when guns were brought in for decommissioning, they and any information attached to them could not be used as evidence. However, that did not confer immunity on an individual; it was still possible for them to be prosecuted for the crimes they had committed.
Those laws on the disappeared and decommissioning, and even the sentences Act, resulted from the Good Friday agreement and were not in breach of our convention obligations. However, these immunity provisions are different. The extent of the problem was made clear yesterday by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is made up of advisers to the Northern Ireland Government. It said that,
“even with the UK Government’s additional amendments … fundamentally, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights … the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 requires the UK Government to incorporate the ECHR into Northern Ireland law and to do so to provide people with ‘direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention’ … Therefore, our previous advice stands that closing off any pursuit of justice outside of the ICRIR is incompatible with human rights and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement”.
I would like to the Minister to explain to me, if he can, how people will have direct access to the courts and remedies for breaches of the convention under this Bill.
Even with the Government’s amendments—more than 120 of them—this legacy Bill will not provide something that is compliant. It will prevent direct access to the courts and to remedies. The Government’s 25 amendments to their immunity scheme do not, even in their totality, make the scheme compliant with convention rights. Such things as the revocation of immunity in particular circumstances do not change those facts. Amendment 63 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others would require that, to get immunity, a person would have to comply with the ICRIR’s requirements to provide fingerprints and “non-intimate samples”. It would also mean that a grant of immunity could be revoked in the event that a person commits a Terrorism Act offence, is a danger to the public or, to echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, attempts to make a profit from their criminality.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights issued the following statement yesterday:
“I have repeatedly warned that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill would undermine the human rights of victims, as well as truth seeking, reconciliation and justice efforts. Serious concerns have also been expressed by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteurs, national human rights institutions, parliamentary committees”—
of this Parliament, indeed—
“and civil society organisations, including victims’ groups. Despite this, the UK government has decided to go ahead with the Bill in a way that does not recognise Northern Ireland’s violent past or honours the suffering of victims. While the government has recently published amendments, these leave the fundamental problems with the Bill intact, such as the conditional immunity scheme that would result in impunity for serious human rights violations, the unilateral shutting down of avenues to justice for victims, and questions about the ability of the Independent Commission for Information Recovery to deliver outcomes that would meet human rights standards”.
It is clear that, even with the Government’s amendments, this Bill is not compliant with our international obligations. As has been said, it continues to be the case that nobody in Northern Ireland or elsewhere—apart from the Government, it seems—thinks that the Government’s amendments will fix the Bill.
As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said, the fundamental issue is that the ICRIR’s conditional immunity scheme is not, at its core, compliant with human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has proposed Amendment 98A in this group. He said that it would be welcomed by those who have seen investigations completed and files just sitting there, waiting to be dealt with by the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. The Kenova files have been waiting for up to four years. They include the Stakeknife files and the file that dealt with the terrible murders of three young constables on the Kinnego Embankment in Lurgan. All that will be lost. It will simply cease to operate unless the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is accepted. I urge colleagues to think very seriously about the terrible injustice that would be done if we did not get that amendment through.
Despite all the amendments, the conditional immunity scheme remains in breach of our obligations. As we look at conditional immunity for murder, it must be more questionable—indeed, offensive—that immunity from prosecution will not be available for sexual offences but will be for the most heinous murders and tortures carried out by people like those who abducted and murdered Jean McConville, a mother of 10, in 1972; like those who planted the Enniskillen bomb; and like those who murdered people watching a football match in Loughinisland, as well as for all the other atrocities. Why? To know that your loved one was savagely murdered—even to witness it, as some did—is surely as egregious and terrible as any sexual offence.
Nobody in Northern Ireland wants these provisions. I urge noble Lords to support the amendments that seek to remove them, in particular Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to which I and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, have added our names.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I will not detain the House much on this issue and Amendment 63, to which my name is attached, because I am really here to talk about Amendment 31, the Kenova amendment, which we will come to later on. I just want to remind noble Lords of the shocking effects of letters of comfort. We are about to repeat that same mistake if we continue with this process and do not do something to get Amendment 63 through the House on Monday.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61A, tabled by me and my noble friends Lord Dodds and Lord Weir. My noble friend Lord Dodds has already spoken very eloquently on this, but I will add some comments.
Amendment 61A would require
“an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution”.
Earlier, I tried to push the Minister a little on this, because although reconciliation is laced through the Bill, its definition is anything but clear. I still feel strongly that the definition should be in the Bill. However, we are where we are.
Admittedly, the Government have brought forward new proposals allowing immunity to be revoked in incidents involving glorification of terror, as my noble friend Lord Dodds said. It is very disturbing when one watches our television screens or reads a newspaper to see leading, prominent politicians elegising the past—murder—and commemorating those who were intercepted by the security forces while carrying out murder, or who were blown up by their own bomb. In an age of reconciliation, how can this continue? Yet those same people tell us that they will be a First Minister for everybody.
That is the strangest way of setting out. If that is their idea of reconciliation, then I no longer understand plain English. Surely it is time for the Government to take a long hard look at this situation. As has already been said by others, this is not good legislation. It is bad legislation, and it has no support back in Northern Ireland from anyone who has spoken publicly about it. I have not read of support for this legislation, yet the Government are intent on pushing on and pushing it through. Those of us who have these great concerns are therefore making an honest attempt to make this less bad. That might not be good grammar, but it is the best way that I can say it.
We want the Government to stop and think. Admittedly, they brought forward new proposals allowing immunity to be revoked for the glorification of terror, but this does not go far enough in capturing activities that do not necessarily constitute offending, but which will cause deep harm to victims, survivors and their families. If this Bill is about reconciliation, it must take into account the hurt caused not only 30 years ago but right up to recent times. Some tell us that we have every right to remember our dead, and maybe that is true, but we have absolutely no moral right to glorify those who carried out these evil deeds of terror. “Reconciliation” is in the title of the Bill, but that seems to be as far as the Government are willing to go.
The ICRIR will be statutorily required to oversee an amnesty process which runs contrary to reconciliation and which is opposed almost unilaterally by victims. Any sense that the ICRIR can deliver on its primary objective is diminished from the word go. It should be made clear in Clause 18 that one condition for immunity, applied not just at the point of application but thereafter, is that an individual is not engaged in activity which can reasonably be regarded as precluding reconciliation by glorifying terror and violence, eroding support for the rule of the law or traumatising victims yet again.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71, 72, 73 and 74 in my name, which are amendments to Amendment 70, tabled by the Minister, who has continued diligently to engage with all shades of opinion in your Lordships’ House. Like other noble Lords, I thank him for that.
For the reasons given, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy of Torfaen. At this stage, I feel no need to go over those reasons again. In proposing these amendments, I am conscious that, when juxtaposed with the larger issue of immunity itself, they are confessedly procedural and administrative in their scope. But they do seek to do something in the province of responsible legislation: they anticipate that which can be anticipated, minimise the effect of contingency and, in this particular case, ensure that, if the chief commissioner is unable to consider requests for immunity—whether for reasons of misadventure or owing to a potential or perceived conflict of interest, or for any number of reasons—there is a person empowered to do so. To some extent, this has been anticipated by Amendment 70 in the name of the Minister.
While the government amendment is welcome, the amendments I have tabled seek to do three specific things. Amendments 71, 72 and 73 mandate the appointment of a deputy for the chief commissioner. This deputy would be appointed by the Chief Commissioner immediately upon their own appointment and would be empowered to exercise some or all of the immunity functions if the chief commissioner were absent or otherwise unable to do so. I believe that the mandatory appointment of such a deputy would better ensure a consistency of approach, strengthen institutional memory in respect of such decisions and place a further brick in the wall dividing the Secretary of State—mindful as I am of new subsection (7B) in Amendment 70—from the fraught question of immunity.
Where Amendment 70 seeks to engage that eventuality by recourse first to a rapid nomination by the chief commissioner and, if that is not possible, through an ad hoc appointment by the Secretary of State, my amendments would see such a person already in place. This person would be fully briefed on these issues and placed in their position by the chief commissioner at the start of their term.
Given that new subsection (7C) in Amendment 70 quite rightly mandates that a stand-in for the chief commissioner must have held high judicial office, it is evident that one of the qualities such a person must possess is impartiality. Surely, being appointed by the Commissioner rather than by an active politician in the shape of the Secretary of State would strengthen claims to judicial objectivity rather than the reverse. Moreover, having a named deputy in place from the beginning of the chief commissioner’s term will provide confidence that, where decisions must be made in his absence, they will conform with the standards set by the chief commissioner and follow the tramlines of decision-making in a manner that is consistent across all cases. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to everything. I have not bothered to intervene because I basically agree that this is not a great Bill and that all we can hope to do is make it less damaging to what is happening in Northern Ireland.
The one thing that strikes me is that reconciliation is on the face of the Bill. I have been struggling with that and with the definition of “reconciliation”. I decided to look it up on my phone. It is on the face of the Bill: therefore, it is the number one objective of the Bill. If we had reconciliation, we would not be worried about the other things. “Reconciliation” is defined as
“the restoration of friendly relations”
and
“the action of making one view or belief compatible with another”.
The definition goes on to say
“an act of reconciling, as when former enemies agree to an amicable truce”.
The problem is that we know that there is not an amicable truce. We know from the glorification of terrorism and lots of other parts of what we have been discussing that that is not there. Yet it is on the face of the Bill as being the number one objective.
What troubles so many of us in Northern Ireland, whether our families have directly suffered a death, or for all the people we k now who have suffered and their families—one family has been mentioned; three of my soldiers were killed, one after the other, and a sister was mown down on a checkpoint for serving in the security forces—is that the people in Northern Ireland see the Bill coming and would love to have reconciliation but the Government are not giving one little inch to assuaging their lives and their fears. I know that there have been amendments, and everybody is very grateful for that, but, if people are to accept this and if it is to work, there has to be something significant, so they actually feel that it was made for them.
All I plead is this: we really hope that the Government accept some of these amendments, which will enable people to say “Yes, but they have done this and they have worked towards us, and we want to make it work”. We know that at the moment virtually nobody in Northern Ireland is saying that.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 61A stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment would require an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution”.
There is another amendment in the name of my noble friends that is in a similar vein.
I draw attention to something that my noble friend Lord Dodds has already mentioned. There is a question in my mind concerning the legislation as it stands. My noble friend mentioned the late Joe Clarke, one of the hooded men who received an apology on his deathbed from the chief constable of the PSNI over his treatment while he was interned in 1971. He was one of 14 men who claimed that they were subjected to state-sanctioned torture. They all claim innocence. However, at his funeral the other day, Mr Clarke was buried with what appeared to be full so-called IRA military honours: his coffin was draped in the tricolour and he was escorted by men and women in some sort of uniform—white gloves, black ties and white shirts. I believe that this is reserved for members of the IRA, particularly those who have carried out what is known as IRA active service—and we know what that really means.
To deepen the plot, one of those carrying Clarke’s coffin in that military-style uniform was none other than a man who had been arrested and imprisoned over the murder of two soldiers at the Massereene barracks in Antrim during the time when I was the local Member of Parliament for that constituency. That person and his doctors told the court that he had only three to four years to live at most. Strangely, 14 years later, he is the picture of health, miraculously cured and carrying an IRA man’s coffin. Actually, that person is a neighbour of mine. I ask the Minister this: would the likes of Mr Shivers receive immunity or an amnesty under the present legislation as it stands, without the amendments suggested by my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the sheer number and scope of amendments in this group should serve as a clear indication to the Government that there continue to be grave concerns about the proposals for immunity set out in Clause 18. I have added my name on behalf of these Benches to Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie, which would remove Clause 18.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
This was bound to be a powerful and very emotional debate about an issue which goes, as many noble Lords have said, to the very heart of the legislation. It also goes to the heart of the opposition to the legislation. We heard some excellent speeches from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, onwards on various amendments which have been tabled, which are very welcome and sensible.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, she and I and others have tabled Amendment 66, which removes the clause dealing with immunity. One of my later successors as Northern Ireland Secretary, the right honourable Karen Bradley, said some years ago that proposals for legacy must follow the rule of law. She went on:
“Conservatives in government have consistently said that we will not introduce amnesties or immunities from prosecution”.
It is as clear and simple as that.
Why then should we be so drastic as to propose the deletion of that vital clause? First, we need to send a message as clearly and strongly as we can to the Members of the House of Commons when they consider the amendments that go back from this place. The Government have a majority of 80. Inevitably, with that large majority they can do what they want, but they should think again because of the nature of this Bill. Every single Northern Ireland Member of Parliament from all parties in Northern Ireland voted against it. To send a signal to the House of Commons that this House recognises the significance of the opposition to the Bill in Northern Ireland would be very powerful.
People say that the release of prisoners under the Good Friday agreement was similar—not the same because prisoners had to have served at least two years in prison before they could be released. The big difference between this and that is that the people of Northern Ireland, in a referendum on the Good Friday agreement, however distasteful they thought it was, voted in favour. No one in Northern Ireland is voting in favour of this. In fact, this entire Bill, with the possible exception of some national security elements, should have been passed by the Assembly in Belfast, and I suspect that the reality is that not one single Member of the Belfast Assembly would have voted for this Bill. Perhaps a handful might have done so, but I very much doubt that.
That is why it is so important that the Government should think again about this. They should think in terms of who is against it. Every church in Northern Ireland is against it. Every single political party is against it. All the victims’ groups and the victims’ commissioner are against it. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and every single human rights group are against it. Internationally, only a day or so ago the Tánaiste—the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Ireland—said how much the Irish Government are against it because their legacy provisions in the Republic are affected by it. The Council of Europe is against it. The United Nations is against it. The list goes on and on but, most significantly, it is because there is no consensus in its favour.
The Minister has been involved in Northern Ireland for a very long time, and he knows that you cannot simply impose things on Northern Ireland. You cannot impose resolution on Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland should decide for themselves on this, which is the most crucial and delicate issue that they can possibly make a decision on. Imposition is entirely improper. That is the message I hope we will be able to send to the House of Commons when we vote on these issues on Monday.
The Minister will say this wrecks the Bill. It does not. It takes out the part of the Bill which is most severely disliked. The Government will still have their commission and their reviews, but they will have to put something else in place of this proposal on amnesties and immunity, and that something else has to be based upon the co-operation and consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I went to Belfast in April when we were dealing with the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, and not one single person came up to me and said they agreed with this legislation—indeed, the opposite. All the people, right across the political spectrum, I talked to about the Bill were against it because this immunity issue is the one that they particularly disagree with for all the reasons that noble Lords have spoken about in this short debate. Why on earth are the Government persisting in something that should not be imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very thorough debate, as indeed it was in Committee. At the outset, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for quoting some words which I think I probably drafted for Karen Bradley when she was Secretary of State a few years ago. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, of a letter to which he put his name, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to Karen Bradley in 2018. They wrote that
“the priority is surely now … not investigations that have little or no likelihood of either prosecution or alternative closure satisfactory to victims”.
I would be interested to hear at some stage what the alternative proposal of His Majesty’s Opposition might be.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I rarely do this in the House of Lords, but I think that is worth an answer. It would have been based on consensus. Whatever was done would have been done with the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland through their elected representatives and through the people in their other organisations. That is the difference.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware from his own experience that the search for any consensus around this subject has eluded successive Governments of—I was going to say “both parties”, but it is actually three parties if you include the coalition.
The noble Baroness mentioned devolution. I well remember the history of why we are in this position in the first place: after the Stormont House agreement, the First and Deputy First Ministers came to what was then Her Majesty’s Government and said, “This is all far too difficult for us to do in Stormont. Please do it at Westminster”. The assumption always was that these issues would be dealt with in Stormont, with some parallel legislation in this House. Anyway, enough of the history.
I genuinely accept that this is the most controversial and challenging aspect of the Bill. As I acknowledged at Second Reading, I have found this very difficult. I reminded the House at the time that one of my first jobs in politics was to work alongside the late Ian Gow MP, a wonderful man, when he was chair of the Conservative Northern Ireland Back-Bench committee, so I understand. I have had many meetings with victims’ and survivors’ groups over many years, and intensively ever since I took on responsibility for this Bill in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I responded to a request from the noble Baroness last year. I have done this very willingly and have heard many harrowing stories that I will never forget. One of the most difficult parts of the job of being a Northern Ireland Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will acknowledge, is that one has to listen to some of the most appalling stories of suffering and grief; I completely acknowledge that.
As I said earlier, the Government are determined, through the legislation, to attempt to deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles. I do not underestimate that this is a hugely difficult task and that the legislation contains, as I have said, finely balanced political and moral choices that are challenging for many.
On the comments that have been made about our international obligations, we debated that extensively in Committee and I have had lots of discussions in private. We are not going to agree. The Government’s advice is clear that the provisions of the legislation are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the ECHR.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Could the Minister explain to us how they are compatible?
Lord Caine (Con)
I explained that at length in Committee. They allow for investigations to an Article 2-compliant criminal standard, they allow for prosecutions in cases where people do not co-operate with the commission, and they allow for revocation.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Possibly my question was not properly phrased. Could the Minister explain how an immunity provision such as this is compliant with our obligations?
Lord Caine (Con)
There are circumstances where setting aside the prospect of a prosecution, if it is for the greater good of providing more information to victims and survivors that will help society to move on, can be justified.
On the noble Baroness’s other point, I think she referred—I hope she will forgive me if I did not hear her quite right—to recourse to human rights remedies. The Bill does not remove the right of individuals to bring challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998, and that could include judicial review of decisions taken by the ICRIR in relation to the conduct of reviews. As a public authority, the ICRIR is under a duty to act compatibly with human rights obligations, something that we will probably talk about more in the next group of amendments.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
I have just a quick point. When we talk about the individual giving all the relevant and truthful knowledge, to what extent will he be asked about the other people involved in the incident, whenever it was? If he fails to give information on them, does that mean that he has fallen short of what is required by the commission, because there is virtually no incident that did not involve a number—or in fact quite a lot—of people? If he gives information but the other people he has named do not come forward when asked to, will they then be open to prosecution using some of what that original person either said or failed to say as evidence?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his intervention. Much of what he says will of course be dependent upon the way in which the criminal investigation, if there is one as part of a review, is carried out. But there is a duty to take reasonable steps to establish the truthfulness of an individual’s account by looking at all the relevant information that is available. If an individual’s account is deemed to be not truthful to the best of their ability, they will not qualify for immunity.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I would like to query what the Minister said about Amendments 94 and 97 and about me. I have never suggested that the officers of the ICRIR would not have the powers of a constable.
Lord Caine (Con)
Forgive me, I am having difficulty hearing the noble Baroness.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I said that the Minister made some allusion to me in the context of Amendments 94 and 97 as he was concluding his remarks. I have never suggested that the officers of the ICRIR would not have the powers of a constable. I just want to place that on record.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I do not think I was in any way ascribing those opinions to her. If she thinks I was, then I apologise.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate once more the manner in which the Minister has dealt with my amendments. I want to do everything I can to encourage him to take forward a little further the area I addressed. In light of what he has said, which does not surprise me, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bew
“(d) would create or exercise police powers additional to those exercised by the PSNI, or(e) would create or exercise new duties towards prosecutors, additional to those exercised by the PSNI.”Member’s explanatory statement
These additional paragraphs in Clause 4(1) make clear that the ICRIR will not be exercising additional powers of any description not normally available to police officers.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to address the subject of the fairness of the working of the commission in future. This amendment is alongside Amendments 37 and 47, which essentially have the same effect.
Lord Caine (Con)
Just to clarify: does the noble Lord wish to speak to Amendment 12, which we have not yet reached?
Lord Caine
“(2A) Subsection (1)(c) does not apply to grants of immunity from prosecution by the ICRIR under section 18 (but see paragraph 3 of Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on paragraph 3 of new Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances) in Lord Caine’s name.
“(4) Before carrying out any reviews, the ICRIR must publish, and in carrying out any reviews, the ICRIR must take into account, guidelines containing best practice on the rights of those likely to be named in any reports.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new subsection makes it clear that when carrying out reviews and in the exercise of its power to make findings in reports the ICRIR will follow best practice for the due protection of the rights of any person who may be named with critical comment.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being, as they say in Northern Ireland, a little bit previous. I want to address the fairness of the functioning of the commission. My concerns on this matter, like many people in Northern Ireland and on this island, have been greatly allayed by the appointment of Sir Declan Morgan as the chair of the commission. None the less, fairness has to be at the heart of the future working of the commission. This applies both to people who might work for the state forces who come before it, and those who do not.
It has been established in recent years that good practice in such inquiries is what might be called pre-Maxwellisation. I recall the Green report to the Commons Treasury Committee of 2016, which laid out ground rules for handling people who come before a commission in guaranteeing fairness. I know that to some, these will be seen as exaggerated concerns, but we have talked a lot about the international requirements and obligations that the United Kingdom has under Article 2. There is also an international requirement in, I think, Article 6 to protect reputation and to be fair to the reputation of individuals.
I wish to return to the theme—the Minister has listened already with some responsiveness to it—of the importance of guaranteeing as much as we can that when the commission is set up, it works as fairly as possible in respect of the rights of the individuals who may be coming before it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, with permission, and in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Hain, I will speak to Amendment 31, upon which a vote will take place on Monday. The amendment is in his name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. This amendment seeks to turn a terrible Bill into one that could at least act in the interests of victims, rather than the perpetrators of horrendous crimes of violence, by inserting as a method of bringing some form of justice a model based upon Operation Kenova, led by former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher. This model was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
Operation Kenova has the interests of victims, survivors and their families at its core, in stark contrast to the current legislation, in which victims and survivors are barely mentioned and to which they are universally opposed, along with each and every political party in Northern Ireland, as well as the Irish Government. In Operation Kenova, there is a proven model of the way to deal effectively with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past.
After his remarks on this amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Hain wrote a detailed letter of rebuttal to the Minister. Sadly, the Minister’s reply completely failed to rebut any of my noble friend’s arguments. While acknowledging the excellent work of Operation Kenova, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, made a number of assertions that simply do not stack up. The first was that, in some cases, a full Kenova-type investigation would not be appropriate if a family simply wanted information that could be readily found. The second was that an Operation Kenova model could not be upscaled and it would take too long to deal with the legacy case load. The third was that it would not be value for money. Each of these contentions does not stand up to scrutiny.
On the first, this circumstance has arisen with Operation Kenova, and it has been dealt with in a sensible and pragmatic way by the Kenova team, as the family requested. It is simply not an issue. Indeed, Kenova has been praised by victims’ groups precisely because of its effective truth recovery, providing information never before revealed on what actually happened to loved ones. In fact, Jon Boutcher visited a gentleman who lived quite close to me and whose son was brutally murdered. He did so before the gentleman, sadly, passed away, to explain the circumstances in which his son was murdered. That person was deeply grateful for that information and then, sadly, died some days later.
On the other contentions, I urge the Minister to take note of the independent National Police Chiefs’ Council’s review of Operation Kenova. The reviewers are recognised nationally as experts in investigations, especially homicide investigations—they deal in analysis, not assertion. On upscaling to deal with outstanding legacy cases, they said that
“the Terms of Reference … included the question as to whether Kenova might offer a ‘scalable’ model upon which to build any future Legacy Investigative capability for Northern Ireland. Having exhaustively reviewed its strategy, governance, partnerships and all facets of its operations, the review team firmly believes that Kenova would form the best possible foundation for this purpose”.
In his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 2 September 2020, Jon Boutcher, who leads Kenova, said that legacy cases could be addressed within “five to 10 years” because Operation Kenova has developed processes that can now carry out comprehensive investigations expeditiously, not least because it now has unfettered access to security and police files that have hitherto been hidden. This is the considered view of a hugely experienced and highly regarded senior investigator.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and which simply requires the removal of the word “reasonably” from Clause 5. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is unable to be with us today, but he associates himself with my remarks.
The Government told us that one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide families with information that was not previously available to them, and another is to gather all investigative and review functions within the ICRIR. This was always the proposal under the Stormont House agreement, and I have no difficulty with it, except for the way in which it is done and the immunity clause. But the powers accorded under the Bill do not provide to the ICRIR the access to information that will be necessary to obtain the information that families need, without lengthy judicial reviews and threats of judicial reviews, which have bedevilled inquiries such as the Saville inquiry and, indeed, the Kenova investigation.
In normal criminal investigations, there is a proviso that an investigator will not do anything which would prejudice national security or put someone’s life at risk. There is law that deals with this. The law also provides mechanisms which include a power to recover information, such as the search process when a warrant has been obtained. For example, police will seize all the computers in a house to determine whether the contents of any of them may be relevant to the matter under investigation. Those are general statutory investigation powers. Those charged with criminal investigation also have powers to require the provision of information from agencies and individuals. For example, under Section 17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 there is a simple duty on every chief constable and local policing body to provide information to the IOPC. Similarly, Section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says:
“The Chief Constable and the Board shall supply the Ombudsman with such information and documents as the Ombudsman may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of his functions”.
There is no qualification, simply a duty to provide information. However, this Bill as drafted states that a relevant authority
“must make available to the ICRIR such … information … documents, and … other material as the Commissioner for Investigations may reasonably require”.
This provision applies only to information which the ICRIR reasonably requests. Of course, an investigator must always act reasonably and in compliance with the law. However, there is no process for which a chief constable may, for example, say, “No, it’s not reasonable for you to make that request for information”. I had those conversations in the early days of my tenure as Police Ombudsman. I was told, for example, that it was not reasonable for me to ask for sensitive information, such as information held by Special Branch—now the Intelligence Branch. I was able to point to the law, which said that the chief constable
“shall supply the Ombudsman with such information … as the Ombudsman may require”.
That is how it is in criminal investigations. It is not required that the investigator demonstrates the reasonableness of any request for information.
The Minister has said that a requirement that information shall be reasonably required is to be found in other statutes. He cited one, the Finance Act 2008, so I looked it up. Section 113 of and Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 provides that an officer of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can require a taxpayer to provide information reasonably requested by the officer for the purposes of collecting a tax debt owed by a taxpayer. There is a big difference in the powers required to collect an unpaid tax debt and those required to investigate a murder, as is evidenced by the current state of the law, which provides necessary protections for privacy in appropriate circumstances under the GDPR and the Data Protection Act, for example, but also empowers criminal investigators to access information. This is the proper working out of UK compliance with its obligations under the Good Friday agreement and the European convention.
If an agency could respond to a request for information by the ICRIR by challenging the reasonableness of that request, there would be inevitable and very lengthy disputes, possibly—indeed probably—involving judicial review, about why what the ICRIR was asking for was reasonable. The reality is that the investigator—the ICRIR in this case—may be in possession of material justifying the reasonableness of the request for information, but that material cannot be disclosed at this particular point in time without compromising the integrity of the investigation. The result is that an agency may be unaware of the material which the investigator holds, but it may be very aware that information which is held by that agency is highly compromising of the agency and may indicate how it came about that, despite an agency, for example, being aware of a proposal to murder someone, it did not intervene to stop that murder. It has happened.
The necessary unqualified powers to compel the production of documentation, especially documentation held by the other agencies, security intelligence services and police intelligence units, will not be available to the ICRIR because of how the Bill is drafted and the definition of sensitive information. The proposed powers to identify and gather information will also be subject to veto by the Secretary of State under the extensive provisions of Clauses 29 and 30. Access to information could be severely curtailed through the exercise of powers conferred on the Secretary of State in this Bill, because it gives the Secretary of State powers to give guidance about how the ICRIR is to identify sensitive information such as that held by police intelligence units and how that information is held and handled, et cetera, and even to create new criminal offences in relation to such matters.
Last year, the European Committee of Ministers exposed serious concerns about the Bill, and the Commissioner for Human Rights has now said that the amendments proposed by the Government do not sufficiently allay those concerns. This emphasised again that it is crucial that the legislation, if progressed and ultimately adopted, is in full compliance with our convention obligations and will enable effective investigation into outstanding cases.
The Committee of Ministers has called on the Government, first, to ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s role in the establishment and oversight of the ICRIR is more clearly circumscribed in law, in a manner that ensures that the ICRIR is independent and seen to be independent. Secondly, it has called on them to ensure that the disclosure provisions unambiguously require full disclosure to be given to the ICRIR. Thirdly, it has asked that they ensure that the Bill adequately provides for the participations of victims and their families for transparency and public scrutiny, which is fundamental to Article 2. It has again stressed the importance for the success of any investigative body of gaining the confidence of victims, families of victims and potential witnesses.
I also put my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, supported also by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has spoken at length about it, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Murphy. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is unable to be with us today. I shall support that amendment if a Division is called. I do not think that I need to describe the reasons for it, but I shall say that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that the Kenova model could effectively be scaled up for the purposes of the ICRIR.
I regret that I cannot support Amendment 28 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Godson, because it requires that, when a family is seeking a review or investigation, they will have to be able to show that, if there is to be a review, and there has previously been an investigation or an inquest, for example, the ICRIR should not decide to grant a review unless there is compelling new evidence. To require a family to provide compelling new evidence would be to deprive them of their Article 2 rights to investigation, in particular in older cases where investigations and inquests were not as thorough or impartial as they are now. It is not the role of a traumatised and bereaved family to gather compelling new evidence. They have neither the powers nor the access to do so. That is the job of the investigator—in this case, the ICRIR.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, with regard to Amendment 28 in the name of myself, the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Godson, I tabled similar in Committee and have changed it to take note of what the Minister then said, deleting the parts that he found objectionable, which related to family requests for reinvestigations. I hope that what remains the Minister will find acceptable, given that the purpose of my amendment to Clause 11 is to ensure that there will not be duplication by the ICRIR in relation to previous investigations, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has said, without compelling new evidence. This is the concept that was used in the overseas operation Act, and I cannot understand why it cannot be used in this legislation.
If the previous investigations listed in the amendment, such as those by a public inquiry, HET, or the police services Legacy Investigation Branch are not added to the Bill, thus narrowing the ICRIR’s potential range, I repeat what I said at Committee: namely, that the ICRIR could end up reinvestigating every one of the nearly 4,000 deaths, the cost will be £1 billion at least, not the budgeted £250 million, and the process will last for many years.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, it is unusual for me to start by saying that I could not disagree more with what I have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I was Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, and it was a tragedy. I do not actually understand the connection that she is making with what is happening in relation to Operation Kenova.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
I shall stop there on that point.
I support Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the other signatories to it. It concerns Operation Kenova—the multiple investigations being carried out by ex-Chief Constable Jon Boutcher into some 200 murders on both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland. I last spoke on Kenova on 24 January this year, when I read into the record of the House comments made by Jon Boutcher the previous October. I will not repeat all of that, except to remind noble Lords of his summary of his focus, being on the Provisional IRA,
“which committed these murders and whether steps were, or were not taken by the security forces before these abductions and murders occurred to protect people”.—[Official Report, 24/1/23; col. 161.]
I am not an expert on Northern Ireland, but I bring before the House two aspects of my own professional experience which I believe are of relevance. First, I have investigated murders and I know how difficult it is to tell families of victims that the trail has run cold and the investigation is, at least for the time being, being closed. Secondly, I have led some very large and complex investigations and watched many others. Never have I seen such a comprehensive, transparent and outstanding investigation as Kenova. Mr Boutcher has meticulously worked to gain the trust of families and has submitted a number of files, as we heard during the debate, to the Northern Ireland prosecution services. The submissions await a decision and the families know that. To discontinue all those inquiries by an Act of Parliament in these Houses seems to me to be an extraordinary step.
Of course, like many others in the House, I am a great supporter of the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa, but that process took place instead of investigations, not after they had been completed. Moreover, entering into such an approach has to be a voluntary process; and, having come this far, from a position of deep cynicism to trust in Kenova’s approach, I doubt whether many families will wish the completed investigations into these deaths just to be put to one side. With respect to the Minister, he knows that the continuance of Kenova is supported by politicians of every stripe in Northern Ireland, a position which I believe is not a common occurrence on any topic, let alone one as explosive as this. Any suggestion that the Kenova model is too expensive is risible, given all the suffering and all the costs that have preceded it.
I hope that when the House returns to this subject next week, it will ask the Government to think again.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. These Benches fully support Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan; if it is pushed to a vote on Monday, we will certainly support it. As other noble Lords have spelled out so clearly—perhaps not the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who has reservations, but certainly the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—the Operation Kenova model, with investigations to criminal justice standards, has been proven to work and should and could provide an effective alternative to the approach being adopted by the Government. I still hope that the Government will move further in this direction and support at least the spirit of Amendment 31. If they will not, it would be very useful to hear why from the Minister in his concluding remarks.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much appreciate the amendments put forward by the Government in this group, which are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill. In particular, Amendments 30 and 33 make it clear that the commission must act in a way that is consistent with the Human Rights Act and therefore the European Convention on Human Rights. The problem is that the Government need to ensure that the people who take these matters very seriously are convinced, when it is said that the legislation is compliant, that it actually is. That is a job of work that the Minister must undertake in the weeks ahead.
I very much support Amendment 31 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, ably moved by my noble friend Lady Ritchie. I have met Jon Boutcher on a number of occasions and have been deeply impressed by his work and by him personally. Operation Kenova has achieved a very compassionate and efficient way of dealing with these issues, not just in a couple of cases but in anything up to 200, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has said. I hope the Government seriously consider my noble friend’s amendment on this issue, because it would be more generally acceptable than the present system.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. We have debated compatibility with the European convention at length, as recently as the last group. I do not propose to revisit all those arguments in response to this group.
I have, however, brought back Amendment 32 to make it clear in the Bill that the independent commissioner for investigations will determine whether a criminal investigation should form part of a review. I have also tabled Amendments 30 and 33 expressly to confirm that the commissioner, when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews and other functions, must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act. In addition, I will place a duty on the commission to publish a statement outlining how each review was conducted as part of its final report, thus enhancing the transparency of its work through Amendments 34, 49, 50 and 55.
The legislation rightly ensures that the independent commission, via the commissioner for investigations, has the flexibility to determine whether and when it is appropriate to use police powers during its review. An approach requiring a criminal investigation in all cases, as would be required under Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would remove such flexibility and significantly increase the likely time to complete reviews, further delaying the provision of information to many families. I do not intend to go over the contents of my letter to the noble Lord again; it is there for everybody to see.
As I have said in the House on numerous occasions, I recognise the work carried out by Operation Kenova and the way in which Jon Boutcher, to whom I pay tribute, has developed strong relationships with the families of victims. There are many features of Operation Kenova’s work that the Government consider capable of being built on, should the commission choose to do so. However, as I have put on record numerous times, the Government view it as vital that the commission is free to determine its own approach to these complicated matters. That would be constrained if we were to adopt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
In response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in Committee, I have brought forward Amendments 14 and 15 to Clause 5. These would extend the list of authorities which may be required by the commissioner for investigations to provide the commission with assistance for the purposes of, or in connection with, the effective use of information, documents and other material provided by those authorities under Clause 5.
On the issue of Maxwellisation, I have introduced a series of amendments to Clauses 15 and 17, in response to discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, requiring the chief commissioner to share only relevant sections of a report criticising a person rather than the full draft report and allow them to make representations about that material.
I am sympathetic to what Amendments 39 and 41 in name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, attempt to do. We explored this in Committee and the noble Baroness and I discussed these matters yesterday, so I do not intend to go over all the arguments again. Suffice it to say that, in our view, the current drafting ensures that the chief commissioner can modify material as well as exclude it, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.
In response to Amendments 12, 37 and 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Bew, the ICRIR is already under a clearly defined obligation, in Clause 4(1)(b), not to do anything that would risk putting, or would put, the life and safety of any person at risk. It is the Government’s view that this safeguard is wide enough to offer sufficient protection of the rights of anyone likely to be named in reports, and therefore my noble friend’s amendment is unnecessary.
In respect of Amendment 13 to Clause 5, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, it is not unusual for legislation giving a power to require the provision of information to be subject to the requirement of reasonableness. Reasonableness is a widely used and understood term, which is included in other legislation. She referred to one example which I provided, in the Finance Act. I could add the paragraph 19ZA of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, which uses the same reasonableness requirement formulation in the equivalent power of the director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The Inquiries Act 2005 gives the chairman of an inquiry the ability to require a person to provide evidence and documents to the inquiry panel within such a period that appears reasonable to the inquiry panel. Section 17(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which gives equivalent powers to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, is also drafted in those terms, so there are a number of other examples.
In practice, the commissioner for investigations will decide, based on the facts of the particular review, what information can reasonably be required of a relevant authority. If there is a dispute, and the relevant authority considers the commissioner has acted unreasonably in imposing the requirement, the matter will ultimately have to be resolved by the courts. I believe the noble Baroness, as we discussed recently, is reading too many restrictions into the Bill, where do they not exist and there is no intention for them to exist, and where our purpose is to get as much information into the public domain as possible.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that, in the examples he gave of the time within which information might reasonably be provided, and the powers of the chair of a tribunal who is reasonably requesting information, there is a distinction between a reasonable request for information and a request for information to be provided within a reasonable time? We have seen, in the current judicial review, the difficulties faced by the Government in relation to the information held in respect of the Prime Minister which is required by the Covid inquiry.
Lord Caine (Con)
If I am honest, I am not entirely sure I follow the point the noble Baroness is making, but I stand by the point I have just made, that our intention is not to impose unnecessary restrictions through this legislation but to allow the commission to access information and be in a position to put more information about what happened into the public domain than has been the case.
Turning to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I understand the intention behind this amendment, but Clause 11(7) already requires the commissioner for investigations to ensure that the commission does not do anything that duplicates any aspects of a previous review, unless duplication is deemed absolutely necessary. We believe this is a proportionate approach that ensures the resources of the commission are not wasted through unnecessary duplication, while providing limited discretion for the commission where that might be required. In our view, the effects of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would be to hamper the ability of the commission to conduct reviews which might lead to the effective provision of information to many families, which would run counter to a key objective of the legislation. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendment of this Clause in Lord Caine’s name
(a) the Chief Constable of the PSNI;(b) the chief officer of a police force in Great Britain;(c) the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland;(d) the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct;(e) the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would expand the persons subject to the duty to provide assistance under Clause 5(7) (currently the duty applies to the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland).
Lord Caine
“(3A) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to proceedings against D for an offence under paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule (distortion of evidence); and subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to proceedings against D for an offence under section (False statements: offence) (false statements).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows for certain evidence given to the ICRIR to be used (against the person who gave the evidence) in criminal proceedings relating to false statements and distortion of evidence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the amendment to insert subsection (3A).
Lord Caine
“civil proceedings” does not include— (a) family proceedings within the meaning of Article 12 of the Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1576 (N.I. 6));(b) family proceedings within the meaning of section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003;(c) family proceedings within the meaning of section 135 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 18) or proceedings under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This excludes family proceedings from the scope of Clause 8.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as has been said many times, the Government’s primary focus has been to establish one effective legacy body focused on providing better outcomes for families. We want to ensure that organisations such as the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman and the judiciary are able to focus their capabilities and resources on the present, not the past.
It remains our view that the commission, when established, should be the sole body responsible for Troubles-related cases. However, we are mindful of concerns about the ending of some existing ongoing processes. This is particularly the case given the current legislative timetable and the expected timeframe for the independent commission to become fully operational. Amendments 106, 129, 151, 155 and 156 in my name therefore ensure that ongoing criminal investigations, ombudsman investigations, the consideration of prosecution decisions, coronial inquests and the publication of reports will continue until 1 May 2024, when the commission will become fully operational.
Amendment 91 removes the provision which allows reports or statements about criminal investigations to be produced for a limited period after Clause 34 comes into force. That is now redundant, given my amendments to extend this time to 1 May 2024.
I hope that the additional time provided will be welcomed by noble Lords who have expressed concern regarding specific work, including Operation Kenova and Operation Denton. We hope that the additional time provided will allow such cases to conclude their work while ensuring a smooth transition between the ending of the current mechanisms and the commission taking on all responsibility for outstanding cases.
Our amendment provides until 1 May 2024 for inquests to conclude. Since the Bill’s introduction, expeditious case management in order to reach an “advanced stage” has resulted in the overloading of a system that was already struggling under incredible pressure, causing delay and frustration. This amendment will ensure that resources will now be focused on completing those inquests that have a realistic prospect of conclusion in the next year.
Troubles-related cases that do not conclude by 1 May 2024 will be transferred to the fully operational new commission led by Sir Declan Morgan as chief commissioner—the man who was responsible, as noble Lords will know, for reforming the inquest system a number of years ago. It is the Government’s expectation that this amendment provides sufficient time for coroners and Sir Declan as chief commissioner to develop a considered plan that will allow for the seamless handover of outstanding cases to the new commission.
Going back to our previous debate, I remind noble Lords that the independent commission will be supported by a legislative requirement of full disclosure by state bodies, and it will have access to all necessary policing powers and the power to compel witnesses to comply with its reviews. At the conclusion of any review, the commission will be able to make findings, made public via a family report, in a manner similar to an inquest.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the Bill and the government amendments to this clause to do with inquests and judicial outcomes clearly undermine the fundamental tenet of basic human rights: the right to access to inquests and investigations for those seeking truth and justice following the heinous murder of their loved ones. Clause 40 deals with investigations, inquiries and inquests, but the Government seek to eradicate such provisions.
In my former role as MP for South Down, as an MLA for that constituency and as a district councillor, on many occasions I met families who had lost their parents, their siblings or their sons and daughters through summary execution by paramilitaries or as a result of state violence. On all occasions, those people wanted truth, justice and, above all, to know what had happened to their loved ones, why it had happened, what were the circumstances, and most of all, whether it could have been avoided.
I suppose that I have the most direct experience with Loughinisland, where six men were gunned down on 18 June 1994. That was subject to an inquiry by the former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, which was then progressed by her successors until eventually a Police Ombudsman report was published in 2016 which found elements of collusive behaviour between security forces and members of loyalist paramilitary organisations. I knew many of those people who were killed, and I have to say that the people I knew had absolutely no participation in terrorism. They abhorred violence, and perhaps their only political act was to vote. In fact, two of those people who were killed on that night were indirectly related to me, one of them the eldest man to be killed in the Troubles; his brother was married to my aunt. Those things you do not easily forget.
Clause 40 deals with investigations and the Government seek to eradicate those provisions. I am a signatory to Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Baroness, O’Loan, which seeks to remove this clause from the Bill and try to ensure a redress system. This view is supported by the Commission for Victims and Survivors, Amnesty and the CAJ, and latterly by the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin. He wrote an opinion piece this week for the Financial Times in which he states:
“Existing mechanisms for dealing with the legacy of the past, while imperfect, deliver important outcomes for those families, such as the vindication of a murdered loved one’s innocence. In its Legacy bill, the UK government intends to permanently close off access to these mechanisms—inquests, police ombudsman investigations, civil cases and police investigations—which are working for families and, importantly, demonstrating a vindication of the state’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate killings effectively”.
With the government amendments in this group, all investigations into harmful conduct forming part of the Troubles will be brought to an end by the Bill and by the amendment of the deadline to 1 May 2024. That applies to inquests, investigations, inquiries and investigations by the Police Ombudsman. After that date, the only remaining available investigation will be a toothless light-touch review by the ICRIR. This is a much inferior mechanism to those that currently exist.
For example, in the case of the late Sean Brown from Bellaghy, whose inquest hearings were last week—he was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries about 30 years ago—if information from the MoD and the police does not reach the inquest hearing, which has been delayed, the family fear that what they believe to be deliberate delaying tactics, which have proved successful for the state agencies, will continue until 1 May 2024 and there will therefore be no redress. The late Sean Brown’s widow and family simply want truth and justice via the inquest system. It is important that this right is not denied to them through this arbitrary deadline of 1 May 2024. I am also aware of police widows who seek similar redress, which they are entitled to.
The Commission for Victims and Survivors wants the inquest system to remain as it is because of a number of families who are concerned about this change of approach. These are the people who carry the weight of loss in circumstances that have never been properly explained. The 1 May 2024 deadline has added to that weight and their sorrow.
The Human Rights Commission’s view is that the existing system should be developed, not regressed. There have been significant steps forward for several families in uncovering the truth and seeking justice that would not have been possible without the existing systems—I have already referred to Loughinisland and the Police Ombudsman’s investigation. That point is emphasised by the CAJ, which states that the Bill will shut down existing legacy mechanisms when such mechanisms are increasingly delivering for families. The government amendments are designed to copper-fasten and extend this process.
I therefore support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, which seeks to remove Clause 40 and ensure that the existing work, which is being done very efficiently and is helpful to families, can continue. Can the Minister confirm whether he received support for or opposition to these amendments and for the Government’s intended purpose in this legacy Bill in all the meetings he had over the last number of months? I urge him to withdraw the 1 May 2024 deadline and go back to the drawing board of the Stormont House agreement as a basis for dealing with legacy, because it has the involvement of the parties and of the Irish Government. Will he and government colleagues meet the Irish Government to discuss this issue as a matter of priority? If the noble Baroness moves her amendment on Monday, I will be very happy to support it.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, group 6 refers to criminal justice outcomes. These really are the critical clauses. They remove from those affected by deaths and serious injuries between 1966 and 1998 the ability to pursue civil actions for the loss or damage that they have suffered; the ability to have investigations, as required by the ECHR; and, in cases where people have suffered a violent death, the ability to have inquests in respect of those deaths.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be with us this evening, and I asked the Government to provide definitions of “review” and “criminal investigation” in order to inform your Lordships’ understanding of the difference between the two, which is a vital issue in this Bill. The Minister expressed the view that it was not necessary to provide such definitions. However, in its report of January 2021 on the work of Operation Kenova and the Glenanne review—Operation Denton—the National Police Chiefs’ Council explained:
“Operation Denton differs from Kenova in that it is being conducted as a review, and not as a criminal investigation at this time. This makes the approach by the operational team fundamentally different to that of Kenova”,
which is an investigation,
“from an evidential perspective”.
That fundamental difference of approach is why His Majesty’s Government were so strongly criticised for making the function of the ICRIR to conduct reviews of deaths. That confusion continues to permeate the legislation. Even by Third Reading, perhaps the Minister might seek the assistance of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and provide us with an amendment to define “review” and “investigation”, which would help the House in making its decisions.
In future, despite the Minister’s Amendment 32 to Clause 23, it is for the commissioner to decide whether investigations should form part of a review. Once the Act comes into force, there will be no criminal investigations as we know them today by the police or other agencies in relation to Troubles-related offences. Existing investigations will cease unless a decision to prosecute has been made and the ongoing investigation is for the purpose of that prosecution. A few minutes ago, the Minister expressed the hope that Operations Kenova and Denton would be complete by 1 May 2024. However, I have to point out to him that that is not to be determined by Kenova and Denton, which have finished their work and are simply waiting for decisions from the Director of Public Prosecutions, security reviews, Maxwellisation and that sort of thing. There is very little that Kenova or Denton can do; it is for others to do this. We have been told, however, that others cannot do it because there are no resources; we are also told that that is the fault of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which does not sit. This does not seem to be a particularly constructive approach to the problem.
Unless a family member, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland or the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland asks for a review and the ICRIR decides both that there should be a review and that the review should take the form of a criminal investigation, other investigations will simply cease without any provision for victims. Earlier, I referred in particular to the case of those three young police officers who were killed in the Kinnego Embankment explosion and whose file has been referred to the DPP. It would be wrong for these cases simply to die with the passing of this Bill.
In more limited circumstances where a review involves a death that was caused directly by conduct during the Troubles, coroners, sheriffs and procurators fiscal in Scotland can ask for a review. In all other cases, the investigation will cease and there will be no investigation and no provision for victims.
As a consequence of the Government’s amendments to this Bill, even those that say that there must be compliance with the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act, such compliance is de facto not possible because, among other reasons, there is provision for immunity from prosecution for murderers and the ICRIR does not have unqualified access to information held by relevant agencies under Clause 5. Despite the Minister’s comments on the previous group, I, as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, had the right to require the delivery of information. The ICRIR has the right only to reasonably request information. It is different.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to speak to Amendments 100, 103, 104 and 148 in my name, which are in this group. I find difficulty in explaining this: there are other amendments in my name in this group. Respectfully, they are Amendments 101, 149 and 150, and the fact that they are in this group concerns me because they are consequential to Amendment 123, which is in the eighth group. I will take advantage of raising this: Amendment 123 simply seeks to remove the phrase,
“the actual date of the First Reading”,
from the Bill and to substitute the actual date of the First Reading, which was 17 May 2022. That will probably save me a few seconds when we come back on Monday. That is the position.
Before I turn to Amendments 100, 103, 104 and 148, I will say two things. I fully support Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and will vote for it if she divides the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for addressing an issue that I raised in Committee about respect for devolution and the recognition that Scotland has had a separate jurisdiction from England since 1707 in the context of the UK and the role of the Lord Advocate. He has tabled an amendment to ensure that, in circumstances where, following a review, the commissioner for investigations considers that there is evidence that an offence has been committed, a referral must be made to the Lord Advocate where the suspected offence is an offence under the law of Scotland.
Insofar as it goes, this respects devolution. New subsection (2C) in the amendment reads as follows:
“The Lord Advocate may direct the Commissioner for Investigations to exercise the power of referral and notification in accordance with subsection (2B); and the Commissioner must comply with any direction that is given unless the person concerned has been granted immunity from prosecution under section 18 for the offence concerned”.
So, the commission still has the power to impact or to make a decision which will have extrajudicial impact in Scotland. That of itself, I suspect, will be considered disrespectful of devolution by the Scottish Parliament. That is perhaps a debate for another day, but I imagine that that debate will have to be had.
I return to Amendments 100 and those following. In tabling and speaking to these amendments, I am seeking to ensure that civil actions relating to the Troubles are not discontinued precipitately; that we reduce the risk of non-compliance with our obligations under Articles 2 and 6 of the ECHR; and that we preserve for a period of time a path to justice—albeit narrowing—for those families whose concerns, after all, ought to be paramount as we seek to improve this legislation.
Amendment 100 removes the blanket proscription on Troubles-related civil actions continuing on or after the day this Bill comes into force and instead allows such civil actions to be brought up to three years after that date when necessary. Given that, as we know, the ICRIR does not provide a legal remedy for victims and their families, surely accompanying the Bill’s other provisions with a complete ban on civil actions adds an element of insult to injury. Perhaps more seriously, this precipitate closure of an avenue towards civil redress, as I explained in detail in Committee and will not repeat, directly engages the UK’s obligations to offer access to a court under Article 6 of the ECHR.
As this Bill has journeyed through its various stages in your Lordships’ House, we frequently heard concerns about the degree to which the scope and powers of the ICRIR may already compromise access to justice, echoing the view of the former Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions, who suggested that the Bill is incompatible with the ECHR as it abolishes due process. Surely, precluding the possibility of any further remedy through civil actions only imperils compliance with our ECHR obligations still further.
In considering the amendments I have put forward in this group, I returned to the official record of the Committee debates and re-examined the Minister’s response, which was characteristically thorough and generous of spirit. In his response on civil claims, he outlined three principal reasons that underlie his desire to discontinue all civil claims as outlined in Clause 39. He expressed concern, first, that they may impose an additional burden on the already backlogged Northern Irish civil courts; secondly, that they might reduce the status of the ICRIR as the primary institution dealing with Troubles-related offences; and, thirdly, that a three-year deadline might concentrate minds and lead to an enormous number of filings before this avenue of recourse is removed.
My answer to the first of these reasons is quite simple. Where families feel that a civil action is more likely to bring them the justice they seek, surely, administrative sclerosis is not an adequate reason for denying them that recourse. There are plenty of examples of this. Although I understand that the pandemic exacerbated the already considerable difficulties in this area, I struggle to countenance the idea that the solution to a struggling justice system is to deny justice to specific groups, rather than for the Government just to get to grips with the problem and make access to justice easier.
On the Minister’s second concern, I understand his need for the ICRIR to establish itself as the primary actor in Troubles-related offences, but while that imperative is important, it is surely trumped by the interests of the families it will be established to serve. Where they feel that civil action is their preferred recourse, the institutional interests of the ICRIR are, to say the least, secondary.
On the third point, about the possibility of a flurry of actions being filed to meet the three-year deadline, what is wrong with that? Some 25 years ago, I regularly appeared before courts and quite often asked judges to do things. On occasion, the judges would say to me, “But Mr Brown, that will open the floodgates”, or the people on the other side of the argument would say that it will open the floodgates. I developed quite a neat line, which was to say, “My Lord, this is a court of justice. If you are considering granting justice to one person today, it’s hardly a reason not to do so because somebody will come and ask you to do the same thing tomorrow”. That is what courts of justice are there for. Again, I appreciate the level of the backlog being worked through by the Northern Irish courts, but ultimately it is their job to dispense justice.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the Government’s intention to set a deadline on the issue of inquests. I oppose Amendment 110 because it is a—“wrecking amendment” is probably wrong because there are lots of things about this Bill that we all want to wreck, but the reality is that, without incorporating all inquests into the new body at some stage, it might as well not exist. We would see what I have mentioned before: lawfare would recommence with a vengeance at a very high cost, forcing reinvestigations that, if we are honest, would never occur or be enabled to occur here in England.
As it is, the ICRIR is already showing signs of becoming just a one-stop shop for reinvestigations of historic deaths currently or previously undertaken, as I mentioned on the previous amendment, by the PSNI’s legacy investigations branch, HET, the Police Ombudsman, Strasbourg, public or judicial inquiry, civil suits or inquests. The 50 or so currently outstanding promised inquests are almost all reopened ones that the courts, the DPP or the Attorney-General have decided were inadequate previously. Inquests were apparently being reopened according to two loose criteria: first, the usual one where collusion was alleged, such as Glenanne and Finucane; and, secondly, where the deceased was a terrorist but the command and control arrangements of the security forces were in question—in other words, once again only the state was being reinvestigated.
At the height of the Troubles, as we know, evidence gathering was next to impossible for fear of another death, so inquests tended to be brief, especially for the 700 murdered soldiers. It is worth remembering too that in the case of the IRA’s 1974 Birmingham bombing there was never an inquest.
Reopening has been granted when some new information has come to light after inspection of, for example, new files in the National Archives at Kew. Quite often the new information is not that compelling and, increasingly, judicial reviews do not succeed when the killings occurred up to 50 years ago. Judges accept that memories fade and become unreliable.
The Human Rights Act and thus the ECHR Article 2 procedure, much quoted in recent days by the Secretary of State, do not require deaths to be reinvestigated prior to its commencement in 2000. The Supreme Court has of course suggested that the cut-off date should be a decade earlier but certainly not the 1970s, so I think His Majesty’s Government are absolutely right on this and I oppose Amendment 110.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 110, to which I have added my name. It would remove Clause 40 from the Bill and would have the effect of leaving the inquest system as it currently stands. I shall be extremely brief because the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie, have made the case so powerfully in favour of the amendment.
The Minister will know that the victims’ commissioner, Ian Jeffers, is deeply concerned that removing the current inquest system would be an additional blow to families who have already waited decades for an inquest, and it is just not clear how and when the ICRIR will work to deal with them. Does the Minister agree that, when an inquest has begun and the preparatory work has been done, it seems inefficient and impractical to start a new process with new personnel?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, after immunity, this part of the Bill is the most disliked, criticised and disapproved of in Northern Ireland. I understand why: because we will have inquests abolished, civil action banned and investigations not allowed to go on. That means the rule of law in Northern Ireland is being denied to the people, because of the decision of the Government to impose this Bill upon them.
I am not saying that there might not be occasions when all those things should happen. The problem is that, as in the case of immunity, effectively the Government have no Northern Ireland mandate for what they are doing. You can abolish the rule of law in some forms in a country only if the people are behind it. If the people’s representatives from all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and through all the churches and the organisations representing human rights there, and the victims’ commissioner for Northern Ireland, are opposed to this serious deflection from the rule of law then the only way that it can happen is if there is consensus.
The Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement were based on consensus. The Stormont House agreement was based on consensus; the clue is in the name. The Minister shakes his head at that, but he knows that it would be a good basis for action if the Stormont House agreement were put forward. He had a very good Secretary of State at the time, but Johnson sacked him—maybe because he was too good. The issue, at the end of the day, is that you cannot impose these draconian changes in how the judicial and legal system works unless they have a legitimacy among the people who will have to live with them. That applies to the whole Bill but particularly to this provision. The reason why I support Amendment 110 is, again, because it gives the House of Commons the opportunity, if it is passed here, to have another look at it—a deep look at why this aspect of the Bill is so unpopular.
I cannot get my mind or head around why the Government are so stubborn on this. They can do what they like in Britain because they have a mandate, for another year, in the House of Commons. But, more than anybody else in the Government, the Minister knows that it is different in Northern Ireland and that these enormous changes cannot be made effective unless there is some sort of consensus. I do not for one second believe that the Government are wrong in seeking and trying to find a solution. The problem is that, in this case, they simply have not.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to write at some point the definitive account of the Stormont House agreement, and to reveal just how exaggerated the levels of consensus in that agreement were. It almost started to unravel right from the start, and it was not entirely about legacy. In fact, legacy was never the motivation behind the talks that led to the agreement; it was about the Executive’s finances and welfare reform, principally. Anyway, that is for another day.
I discussed the clauses relating to investigations and inquests when opening this group, and these issues have been discussed at length both at Second Reading and in Committee. I will therefore not repeat well-rehearsed arguments here, other than to note the intervention by noble Lords today and to reassert that the primary purpose of the new commission—the ICRIR—is to provide more information through reviews that can include investigations. Those are not necessarily light-touch, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, suggested; they can include full criminal investigations. It is to get more information to more families in a timelier manner than happens under the current processes.
I will respond to one point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, made on the recovery of costs. I have just looked at the Bill, which provides for costs. Clause 39(8)(a) stipulates that, while the prohibition will bring the substantive claim to an end, it will
“not stop costs proceedings from being continued or begun”.
The noble Baroness will know that inquests are covered by legal aid. So, I do not think it is entirely right to say that costs cannot be recovered. I willingly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
The noble Lord is very generous. I want to ask him if legal aid is available to everyone for inquests, or is it assessed according to income?
Lord Caine (Con)
It is assessed in the normal way, which the noble Baroness will know, in Northern Ireland. Inquests are covered by legal aid. The noble Baroness will know from looking at the Bill that cost proceedings where civil cases have begun can be continued. Anyway, I just wanted to try to be helpful to the noble Baroness in clarifying that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise for intervening on the Minister, but he did provoke me. My amendments relate to civil proceedings in these islands. There are sophistications about this, but broadly, costs go with success. In civil litigation, the people who win get costs against the people who made them go through the process in the court, at all that expense, but lost.
If the Government prevent anybody from winning or losing, who is going to bear the costs? I would find no difficulty in persuading a court that my party to a civil action had not lost at all. Therefore, we are both left with our own costs. However, the Government are responsible, through this legislation, for that cost for both of us. Neither of us had the opportunity to win, so we would come to the Government looking for costs. Either the Government will anticipate that in this legislation, or they will have to legislate for the number of people who have had civil claims stopped.
Lord Caine (Con)
Well, maybe I was very mistaken in trying to answer some of the questions put to me. I was merely setting out what is stated in the legislation, as the noble Lord will appreciate. I thank him. I do not intend to go over all the same arguments we have had extensively on all these matters, particularly at this late hour.
Moving on to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on civil claims, as has been set out many times, our clear policy intent regarding Troubles-related civil claims is to reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland civil courts, which are ill-equipped to process such numbers, while allowing the ICRIR the ability to establish itself as the sole investigative body looking at Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, include Amendment 159. This would provide a three-year grace period for civil claims to be filed and would direct potential casework away from the new commission while placing further strain on an already creaking system in Northern Ireland. Under current estimates, it will take decades to work through its current backlog of over 700 cases. This is much less likely to provide answers for families in an efficient manner, which, again, sits in opposition to the stated aims I have set out.
In relation to Amendment 104, I remind the House that all civil claims filed before the date of introduction—over 700 cases—will be able to continue to conclusion. Claims that were filed following the Bill’s introduction, and with the knowledge that this prohibition would come into force when the Bill became an Act, will not.
In response to Amendment 98A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment, which is to provide additional scope for prosecutions to proceed. The amendment tabled in my name provides additional time, until 1 May 2024, for prosecution decisions to be made by prosecutors. It is the Government’s hope that, with this additional time, resources can focus on concluding a number of decisions in legacy cases before the cut-off point of 1 May 2024, when the commission will become operational.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Can the Minister enlighten us as to what remedy the Bill will provide to those who seek, in the civil court, not information but damages for torts they have suffered and that will be removed from them by Clause 39? Judicial review is not a remedy for tort. The remedy for tort is damages, if you establish it.
Lord Caine (Con)
As I said and as the noble Baroness will be aware, 700 cases are currently stuck in the Northern Ireland courts, and they will still be allowed to proceed after the prohibition comes into effect. That will probably take many decades to bring to a conclusion but, thereafter, she is right: any cases that were filed after the First Reading of the legislation will not proceed and will therefore go into the new body for examination, should that be the wish of the families.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to Clause 40.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to Part 1 of Schedule 10.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to Part 2 of Schedule 10.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to Part 2 of Schedule 10.
Lord Caine
“(A1) The Commissioner for Investigations must comply with the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 when exercising functions under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expressly confirms that the Commissioner for Investigations (when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews) must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Monday 26th June 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (22 Jun 2023)
16:14 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 31 agreed.
16:29 - Division on Amendment 66 - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 66 agreed.
16:42 - Division on Amendment 98A - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 98A disagreed.
17:25 - Division on Amendment 110 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 110 disagreed.
“(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review—(a) is carried out to criminal justice standards as modelled on Operation Kenova,(b) complies fully with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights,(c) gathers as much information as possible in relation to the death or harmful conduct, and(d) explores all evidential opportunities.(3B) “Operation Kenova” means the independent investigation established under the overall command of former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher in 2016, known as Operation Kenova.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes minimum standards for a “review” conducted by the ICRIR to ensure conduct is investigated to criminal justice standards, along the lines of Operation Kenova.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, we had an extensive debate on Amendment 31 last Wednesday and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hain, I want to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I ask the House to be patient, as we now have to gallop through a series of amendments up to Amendment 99, so please bear with me and do not move around too much.
Amendment 32 and 33
Lord Caine
“(4A) In particular, the Commissioner for Investigations is to decide whether a criminal investigation is to form part of a review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the Commissioner for Investigations should consider whether there should be a criminal investigation as part of an ICRIR review.
“(7A) Subsection (A1) does not limit the duty of the Commissioner for Investigations to comply with the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 when exercising other functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the duty of the Commissioner for Investigations to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 is not limited by the express provision in the new subsection (A1).
Lord Caine
“(2A) The final report must include a statement of the manner in which the review was carried out.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the final report to include a statement about the manner in which a review was carried out.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the material that is to be given to a person criticised by a draft report before the final report is produced (so that the person is only given the critical material).
“(6A) In the case of any review, if it is proposed to include in the final report material criticising a public authority, the Chief Commissioner must, before producing the report—(a) give a copy of that material to the public authority or to a person who, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, currently has responsibility for the public authority; and(b) allow that public authority or person to make representations about that material during the applicable response period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a public authority that is criticised in a draft report to be given the opportunity to make representations about the critical material.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces existing wording with the new defined term “consulted” which is inserted into subsection (12) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces existing wording with the new defined term “consultation provisions” which is inserted into subsection (12) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces existing wording with the new defined term “consulted” which is inserted into subsection (12) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of subsection (6)(a) in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces existing wording with the new defined term “consulted” which is inserted into subsection (12) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
““consultation provisions” means subsections (3) to (6A);“consulted” means given a draft of a report or other material, and allowed to make representations, in accordance with the consultation provisions;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the defined terms “consultation provision” and “consulted” to the interpretation provision of Clause 15. These terms replace existing references to subsections (3) to (5), and bring subsection (6) and the new subsections (6A) within the scope of those references.
““material criticising a public authority” means material which, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, constitutes significant criticism of a public authority (and that material may consist of or include criticism of one or more individuals, whether living or not);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a defined term which is used in the new subsection (6A).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would divide Clause 15 into two Clauses.
Lord Caine
“(5A) If a final report is not published in such a case, the Chief Commissioner must publish the statement of the manner in which the review was carried out that is included in the final report in accordance with section 15(2A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Chief Commissioner to publish the statement about the manner in which the review was carried out if the final report is not published.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name to insert the new subsection (5A).
Lord Caine
(a) producing under section 15, and giving and publishing under section 16(2) and (3), the final report on the findings of an excepted review, or(b) publishing under section 16(5A) the statement of the manner in which an excepted review was carried out.(2A) For that purpose an “excepted review” is—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands subsection (2) to delay the production or publication of the final report, or the statement required by section 15(2A), where conduct is referred to a prosecutor.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 23 in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of subsection (2) in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of Clause 15(6), and the new subsection (6A) inserted into Clause 15, by other amendments in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of subsection (2) in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on material in Clause 20(8) being removed and instead appearing in the new Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances) by virtue of other amendments in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 23 in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 23 in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
(b) any other law that might or would prevent a prosecution of P for an offence from being begun or continued (for example, abuse of process—but see paragraph 3 of Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that the immunity requests panel can ignore any law that would prevent a prosecution, when the panel is deciding when P’s disclosed conduct would tend to expose P to criminal enforcement action in respect of an offence.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of new Clause (Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of new Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances).
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove Clause 18 from the Bill, preventing a person from requesting immunity from prosecution as part of the ICRIR’s investigations of Troubles-related conduct.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment deletes Clause 18, which introduces conditional immunity in the Bill. This is the most contentious and controversial part of the Bill. It is almost universally condemned in Northern Ireland, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
The provision made by Clause 19 is moved to the new Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out subsection (1) as corresponding provision is included in new Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances) in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
“(7A) If the Chief Commissioner is unable to exercise some or all of the immunity functions, generally or in particular circumstances, the Chief Commissioner may nominate another person—(a) to temporarily exercise the immunity functions so far as the Chief Commissioner is unable to exercise them, and(b) to be a temporary member of, and to temporarily chair, the immunity requests panel so far as those functions are panel functions.(7B) But the Secretary of State may nominate a person under subsection (7A) if the Chief Commissioner is unable to make a nomination.(7C) A person may not be nominated under subsection (7A) if the person—(a) would be disqualified from appointment as a Commissioner by paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 (imprisonment, insolvency or disqualification from being a company director), or(b) does not hold, and has not held, high judicial office (within the meaning of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1).(7D) This Act is to apply to the exercise of immunity functions by a person appointed under subsection (7A) as if the functions were being exercised by the Chief Commissioner.(7E) In this section—“immunity functions” means—(a) the function conferred by subsection (6), and(b) panel functions;“panel functions” means functions of the Chief Commissioner as a member or the chair of the immunity requests panel.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to be nominated to act temporarily if the Chief Commissioner is unable to act, whether generally or in particular circumstances (eg. because of a potential conflict of interest), in relation to requests for immunity.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name to leave out subsection (1).
Lord Caine
“(1A) The ICRIR must take reasonable steps to obtain any information which the Commissioner for Investigations knows or believes is relevant to the question of the truth of P’s account.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the ICRIR to take reasonable steps to obtain information in connection with determining the truth of P’s account (see Clause 18(3)).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new subsection (1A) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
Subsection (4) needs to be removed in consequence of the insertion of the new subsection (1A) by the amendment in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require (instead of allow) guidance to be given under subsection (6); and would require the guidance to be given by the Chief Commissioner (instead of the Secretary of State).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment of subsection (6) conferring the function of giving guidance on the Chief Commissioner (instead of the Secretary of State).
(a) the making of decisions”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require (instead of allow) guidance to be given under subsection (7); and would require the guidance to be given by the Chief Commissioner (instead of the Secretary of State).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment of subsection (8) in Lord Caine’s name.
“(8A) The immunity requests panel must take account of guidance given under subsection (6) or (8) when exercising functions to which it relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of subsections (6) and (8) in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
“(3A) For provision about the nomination of a person to act temporarily instead of the Chief Commissioner, see section 20(7A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name adding subsection (7A) to Clause 20.
Lord Caine
“Personal statements by persons affected by deaths etc
(1) This section applies in relation to—(a) each review of a death which the ICRIR carries out following a request made under section 9;(b) each review of other harmful conduct which the ICRIR carries out following a request made under section 10;(c) each request for immunity from prosecution that is made under section 18 (whether or not the ICRIR carries out a review following a decision made under section 12(2) or (3), and whether or not the ICRIR has made such a decision).(2) The Chief Commissioner must give an eligible person an opportunity to provide a personal statement to the ICRIR.(3) If an eligible person provides a personal statement, the Chief Commissioner must give that person an opportunity to supplement the statement.(4) In this section “personal statement” means a statement by an eligible person about the way in which, and degree to which, the Troubles-related events have affected and continue to affect—(a) that person, and(b) other relevant persons (if, and to the extent that, the person providing the statement is aware of, and wishes the statement to deal with, the effect on those persons).(5) The definitions in subsection (6) are to be used for the purposes of this section in cases where this section applies—(a) in relation to a review of a death which the ICRIR carries out following a request made under section 9, or(b) in relation to a request for immunity from prosecution that is made under section 18—(i) where the ICRIR carries out a review of a death following a decision made under section 12(2), or(ii) where, if the ICRIR were to carry out a review in connection with the request for immunity, it would be a review of a death following a decision made under section 12(2).(6) In any of those cases—“eligible person” means—(a) each known close family member of the deceased (and Part 1 of Schedule 3 is to apply for the purpose of determining who is a close family member), or(b) if there are no known close family members, each other known family member of the deceased to whom the Chief Commissioner considers it is appropriate to give an opportunity to provide a personal statement;and here “known” means known to the ICRIR by virtue of any of its other functions;“other relevant person” means—(a) a member of the family of the person to whose death the review relates;(b) a member of the family of any other person killed in the relevant event;(c) a person who suffered serious physical or mental harm in the relevant event and has subsequently died;(d) members of the family of a person falling within paragraph (c);“Troubles-related events” means—(a) the death to which the review relates, and(b) the relevant event (which has the same meaning as in section 15(4)).(7) The definitions in subsection (8) are to be used for the purposes of this section in cases where this section applies—(a) in relation to a review of other harmful conduct which the ICRIR carries out following a request made under section 10, or(b) in relation to a request for immunity from prosecution that is made under section 18—(i) where the ICRIR carries out a review of other harmful conduct following a decision made under section 12(3), or(ii) where, if the ICRIR were to carry out a review in connection with the request for immunity, it would be a review of other harmful conduct following a decision made under section 12(3).(8) In any of those cases—“eligible person” means—(a) each known close family member of the injured person (and Part 1 of Schedule 3 is to apply for the purpose of determining who is a close family member), or(b) if there are no known close family members, each other known family member of the injured person to whom the Chief Commissioner considers it is appropriate to give an opportunity to provide a personal statement;and here “injured person” means the person who was caused the physical or mental harm by the other harmful conduct concerned; and “known” means known to the ICRIR by virtue of any of its other functions;“other relevant person” means—(a) a member of the family of any person killed in the relevant event;(b) a person who suffered serious physical or mental harm in the relevant event and has subsequently died;(c) members of the family of a person falling within paragraph (b);“Troubles-related events” means—(a) the other harmful conduct to which the review relates, and(b) the relevant event (which has the same meaning as in section 15(5)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Chief Commissioner to give individuals affected by a death or other harmful conduct the opportunity to provide personal statements to the ICRIR about the effects of the Troubles-related conduct.
“Publication of personal statements
(1) This section applies where—(a) an eligible person provides a personal statement in accordance with section (Personal statements by persons affected by deaths etc), and(b) the person notifies the Chief Commissioner that the person wishes the personal statement to be published by the Chief Commissioner.(2) The Chief Commissioner must publish the personal statement.(3) But that duty does not apply if publication of the personal statement—(a) would breach section 4(1) or 26(2), or(b) would, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, be contrary to the public interest.(4) If it is possible to do so, the Chief Commissioner must instead produce an edited version of the personal statement which can be published without—(a) breaching section 4(1) or 26(2), or(b) being, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, contrary to the public interest.(5) But the Chief Commissioner must not publish an edited version unless the person who provided the personal statement agrees to the publication of that version.(6) The Chief Commissioner does not breach the duties imposed by subsections (2) and (4) if the Chief Commissioner—(a) wishes to publish an edited version in accordance with subsection (4),(b) is not able to obtain the agreement to publication of an edited version from the person who provided the personal statement, and(c) accordingly does not publish the personal statement or any edited version.(7) The duties imposed by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply if, and for as long as, section 17(2) or (3) has the effect of suspending the duty to publish any final report that is related to the personal statement.(8) If the Chief Commissioner—(a) intends to publish an edited version of the personal statement in accordance with subsection (4), or(b) intends to publish neither—(i) the personal statement because subsection (3) applies, nor(ii) any edited version of the personal statement because it is not possible to do so in accordance with subsection (4),the Chief Commissioner must give to the person who provided the personal statement the reasons for taking that course of action.(9) A reference in this section—(a) to a personal statement includes anything which supplements a personal statement;(b) to an edited version of a personal statement includes a version of the statement which has been redacted.(10) For the purposes of this section a final report is “related to” a personal statement if—(a) the statement is provided in a case where section (Personal statements by persons affected by deaths etc) applies in relation to—(i) a review which the ICRIR carries out following a request made under section 9 or 10, or(ii) a request for immunity from prosecution where the ICRIR carries out a review following a decision made under section 12(2) or (3), and(b) the final report is the final report of the findings of that review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Chief Commissioner to publish a personal statement provided under new Clause (Personal statements by persons affected by deaths etc).
Lord Caine
“(2) If the Commissioner for Investigations considers there is evidence that relevant conduct constitutes an offence under the law of Northern Ireland by an individual whose identity is known to the Commissioner, the Commissioner—(a) may refer the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, and(b) if the conduct is referred, must notify that prosecutor of the offence concerned.(2A) If the Commissioner for Investigations considers there is evidence that relevant conduct constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales by an individual whose identity is known to the Commissioner, the Commissioner—(a) may refer the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions (for England and Wales), and(b) if the conduct is referred, must notify that prosecutor of the offence concerned.(2B) If the Commissioner for Investigations considers there is evidence that relevant conduct constitutes an offence under the law of Scotland by an individual whose identity is known to the Commissioner, the Commissioner may—(a) refer the conduct to the Lord Advocate, and(b) notify that prosecutor of the offence concerned.(2C) The Lord Advocate may direct the Commissioner for Investigations to exercise the power of referral and notification in accordance with subsection (2B); and the Commissioner must comply with any direction that is given unless the person concerned has been granted immunity from prosecution under section 18 for the offence concerned.(2D) In any case where the Commissioner for Investigations refers conduct to a prosecutor under this section, the Commissioner—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Lord Advocate to require the Commissioner for Investigations to refer relevant conduct to the Lord Advocate.
(b) any other conduct that relates to, or is otherwise connected with, the main conduct;and for this purpose other conduct is to be regarded as connected with the main conduct, in particular, if all of that conduct formed part of the same event.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the kinds of conduct that can be referred to a prosecutor after an ICRIR review relating to a death or other harmful conduct. Other conduct related to or connected with the death or other harmful conduct can also be referred.
Lord Caine
“Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity
(1) If—(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section (False statements: offence),(b) that offence was committed in the course of requesting the ICRIR to grant the person immunity from prosecution under section 18, and(c) the person was granted the immunity from prosecution,the court which sentences the person for the offence must revoke that grant of immunity from prosecution.(2) If—(a) a person is convicted of a terrorist offence or an offence with a terrorist connection, and(b) the person had been granted immunity from prosecution under section 18 before the offence was committed,the court which sentences the person for that offence must revoke every grant of immunity from prosecution under section 18 given to the person before the offence was committed.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person is convicted of “a terrorist offence or an offence with a terrorist connection” if—(a) the person is convicted of an offence by a court in Northern Ireland and either—(i) the offence is listed in Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, or(ii) the court determines under section 30(2) of that Act that the offence has a terrorist connection;(b) the person is convicted of an offence by a court in England and Wales and either—(i) the offence is listed in Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code, or(ii) the court determines under section 69 of the Sentencing Code that the offence has a terrorist connection;(c) the person is convicted of an offence by a court in Scotland and either—(i) the offence is listed in Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, or(ii) section 31 of that Act applies to the offence (offences with a terrorist connection in Scotland).(4) Where—(a) an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, and(b) a grant of immunity from prosecution is given at any time during that period,that grant of immunity from prosecution is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) as having been given before the offence was committed.(5) A revocation of immunity under this section—(a) has immediate effect;(b) does not prevent a person making a further request for immunity under section 18 (but see Part 2 of Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances) for provision about requests that overlap with revoked immunities).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires courts to revoke immunity granted under Clause 18 if a person is subsequently convicted of making a false statement in the course of applying for that immunity (see new clause (False statements: offence) or convicted of a terrorist offence or offence with a terrorist connection.
Lord Caine
“False statements: offence
(1) A person commits an offence by making a false statement to the ICRIR in connection with any of its functions under sections 18 to 22.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) a person makes a false statement by—(i) making a statement which the person knows to be false in a material respect, or(ii) recklessly making a statement which is false in a material respect;(b) “making a statement” includes giving an account in connection with a request for immunity under section 18.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;(c) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both;(d) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted—(a) in Northern Ireland, only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;(b) in England and Wales, only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits (knowingly or recklessly) providing a statement to the ICRIR that is materially false.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the provision that allows reports or statements about criminal investigations to be produced for a limited period after Clause 34 comes into force. It is no longer needed in consequence of the amendment in Lord Caine’s name providing for Clause 34 to come into force on 1 May 2024 (instead of two months after royal assent).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment of Clause 34 in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment of Clause 36 in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 23 in Lord Caine’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 23 in Lord Caine’s name.
“(2A) An ICRIR officer, or another person acting in connection with the exercise of the ICRIR’s functions, may arrest or otherwise detain P in connection with the offence by P.(2B) An ICRIR officer, or another person acting in connection with the exercise of the ICRIR’s functions, may charge P with the offence by P; and a prosecutor may conduct criminal proceedings arising from any such charge.(2C) If subsection (2) becomes applicable to the offence by P, criminal enforcement action against P in respect of the offence may no longer be taken in accordance with subsection (2A) or (2B).(2D) But that does not limit the criminal enforcement action that may be taken in accordance with subsection (2) after it becomes applicable (and, in particular, action previously taken in accordance with subsection (2A) or (2B) may be continued in accordance with subsection (2)).(2E) Subsections (2), (2A) and (2B) only authorise a person to take criminal enforcement action by the exercise of powers which that person has otherwise than by virtue of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the criminal enforcement action that can be taken where immunity has not been granted and where a referral to a prosecutor has not been made. It allows P to be arrested, and preserves the possibility of the ICRIR charging P with an offence.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the use of “P” to refer to a person who is being prosecuted for an offence.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a criminal prosecution of P is to be treated as having begun when a file relating to the criminal investigation into P’s conduct has already been submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland on or before the day that section 33 comes into force.(3B) But if no prosecution of P is directed on the basis of the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the case relating to P must be returned to the ICRIR for investigation in accordance with this Part.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when the file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when a file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. It is an important issue; it would allow work to continue in those cases which have already completed their police investigation. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
“Authorisation of interim custody orders under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
(1) Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is to be treated as always having had effect as authorising an interim custody order under that article in relation to a Troubles-related offence to be made by and with the authority of any Minister of the Crown whose signature was required for the making of such an order (and not just by and with the authority of the Secretary of State personally).(2) Subsection (1) does not revive any criminal conviction quashed before the coming into force of this section.(3) But a person whose conviction for any Troubles-related offence (whether or not quashed) or whose detention (whether or not as a consequence of such a conviction) depended, directly or indirectly, on the validity of such an interim custody order is not entitled, by or under any enactment or otherwise, to receive any damages or compensation in respect of that conviction or detention if the only reason for impugning its validity relates to whether the order was made by and with the authority of the Secretary of State, personally.(4) Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the claim for damages or compensation was made before or after the coming into force of this section.”
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was debated in Committee. It concerns a judgment of the Supreme Court in a claim by Gerry Adams arising out of his internment in the 1970s and his escape from prison. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether his internment, or interim custody order as it was more formally known, was lawful in light of the fact that the Government could not prove that the ICO had been personally signed and approved by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The lower courts decided that it was, but the Supreme Court, in a single judgment from Lord Kerr, reached a conclusion, which surprised many commentators, that it was unlawful—thus leaving the door open for substantial claims by not only Gerry Adams but a number of others who could rely on the decision.
The most prominent critics of the decision were from Policy Exchange, which has consistently and cogently argued that the decision flew in the face of the well-established Carltona doctrine. This is embedded in government practice and can be found in the cautious guidance given to civil servants about “the judge over your shoulder”. It means, for fairly obvious reasons, that such a decision can be taken by more junior Ministers or civil servants and does not require the personal attention of the Secretary of State to render the decision lawful. This practice was spoken to in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Murphy, Lord Howell, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and Lord Browne of Ladyton, among others.
Your Lordships’ House is always slow to legislate contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court. Parliament affords our highest court great respect, and rightly so. When I had the privilege of chairing the Independent Review of Administrative Law, the committee received a number of submissions, including from Supreme Court judges, suggesting caution in our approach to the reform of judicial review, but it was always emphasised by them that Parliament had the right to legislate to reverse decisions of the court. My committee concluded that Parliament could and should do so, but only after very careful consideration of the arguments.
In advancing this amendment, I am considerably reassured by the criticism of the Supreme Court decision by the former Supreme Court judges Lord Sumption and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who last week had an article published on the subject by the Daily Telegraph. I will refer to the beginning of the article, although all of it bears close attention. He said:
“In the last few years, almost without exception, every judgment of the Supreme Court, certainly every unanimous one, has seemed to me to be plainly right, and certainly not plainly wrong. But the Court’s unanimous 2020 decision in Adams is an exception. Importantly this has introduced needless legal doubt about one of the most important principles on which the everyday work of government depends. Parliament has an opportunity—with a proposed amendment to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, now before the Lords—to put this right. It should do so”.
While on the subject of Lord Brown, noble Lords will probably have noticed that last week he formally retired from the House. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his immense contribution to the work of this House. His voice has enriched so many debates. Many noble Lords will remember his sustained championing of the cause of IPP prisoners. His instincts were liberal, but he always understood the difficult choices that any Government have to make. It was not always easy to predict which side he would take in a debate, which made his views so well worth listening to. He also made an enormous number of friends right across the House, and we will miss him a great deal.
The Government understandably wanted time to consider their response to the amendment after it was debated in Committee. Their initial response, while not unsympathetic, was that there were legal impediments in the way of the amendment. I was not convinced by those arguments, despite having the opportunity generously afforded to me by the Minister to meet his officials. Policy Exchange, once more, stepped into the fray and published an article that provided a convincing counter to those arguments.
However, I am glad to say that the Government’s position has changed. For this I am very grateful both to the Minister and to the Secretary of State, Chris Heaton-Harris. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have lent their support to the amendment. I understand that the Government need a little more time but are proposing to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that will reflect the concerns contained in this amendment. I have indicated to them that, if the amendment proposed by the Government does not meet the objectives contained in this amendment, we reserve the right to—and we will—vote at Third Reading. In the meantime, I thank them for their constructive approach. The Bill is about legacy. This amendment provides an opportunity to put an injustice right. It will provide legal certainty. What better legacy could there be? I beg to move.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I also echo his remarks about Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for many years my noble friend in this House and on the golf course. His wisdom and contribution have been tremendous. The very powerful article he wrote in the Daily Telegraph last week could have been the speech he would have made today.
I want to add two things. One is about public administration and the other is about the implications of not accepting this amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment, so powerfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I realise that behind the amendment is the wider concern of protecting the Carltona principle from being undermined—and I shall come to that a bit more in a moment.
It may help your Lordships if I explain some of the detailed background of how we operated during this period in Northern Ireland and Belfast after the fall of Stormont in 1972. In doing so, I draw from extensive personal notes that I made of almost every occasion during the two or three years I served there, and what they emphasise and remind me of. I will share with the House a brief picture of how we worked and the plan that we had to devise in order to operate in a very violent, dangerous and fast-moving situation.
There was the Secretary of State, the late Lord Whitelaw, and three Ministers with him, of whom I was one, with about 12 or 13 departments that we had to take over between us in the Northern Ireland Government. We each had quite a lot of departments to cover. The plan was always to have one duty Minister at Stormont right through the weekend at all times. During the week, there was one Minister usually out in the field, visiting hospitals, victims, violent situations and communities, doing the work of their departments. We tried to keep one Minister at Westminster, constantly accountable and ready to meet Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House, answer PNQs and so on.
This was a very dangerous moment; the violence was very great indeed, and people were being killed all the time. At all times, the four of us—the Secretary of State and the three Ministers—kept in very close contact with each other; my notes refer to a lot of telephone calls that we had with each other and our constant movements. One moment the Secretary of State would need to be in the Cabinet and the next moment he would have to fly back to Belfast—then the next moment he would be in his own constituency. The same applied to the two others of us as well. Of course, Lord Windlesham was a Member of this House at the time.
This is a recorded picture of an extraordinary situation, which I do not believe has ever been repeated, for British Ministers or a department of government. Just to give an example, I see that I noted in my memoirs that one week I crossed the Irish Sea five times—and I am sure that my fellow Ministers were having the same experience of constant movement, all the more so as the Government at the time had quite a narrow majority and the Whips were saying, “Why aren’t you here instead of in Belfast?” You had to be in two places at once.
Throughout all of this, dependence on the Carltona principle and being able to conduct matters in accordance with that principle was absolute and unquestioned. We could not possibly have managed without that principle operating. It was for that reason—and this has possibly been missed by some commentators—that, when we put the provisions about Carltona in the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, we strengthened it—it is a strengthened principle there, because it limits the permission to sign to Ministers rather than to officials, referring specifically to Ministers and Under-Secretaries of State. The provision is absolutely crystal clear; it is in print and a parliamentary clear wish, passed without any opposition at all and applied in good faith, because we knew that that was the law and the wish of Parliament.
I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has wisely reminded us, that, if the judgment is allowed to stand unreversed, it would severely constrain normal government operations. Looking backwards in the rear-view mirror, as it were, it would have made our work in Northern Ireland absolutely impossible, as we moved towards the power-sharing agreement of 1973, which is said to have been the foundation for the Good Friday agreement some 20 years later. We could not have conducted affairs in that atmosphere of violence and killing—indeed, the IRA called it a war, although we did not—without the Carltona principle being applied. Of course, the judgment opens the door to all sorts of meritless litigation and unreserved compensation, which would be completely wrong.
I am astonished, frankly, that such a legal error could have been made. If the Government are not able to meet this—as I hope that they are, from indications by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—and are not able to respond in a positive way, I shall be even more astonished that such an error could be perpetuated.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I asked a question about this some six months ago I was assured that something would be done to sort it—I think that was the word used—so I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson. I am pleased and waiting to hear what the Minister will say, because I am very hopeful now that this will get sorted and that we will not have to have a vote on it. It would be good if he were able to make it very clear that the legislation will definitely be amended, so that we get the result before Third Reading. I think it is useful to remind noble Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave a very clear view of what things were like back in 1972.
In the judgment, Lord Kerr said that the law said that it had “to appear” to the Secretary of State that the person in question was suspected of organising terrorism. Ironically, the case of Gerry Adams was one where it could unquestionably have appeared to Mr Whitelaw that a custody order was appropriate; his personal consideration was just not recorded in the archives. I am sure that the Secretary of State knew, rather than suspected, that Adams was a key figure, because he had him flown over for negotiations with the IRA at Cheyne Walk in 1972, a year earlier. Lord Kerr also said that Mr Whitelaw should have been able to sign all such custody orders, as
“there was no evidence that this would place an impossible burden”
on him or be “unduly onerous”, given that Merlyn Rees, his Labour successor from March 1974, managed to.
I think this is a reflection of an unhistoric assertion lacking context, given the terrible violence outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, of 1972 and 1973, let alone the logistics involving Ministers, one of whom had to be in England and one in Belfast. Furthermore, it took no account of the differing political circumstances involving Secretary of State Merlyn Rees, who was very keen to end internment and sought to minimise the number of orders being placed in front of him. In fact, internment ended a year later.
Noble Lords should also remember that the Supreme Court President, Lord Reed of Allermuir, in effect supported a correction when he spoke to the House’s Constitution Committee in March 2021. There he said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howell:
“I cannot say very much about the particular case because I did not sit on it myself. Lord Kerr wrote the judgment. The Lord Chief Justice and some other justices were sitting with him. I am well aware that it is a controversial judgment ... I really cannot remember the details of the case. From what you say, it sounds like a wayward judgment, in which case it will be put right in another case”.
I believe that this amendment and what the Government are now going to do are a valuable substitute for such another case at the Supreme Court, which could otherwise take years to appear.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, when this amendment was introduced at a very late stage in Committee, I expressed concern that this is a complicated matter and should be examined in greater detail. While the amendment is focused on the specifics of the Supreme Court case in 2020, it is clear that the judgment might well have wider implications for the Carltona principle and therefore also for wider government.
I remain firmly of the view that this important matter requires deep and careful consideration; indeed, longer consideration than we have had between Committee and now. I think that is what the Minister said in his earlier meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Will the Minister commit to taking this matter away for further discussions within and across government? Perhaps most importantly, will he endeavour to update this House on the decision well in advance of Third Reading?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I begin my brief remarks by paying tribute to Lord Brown; he was a great influence on me when I first entered this House and I always enjoyed listening to what he had to say. He was a fine lawyer.
I have looked at the legal arguments put forward by Policy Exchange on this amendment. I cannot say that I understood every word of them, but they looked impressive to me. However, from my experience, the practicalities of the situation indicate that something must be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quite rightly reminded us what the situation was like back in the 1970s. I assure him and your Lordships that, 25 years later when I was doing the same job, it had not changed all that much in terms of signing warrants. When I was the Minister of State in Northern Ireland, I knew that Mo Mowlam, who was Secretary of State at the time, was aware that I was signing these warrants on her behalf. Similarly, three years later when the roles were reversed and I became Secretary of State, I realised that the Minister of State signing those warrants on my behalf was doing so absolutely properly and within the law.
I have no doubt that everybody signing these warrants in Northern Ireland over all these years believed that they were doing the right thing—and I am sure that they were—but there is clearly a problem because of the Supreme Court ruling. I look forward to the Minister telling us how he will change this situation and make things better.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful, as always, to noble Lords who have spoken in this short but very important debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to whom I am very grateful for the constructive engagement and discussions we have had over the past few days. This has been an excellent debate. I join in the tributes to Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, whose contribution to this House over many years has been immense.
The Government are extremely sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. It aligns with our desired policy aim to reduce pressure on the civil courts in Northern Ireland, which currently have a considerable case load. In our view, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give an opinion on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R v Adams, but we are of the view that this judgment, which was unexpected, has led to a degree of confusion in our law that merits clarification in some way. If I may go slightly further than my brief, when the judgment appeared some of us were—to put it mildly—somewhat baffled by its content.
On the numbers of cases in scope, we are aware of around 300 to 400 civil claims being brought on a similar basis to the Adams case, including those at pre-action stage, with 40 writs filed before First Reading of this Bill. It is therefore likely that a number of Adams-type cases will be allowed to continue in spite of the prohibition on civil claims in Clause 39 of the Bill. We are aware that this amendment has a wider application than just civil damages claims, which are otherwise within the scope of Clause 39, but the numbers of other types of cases in scope are limited.
The Government also understand that the amendment covers applications for compensation for miscarriages of justice under the statutory scheme established by Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following the reversal, as a result of the Adams judgment, of convictions for escaping or attempting to escape from internment facilities. The Government anticipate that it is unlikely that many more cases could in theory be brought along these lines; based on the numbers of escapees, this is unlikely to be more than around 30 and could be substantially less.
Claims brought as a result of the Supreme Court judgment in Adams are claims for compensation that are not based on any allegation against the state of mistreatment or misfeasance in public office, as other claims in this area are, but on a technical point regarding the signing of interim custody orders, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made absolutely clear. At the time of their detention and conviction for escape-related offences, and for decades afterwards, these individuals could not have expected the Supreme Court to find as it did.
The Government have always acted on the understanding that those interim custody orders made by Ministers of the Crown, under powers conferred on the Secretary of State, were perfectly valid on the basis of the well-established and understood Carltona principle. This is a clarification that needs to be made, in our view, to restore legal certainty around this crucially important element of the way in which government works in this country.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who is the surviving member of the Northern Ireland Office from 1972 as Minister of State. He gave a very vivid and accurate description of just how difficult life was at the time, and how dangerous and fast-moving the situation was.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in his description of how the warrant system works in Northern Ireland. As many Members know, I have worked for a number of Secretaries of State, and the signing of warrants is something all of them have taken a huge amount of care over to ensure that they are done properly and within the law.
In response to the noble Baroness, we are not far away from Third Reading, as she will be aware, but I will endeavour to consult with interested parties between now and then.
On this basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, I will commit to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading next week, following consideration by officials and lawyers, that addresses these matters. In return, I ask that the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Godson withdraw their amendment, subject to the caveat that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made in his remarks.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I am sure the House is grateful for all those who associated themselves with the comments I made about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.
The Minister said with his usual understatement that many were somewhat baffled by the decision of the Supreme Court. The bafflement was widespread, I can assure the House, and the notion that we should wait until another case comes along was never a convincing argument in favour of Parliament not acting to put right this injustice. As the Minister rightly said, Clause 39 of the Bill will not deal with this essential unsatisfactory aspect of the judgment, and there could be many cases arising out of the error made by the Supreme Court.
Of course courts make mistakes from time to time; the whole basis of an appeal from one judgment to another is predicated on the fact that they do. The Supreme Court rarely makes mistakes, but Parliament puts them right when it does. Parliament also makes mistakes, and would then reverse those mistakes. There is nothing in this amendment which shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court or its decisions in any way.
I look forward very much to meeting the Minister and his officials, to help, I hope, provide an amendment which reflects what is in our amendment—government amendments are always better than amendments put forward by Back-Benchers. Provided it does what this amendment was intended to do, that would be satisfactory.
I need not weary the House any longer at this stage. I have repeated that we will bring back the matter at Third Reading if, sadly, we are unable to find a satisfactory way through. In the meantime, I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require any inquest initiated before the commencement of Clause 40 to be discontinued on the commencement of that Clause, unless the inquest is at its very final stage (the determination, verdict or findings).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove new section 16B, which allows a pre-commencement inquest to continue if it is at an advanced stage. A pre-commencement inquest will now be able to continue if it is at its very final stage (the determination or verdict) as it will be outside the scope of the amended new section 16A.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to new sections 16A and 16B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to new sections 16A and 16B.
Baroness O'Loan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would delete the Clause that prohibits all existing and future inquests, investigations and inquiries into the deaths resulting directly from The Troubles.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, this amendment would delete the prohibition on inquests, which are an ancient part of our legal history. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Caine
“(2A) On and after the day on which section 41 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 comes into force, the Ombudsman—(a) is not to begin any formal investigation of a matter, and(b) is to cease any formal investigation of a matter begun before that day,insofar as the matter relates to conduct forming part of the Troubles.”Member’s explanatory statement
This prevents the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from beginning, or continuing, to investigate matters that relate to conduct forming part of the Troubles. That power of investigation is in addition to the power to deal with complaints (already covered by Clause 41).
“(2B) This section does not prevent the Ombudsman from carrying out a criminal investigation of a Troubles-related offence if—(a) a public prosecution of a person for the offence had been begun before the day on which section 34 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 comes into force, and(b) the criminal investigation is carried out for the purposes of that prosecution.(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B)—(a) “public prosecution” means any prosecution other than a private prosecution;(b) a public prosecution of a person for an offence is “begun” when a prosecutor makes the decision to prosecute that person for that offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that activity of the Ombudsman which constitutes a criminal investigation can continue where a prosecution of a person has begun before commencement.(This exception from the effect of Clause 41 is the same as the exception from the effect of Clause 34 set out in Clause 38(3).)
““formal investigation” means an investigation under section 56 (whether resulting from a referral to the Ombudsman, or a decision by the Ombudsman, under section 55).””Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name which prevents the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from beginning, or continuing, to investigate matters that relate to conduct forming part of the Troubles.
“(2) In section 28A of the Police Reform Act 2002 (application of complaints and misconduct provisions to matters occurring before 1 April 2004), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) On and after the day on which section 41 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 comes into force, this section—(a) ceases to apply to a pre-commencement matter or a matter to which subsection (5) applies (if the direction under subsection (1) or (4) relating to the matter was given before that day), or(b) does not apply to a pre-commencement matter or matter to which subsection (5) applies (if the direction under subsection (1) or (4) relating to the matter is given on or after that day),insofar as the matter relates to conduct forming part of the Troubles.(6B) In subsection (6A) “conduct forming part of the Troubles” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (see section 1 of that Act).”(3) After section 47 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 insert—<strong>“47A</strong> Complaint or investigation relating to Northern Ireland Troubles(1) On and after the day on which section 41 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 comes into force, this Part—(a) ceases to apply to a complaint or investigation (if the complaint was made, or investigation was begun, before that day), or(b) does not apply to a complaint or investigation (if the complaint is made, or investigation is to begin, on or after that day),insofar as the complaint or investigation relates to conduct forming part of the Troubles.(2) In this section “conduct forming part of the Troubles” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (see section 1 of that Act).””Member’s explanatory statement
This extends Clause 41 so that the legislation dealing with police complaints in England, Wales and Scotland also does not apply to complaints relating to the Troubles.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(2A) The designated persons have an overarching duty to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we now come to this group of amendments on memorialisation. This is a very difficult and complex area that we have to wrestle with, both in this Bill and more widely in Northern Ireland. The purpose of Amendments 114A and 114B in my name and those of my noble friends is to ensure that memorialisation activities in no way end up glorifying, eulogising or defending terrorism in any form, whatever side of the community it comes from.
Sadly, as we have said in previous debates on this Bill, it appears there has been an increase in the carrying out of commemorations and eulogies for terrorists by elected representatives including Members of Parliament, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a person who would seek to be the First Minister of Northern Ireland, academics and others. They have all commemorated the activities of criminals and murderers in the IRA. It is important that in this Bill—certainly, I will seek reassurances from the Minister on this issue—that we make it clear that that type of eulogy, commemoration or glorification is not acceptable. For the victims, this is an extremely important issue.
Time and again when you meet victims of the terrorist criminal gangs who carried out so much violence in Northern Ireland, the issue they raise is the continued trauma that they have to endure as a result of such celebrations and commemorations. They feel that their trauma, hurt and pain are sidelined while those criminals who carried out this type of heinous activity are elevated.
The purpose of Amendment 114A is
“to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences”.
Clause 48 tells us that designated persons carrying out Troubles-related work must have due regard
“to the need to ensure that … there is support from different communities in Northern Ireland for the way in which that programme is carried out, and … a variety of views of the Troubles is taken into account in carrying out that programme”.
Those responsible for drafting the memorialisation strategy are bound by this duty under Clause 51(1).
This focus on representativeness can be problematic, given that there are, as I have outlined, sections of our community, including those in high places and political life, who not only refuse to disavow violence but actually express the view that glorifying terrorism via parades, vigils, rallies and so on is a perfectly legitimate memorialisation activity when it is patently not. The Government propose to require the Troubles work programme to promote reconciliation, anti-sectarianism and non-recurrence of political and sectarian hostility between people in Northern Ireland. However, none of these terms are defined. It should be made clear in the Bill that designated persons are not permitted to recommend activities that a reasonable person in Northern Ireland would regard as glorifying past terrorism—in fact, they should be under a duty to prevent this. Memorialisation should not open the door to revisionism and the rule of law must be respected.
Amendment 114B is intended to ensure that only innocent victims are included as victims in the memorialisation strategy. It is critical that the law in this respect is in line with the line that the Government took in relation to the payment of compensation to victims of the Troubles in the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme and Regulation 6 of the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020, in which it was made clear, rightly, that someone who had injured themselves as a result of their own actions by being engaged in terrorism would not be eligible under the scheme. There was a difference between those who were injured in innocent circumstances as a result of terrorism carried out by others and those who were injured by their own hand.
We believe it is important for the sake of the victims and respect for the rule of law that a memorialisation strategy does not give credence to terrorists injured or killed by their own hands. They should not be considered victims for the purposes of consultation under this section.
It is regrettable that we have to even raise these issues and put them on the record in the House. However, sadly, as time moves on, the years pass and we move further away from the crimes that were carried out in the names of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland—IRA and loyalist alike—there is a tendency among those in Sinn Féin to ensure that the history of the past is rewritten.
I have a recent example. Someone who was described as a commentator but who was actually a teacher in a secondary school came on to say, “Well, you know, if people are engaging in memorial activities for the military, such as acts of remembrance in November, it’s perfectly acceptable for republicans to remember their dead”. In other words, they were suggesting equivalence between members of the security forces and terrorists who set out with murder and mayhem in their hearts and as the purpose of their activities.
There is no, and can never be, equivalence between members of the security forces in Northern Ireland—Army, Ulster Defence Regiment, Royal Ulster Constabulary, PSNI—and those who, by contrast, came as terrorists to carry out bloodshed against the rule of law. It is important to put that firmly on the record in this debate.
I would like the Minister to consider very carefully the purpose behind these amendments and to reassure us that the memorialisation strategy will indeed reflect the rule of law and will not end up glorifying or eulogising terrorism in any form.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with Amendment 114A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I have seen so much revisionism over the last number of years. We have seen revisionism from paramilitary forces in order to justify their campaign of terror and to forget about the real victims, who were never involved in perpetrating acts of violence but were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Dodds and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in supporting Amendments 114A and 114B in the names of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow.
Recently, the absentee MP for North Belfast, John Finucane, was the main speaker at what was billed a “South Armagh Volunteers commemoration and fun day”. Let me remind noble Lords of just one action of these South Armagh IRA terrorists—there is certainly no reason to celebrate it, or even commemorate it. I want noble Lords to imagine a young husband leaving home and going to work as usual. His family hear later on that their loved one has gone missing; his young wife is pregnant and has three young children already. Think of the agony this family circle is going through as it becomes clear that the IRA have abducted this young man. Think of the absolute terror he is feeling as he is hooded and taken captive by IRA terrorists.
Then there comes that—in many ways inevitable—phone call that tells the family that that young man has been found dead. However, that call also tells them that his body cannot be recovered, even though it is seen lying in a field in south Armagh, because it is surrounded by Claymore mines. Yes, that body is booby-trapped to explode if moved. A huge, 500-pound bomb is attached to him in milk churns, with command wires leading across the border. Any attempt to move him will blow his corpse to pieces, along with anyone attempting to retrieve him. The authorities have to let him lie there, dead, covered in blood and mud, naked except for his pants and on display for all to see, until the explosives are defused by the bomb squad. Can anyone with a heart have any idea what that dear wife, her three young children and the family circle have to go through as they wait and wait?
In another place, a Member of Parliament at that time said:
“One of his relatives said that they were horrified at the look of torture and agony … on the face. The fingers of both hands were blackened to the knuckles and holes were punched in the finger tips. Handfuls of grass and earth were clutched in the hands. One side of the face was smashed … to the extent that the nose was broken and displaced to one side. Both arms seemed limp and the genitals had been kicked until swollen out of all proportion. The teeth were smashed, he was shot through the wrists, the mouth, the neck, the throat and several times in the chest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/72; col. 1788.].
What was his crime? His crime was that he was a part-time UDR corporal. Of course, Sinn Féin said that he was therefore a legitimate target; he was a part of the British war machine, simply because he wore the uniform and tried to keep people safe from those who so cowardly and viciously ended his life. Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill has claimed that there was no alternative to such IRA activity and yet, amazingly, she is lauded and applauded by Presidents and Secretaries of State, and John Finucane thinks such deserve to be commemorated—actually, their names written on a marble scroll as if they were heroes and then celebrated with a family fun day.
I ask you: what sort of persons could be so evil as to commit such torture on another human being? What sort of mentality justifies this in any shape or form? Nobody has ever been charged or convicted of this murder, this torture, and those who directed it are equally guilty. The so-called IRA Army Council has not been brought before the International Court of Justice. Rather, some of its leaders are lauded and applauded too. The Sinn Féin leaders and John Finucane talk much about and demand inquiries, they pontificate about human rights, equality and justice, but they do not want justice for them. They do not want inquiries into their leadership role in some of the most vile atrocities ever carried out against mankind. All they want is to blame the police, the Army and the part-time soldiers—indeed, everyone who stood against their 30-year campaign of slaughter and murder in their quest for their dream of a united Ireland. Sadly, on many occasions, successive Governments rolled over to Sinn Féin demands and granted it concession after concession. Even just over a week ago, we found that the chief constable apologised to those who were called the hooded men. I ask the Minister: does this legislation stop the memorialisation and glorification of those terrorists across our community?
I finish by saying that every year, in January, I gather with others at the side of a road outside Cookstown, the Teebane. The men there were returning from doing an honest day’s work, but they were murdered, slaughtered, on their way home. We stand at a roadside. Yes, there is a stone there with the names of those lads on it: not to glorify but to humbly remember that they were cruelly done to death along that road.
We cannot have the glorification of terrorist acts. They are to be condemned. While many tell us that everyone, every political party in Northern Ireland, is against this legislation, let me make it clear that the party which I belong to is not to be equated with Sinn Féin/IRA, because its objection to the legislation is that it does not want its comrades to be prosecuted, but it wants the security forces to be persecuted. I will not lend my hand to that.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I speak to support Amendments 117 and 118 in my name but agree with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as well.
I want to look at the academic research clause, because it addresses a problem with the Government’s funding body, UK Research and Innovation and its councils. Many of us interested in legacy are genuinely concerned about what seems to be the one-sided nature of much of the academic research into our past and the way that the funding has been monopolised by what could be seen as a single legal view that is radical and investigates only faults with the UK state and its security responses during the Troubles.
I need to refer to the Queen’s University Belfast’s transitional justice department, which produced the model legacy Bill and many briefings that Opposition and Cross-Bench Peers will have been provided with. That department alone has received the huge amount of £4 million in funding for legacy research—nobody else has. The transitional justice department works in open conjunction with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the CAJ, which is a largely anti-state nationalist body in Belfast that encourages legacy litigation. Indeed, it is leading efforts to get the Dublin Government to take an inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights over this very Bill once it receives Royal Assent.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, within any democracy it is healthy and appropriate that people have a battle of ideas and their own thoughts and opinions. People are perfectly entitled to their own allegiances and opinions. What people are not entitled to is their own truths and their own facts. Sadly, when it comes to the Northern Ireland Troubles, we have seen a perverse and dangerous attempt to rewrite history to pervert the truth and the facts of what happened. In the spirit of ensuring that facts remain, let me highlight four universal facts and truths that I believe everyone in this House could unite around.
First, terrorism was and is wrong. There was never an excuse for terrorism, be it republican or loyalist—I treat both the same. There was never, ever any excuse for violence. Secondly, it therefore flows that memorialisation of that terrorism in present-day circumstances is equally wrong. Whether it is a shrine, a commemoration or the perversity of the equivalent of bouncy castles for a family fun day to commemorate those who carried out the most heinous acts within our society—again, irrespective of the source—that is fundamentally wrong.
Thirdly, we need to nail the lie that there was no alternative to violence. There are many within this Chamber, from all sections of our community, who put their head above the parapet, stood for election in Northern Ireland and used democracy to pursue often competing aims. There was always democracy within Northern Ireland; there was always the opportunity for democratic arguments to be moved forward.
Fourthly, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there was never a democratic mandate for violence. Violence was never the majority opinion within unionism, it was never the majority opinion within nationalism, and it was never the majority opinion among those who did not identify with either. Similarly, for those who would pursue a particular Irish republican view on it, it was never a majority opinion within any section of the island, north or south.
It is upon those fundamental truths of history and the present-day situation that we must rest where we are. Any attempt to unpick those truths—and the memorialisation of terrorism goes to the heart of that—is deeply dangerous.
Unlike others in this House perhaps, although my entire childhood and much of my adult life was lived through the Troubles, I did not have any personal examples of suffering at the hands of the Troubles directly. I was very fortunate. There was never an attempt on my life or the life of a close family member. I did not lose anybody. There are others in this House who bear much greater burdens than that, and beyond. I cannot even place myself in the shoes of those innocent victims and their families, who suffered at the heart of terrorism throughout the Troubles. It is right that we commemorate innocent victims of the past, and it besmirches their name to create a level of equivalence between them and those who carried out violence. The commemoration and memorialisation, from whatever side, of those who committed those heinous crimes is deeply injurious to the memories of those victims.
This is partly about the past; it is also about the present. For those relatives to have to suffer commemoration and potential memorialisation of those who inflicted that on their families is wholly unacceptable. Even if those were the only reasons, we should be rejecting the idea of memorialisation of terrorism, but it is also, pertinently, about the future. We have seen too many examples of late of the glorification of terrorism resonating among wider society, particularly among younger people who have no collective memory of what happened in the past, be that from circumstances in which there is chanting for terrorist organisations to a recent situation which is not just anecdotal but can be looked up on social media—when the police came to arrest a suspect in relation to the attempted murder of the police officer in Omagh, the suspect was cheered by people within that neighbourhood.
It is deeply worrying that, even today, we see dissident republicans putting up posters against the PSNI and making threats against recruitment of the police and the Prison Service. That rightly drew the ire of political parties, and a joint letter condemning that was signed by four of the five major parties in Northern Ireland—my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. Shamefully, to date no representative of Sinn Féin has signed that letter condemning those activities. That is deeply unacceptable. A situation in which hatred and violence are stoked up by a glorification of a violent terrorist past is deeply worrying because it runs the risk of dragging young people into repeating that evil. That is why memorialisation is not simply about the issue of the past or the present but about what future Northern Ireland has.
I await the remarks of the Minister and know that the Government will say that they have no intention of allowing memorialisation. I am sure that is their intention, but in terms of this legislation and why we have put down these amendments we must, as a House and a legislature, be absolutely clear that memorialisation of terrorism in any shape or form is to be prevented. If that means that we have to go the extra mile and put the belt and braces on, beyond what is there at present, let us not be afraid of doing so. Let us ensure that the evils of the past are not repeated in the present or the future.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene not as an Irish person but as someone who comes from another Celtic country, which has found another way of dealing with potential and actual terrorism, and that is called political democracy. It has been a terrible thing that, throughout so much of modern Irish history, the tendency has been to equate democratic practices and human rights with one side and not with another.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, this part of the Bill, providing for history and memorialisation, is about creating as true and honest an account as is possible of what happened during our tortured, troubled past, an account which must have integrity.
It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation-of Troubles-related offences. Yet every day as I drive around Northern Ireland at this time of year, I see the flags erected—the flags which tell me that, as a Catholic, I am not welcome. In today’s Irish News we have an article about one of the Shankill butchers, a gang which went around killing Catholics simply because they were Catholics. This man served life. He is pictured erecting UVF flags commemorating the activities of the organisation to which he belonged.
Terrorism occurred right across our community. It occurred and was perpetrated by members of illegal organisations such as the UVF, the UDA, the IRA et cetera. However, there were also members of the security forces—both the police and the Army—who engaged with those groups. We cannot deny this; it has been proved. Most police officers served with honour. Most acted to protect us, as they acted to protect my family one night, when we were under attack, but that was not always the case. There were those who did such terribly wrong things. I think about the Glenanne gang, who for years terrorised south Armagh, killing some 127 Catholics. This is the subject of the present Operation Denton review.
Just a mile down the road from where I live was a young Catholic man who ran a little shop. One night, at two o’clock in the morning, two men came to the door, knocked, and said, “We have a sick child: we need medicine”. The shopkeeper, William Strathearn, got up. His wife and children were sleeping upstairs. He went down, opened the door, and was murdered. The two people who were convicted of his murder were serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
So it ran from the earliest days of the Troubles, and ran right through after the Good Friday agreement. I think of my own work investigating the UVF in north Belfast. The UVF murdered Catholics until 1994 and then, once the IRA declared a ceasefire, went on to murder indiscriminately both Catholics and Protestants.
Regrettably, we still see, at regular intervals, events from different sections of the community which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions which cause immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Those events cause great pain. They reignite the terrors and agonies of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.
The fact remains that, apart from all those who died and were maimed in the Troubles, so many families lived in terror and fear. I remember watching my husband driving out every day with our five sons in the car, and every day I prayed that there would not be a bomb under our car. He was a serving member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party—the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—and for years we lived with terror because of that, and because of my role as police ombudsman. I have no difficulty in supporting any measure which can prevent the glorification of terrorism.
I find myself unable to support Amendment 118A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It requires that within three and a half years, a definitive public history of the Troubles, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, should be completed. I have a number of difficulties with this proposal. Until the work of the ICRIR is completed, it will be a work in progress in establishing, as far as possible, what happened during the Troubles. Therefore, to attempt to write any history of the Troubles would be premature. To attempt to write an official history of the Troubles while the representatives and organs of government are conducting reviews would definitely be premature. In addition to this, and as Sir Joe Pilling’s April 2009 report on the official history programme indicates, there would be minimum government requirements relating to access to papers and clearance of the draft report.
Our history has been the cause of so much division. For the state to commission a history of the Troubles would immediately arouse suspicion in some parts of the community. People have watched over the years as those with control over materials relating to the Troubles have done all they can to ensure that, in respect of so many critical incidents, the truth has not emerged because of the refusal to disclose the relevant documents, until case after case has been the subject of judicial review and judges’ and coroners’ orders. This has happened from the Bloody Sunday Widgery report in 1971 right through to, most recently, the findings of the inquest in relation to the Ballymurphy shootings. No matter how noble and well-intentioned any historian designated to do this work might be, in Northern Ireland there would be suspicions and assumptions that such a history would not be free from bias. It would be most unlikely to secure public confidence.
One of the things I learned when I investigated police collusion with the UVF was that the loyalist and Protestant community felt very betrayed by the activities of those members of the security forces who colluded with loyalist paramilitary organisations. To impose a duty on the Secretary of State to commission such a history would be to introduce further cause for concern, suspicion and dissension in the communities in Northern Ireland. It would be better that history, in so far as it can be established, should be established by derivation from the findings of inquests, civil actions and criminal prosecutions.
As Maya Angelou said:
“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again”.
That is why this Bill is so misconceived: normal processes under the rule of law are to be abandoned, despite the objections of all the political parties, victims and the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s power is woven throughout the new procedures in a way which means that, notwithstanding the integrity of any individual involved, all that will happen if there is an attempt to commission such a history is that it will divide, rather than create reconciliation. We cannot afford further community tensions, such as would emerge in attempts to write an official history of the Troubles.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I have frequently felt moved to speak in this House about the suffering that has been endured across Northern Ireland and which is obviously the centre of the approach of this legislation. However, we have also had occasions to be reminded that so little of our society finds, in this proposed legislation, anything that they can have confidence in.
On one occasion in Committee, I centred on the use of the word “reconciliation” in the title of the Bill. The speeches we have heard tonight come from the heart of people who have intimate knowledge of what they are talking about—people who have carried, and through their families have carried, scars over the years. For myself, there are numerous occasions upon which I have tried to bring comfort and reconciliation, in ordinary terms, to people. In the rawness of what we have heard tonight, this is really taking us now to the centre. We are not dealing with the niceties of this legislation. We are being reminded that the rawness of the suffering of ordinary people has brought us to this point.
I have no hesitation in saying that I have total dismay when I look at this legislation. So much could have been achieved. So much was expected, when we were told it was coming, and so little has been achieved, in what we have listened to and discussed. Now we are talking about how future generations will be told about our Troubles. We are told of the need to have an official history. My heavens, do we understand the first fact of what we are talking about when we refer to an “official history” of the Troubles? I venture to suggest it is an impossibility. The history of the Troubles is the photograph on the mantelpiece; the insertion on an anniversary; the plaque on a wall of the church, or a memorial window. The history of the Troubles is when a mother says, “Please, let me know the truth, before I die, of what happened”. And we turn around and produce ways of limiting inquiries, investigations, and questioning—not in the purely legal sense, but in the sense in which normal suffering people are crying out for answers. We have fallen so far short in this legislation of doing that.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to contribute to this debate, but sitting here listening to some of the speeches, not least the wonderful remarks we have just heard, reminded me of what I think was the most difficult period of my life, when I was responsible for the committee that, after the Good Friday agreement, reorganised the police service in Northern Ireland. With my colleagues—people such as the late Maurice Hayes, Peter Smith and others—we thought we needed to have public meetings around Northern Ireland. When we suggested this, people said, “But nobody’ll come, nobody goes to public meetings now”. But come they did; to 40 meetings, probably 40,000 people came, and each of those meetings was a reminder not just of exactly what has just been said, the horror of the violence, but of the intimacy of the violence.
I think people who have not lived or been very much to Northern Ireland simply never comprehend how awful the intimacy of that violence is. I remember one evening having a public meeting in a rather raw little town in Northern Ireland—I had better not mention which one—and it was pretty difficult. A terrorist from the borders, Slab Murphy, had come down with some of his colleagues and we were quite worried that there would be violence. I undertook all those public meetings without police protection because you could not examine the record of the police and have yourself guarded by policemen. We got out of the meeting in one piece—I think it was Maurice Hayes and myself—largely because of the extremely sensitive and sensible chairmanship of a solicitor who had made her reputation invariably defending republicans who were accused of violence.
From Portadown we then went to a meeting in Craigavon and the first three questions I had were from the widows of police officers. The man accused in the case of the husband of the last of these had been got off on a technicality in his trial, with the solicitor working for him being the same woman who had kept the peace in the meeting I had just come from.
I think going through all those horror stories, trying to be objective and balance one bit of horror against another, is a less than useful idea. I think I am right in saying that it was the episcopal father of Louis MacNeice who said in a famous sermon words to the effect that we should remember the past the better to forget it. Northern Ireland remembers the past too much and does not spend enough time building a better present and a better future, even today; even today that is the situation.
The very last public meeting that we had in Northern Ireland was in a little fishing village. It was a difficult meeting; three of us were sat up on a stage like that in “Cinema Paradiso”, and, as the meeting went on and on, the thought of getting back to Hillsborough for a glass of whiskey became more and more enticing. Eventually, we brought the meeting to a close and got up ready to leave, and I made a little speech about reconciliation, healing and hope. A little lady at the back of the room stood up and said, “Mr Patten, before you go off, before you go back to London, before you make any more speeches about reconciliation, healing and hope, and all of us getting on with one another, I would like you to know that this man here”—and she put a hand on the shoulder of the man in front of her—“killed my son”. It was true. He had been one of those let out as part of the Good Friday agreement. We forget sometimes, standing in a queue in Morrisons, how it would be seeing in the next queue somebody who killed your uncle or tried to kill you. I have never believed that you actually deal with that problem by going over again and again who was right and who was wrong about that particular barbarity—the sort of barbarity that was mentioned earlier.
The best book I have read on Northern Ireland was Seamus Mallon’s memoir. I think Seamus Mallon is one of the great, largely unsung heroes of the attempt to produce decency in Northern Ireland. I recall from that extraordinary book how he went again and again to the funeral or wake of anybody in his constituency who had been killed. It was difficult. Sometimes he had a problem getting out without being beaten up by people who did not want to see him there because he was from the wrong side. On one occasion, he is at a wake and they do not want him there. He is helped to leave safely through the intervention of a man who is a part-time—a reservist—police officer. Two days later, on his way to the pharmacy in the local village, Seamus sees the same man gunned down by republicans. Seamus has to spend the man’s last moments with him, under a lorry leaking animal urine, as they lie there saying the Lord’s Prayer.
As I say, I do not see how you deal with those sorts of memories by going through the catalogue of who did what to whom and whether one horror was greater than another. I think it is the case that good sermons are likely to make more of an impact than endless historical reconstruction.
When it comes to that, I will say what I have never said before: I am not sure that the Church of which I am a member has been wise in the view that it has taken over the years about segregated education. If we want kids to learn the sort of history that we would like them to, you do not slant it and insist that, in order to listen to your version, they must go to one of your schools otherwise they cannot get confirmed, which was the situation when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland for years.
I had not meant to say any of this. When it comes to history, however brilliant the historians and however balanced they try to be, we have difficulty even in producing official histories of our relationship with the EU, so producing a balanced history of what has happened in Northern Ireland would be very difficult. We should try to understand what has happened, of course, but—I sound like a bishop now—we should build on the decencies that have ensured that, despite all the trouble and the extremism, Northern Ireland still exists as, in many respects, a thoroughly decent community.
The people who I remember when I look back are the heroes. Some of the civil servants and public servants that I had, people such as Norman Dugdale and Maurice Hayes, were great human beings who gave their lives to the attempt to produce decency, prosperity and peace in Northern Ireland. But, please—no official history.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
This has been a powerful debate in many ways. I suppose it should be, bearing in mind what has happened in Northern Ireland over 40 years. This part of the Bill was meant to be the easy bit but it is not; as noble Lords have heard over the past hour or so, it is possibly even more difficult than the rest of this legislation.
I remember vividly going to Northern Ireland to help chair the talks on the Good Friday agreement, back in 1997. About 10 months in, I was chairing strand 1 of the talks and I had had enough of history by then. I told the people at the talks that I had spent 17 years of my life before I became an MP teaching history but had had enough of it, 10 months into the talks. I suddenly realised that it was a bit daft to say that because the people in those talks were revealing their past in a very special way. Looking back, I can see that there were not just one or two but even more versions of the same history, in exactly the same place, and we have heard a bit about that in today’s debate. That is not easy.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful as always to those who have contributed to this debate, which was lengthier than some of us had perhaps anticipated. We went over many of these issues extensively in Committee only a few weeks ago. I will therefore try to be as brief as possible and address my remarks in large part to the amendments.
Obviously I am aware that there have been a number of powerful and deeply moving contributions today that reflect the experiences of individual Members of your Lordships’ House who have suffered at the hands of terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland over many decades. I refer in particular to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who shared some of her personal experiences. The House cannot fail to be moved by some of the remarks and reflections, including also those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that we have heard today.
As I have said many times, we are never going to agree on a common narrative about the past in Northern Ireland, but we can seek to put in place structures that will help all in society, including future generations, to have a better understanding of the past, with the overarching aim of enabling people in Northern Ireland to move forward, on which I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes.
I turn first to the memorialisation strategy, which will seek to build consensus around new structures and initiatives to commemorate those lost during the Troubles and to seek to ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, highlighted with his Amendments 114A and 114B that this objective would be fundamentally compromised if it allowed for the glorification of acts of terrorism. I am on record many times in this House as saying that politically-motivated violence on all sides, whether republican or loyalist, was never justified in Northern Ireland, and I agree completely with the words of the noble Lords, Lord Dodds, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and others on that. The Government will never accept any suggestion that there was, to use the quote, “no alternative”, which is peddled by those with a political motivation to rewrite history in order to denigrate the actions of the state along with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces.
I take on board some of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. There are of course examples where members of the security forces have fallen short of the highest standards, but I maintain that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with great courage, professionalism and integrity, while defending democracy and the rule of law. Without their service and sacrifice, there would have been no peace process; we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, can be assured that this Government will never accept any moral equivalence between those who defended democracy and the rule of law and those who sought to destroy both.
Having listened to the strength of feeling on this issue, the Government have tabled an amendment to Clause 48, adding an overarching duty that would require the designated persons to have regard to the need to promote
“reconciliation … anti-sectarianism, and … non-recurrence of political and sectarian hostility”.
In the Government’s view, this goes further than the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in that the overarching duty would apply to all the measures in Part 4, not only to the memorialisation strategy set out in Clause 44. Any attempt to glorify terrorism, or to revise or rewrite history in ways that justify it, would be fundamentally incompatible with this new overarching duty. Non-recurrence speaks to the avoidance of future political violence, which necessarily includes ensuring that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences. The Government will also ensure that this understanding is reflected in any guidance documents or terms of reference.
Further amendments tabled by the Government commit the Secretary of State to consulting organisations with experience and expertise in promoting reconciliation and anti-sectarianism between communities in Northern Ireland before designating the delivery organisations and, crucially, before responding to each of the
“recommendations made in the memorialisation strategy”.
I hope that the Government’s amendments here address some of the noble Lord’s concerns around glorification, which I know are shared across the House, as has been so vividly set out this evening. Indeed, a core objective of the strategy, along with other measures in Part 4, is to confront the glorification of terrorism.
Amendments 117 and 118 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As I said during Committee, I fully support the sentiment behind these amendments, which seek to ensure that any Troubles-related academic research is suitably diverse and not, as the noble Baroness said, monopolised by a single view. But while she rightly highlighted that funding applications are assessed based on the past record of those applying, that is not the sole criterion used by research councils: for example, research impact, value for money and public engagement are a few of the other criteria used. As such, the wording of this amendment would have little practical effect. Going further, Clause 48 specifically requires that the designated persons, in delivering this work, ensure that a variety of views of the Troubles are taken into account. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s comments about even-handedness.
On Amendment 118, as I said in Committee, nothing in the provisions of the Bill would preclude research into LGBT experiences during the Troubles, should the academic community feel that there is a particular need. I am sure noble Lords will agree that if we were to debate the inclusion of every theme relating to the Troubles, or themes which occurred during the same period, we would be here for a very long time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the clauses that deal with the role of women. There are international precedents and standards affirming the important role of women in the resolution of conflicts, in peace negotiations and in reconstruction. I visited an exhibition dealing with those issues at Ulster Museum only a couple of weeks ago. I would therefore respectfully maintain our position that these amendments are not required, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, along with Jeff Dudgeon and the Malone House Group in Northern Ireland, for their ongoing constructive engagement on these matters. I think the noble Baroness will be aware that I had a useful meeting with the Malone House Group in the last two weeks.
Touching briefly on the advisory forum under Clause 49, I think noble Lords are understandably concerned with ensuring that the advisory panel overseeing the measures in Part 4 is not politically biased in its composition. As I said in Committee, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is not expressly necessary. Clause 49(2)(b) already states that, in establishing an advisory forum, due regard must be given to the need for the forum to have a balance in terms of members who are associated with different parts of the community in Northern Ireland—“different communities” being defined in the Bill as those which have differing views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
Lastly, Amendment 118A in the name of my noble friend Lord Godson would enshrine in legislation the Government’s commitment to commissioning an independent public history relating to the Troubles. The term used throughout the debate this evening was “an official history”; the updated term, following the Pilling review, is a “public history”. Noble Lords will recall the fairly recent debate on this amendment during Committee, when noble Lords had an opportunity to discuss these proposals. From those who contributed on that occasion, there was certainly support in Committee for this project in principle.
It is clear that the main practical concern is around the extent to which the Government’s official history programme, which has been in hiatus since 2008, is a suitable delivery vehicle for a historical project of this scale and importance. Let me therefore clarify to noble Lords that, while this project would be akin to the official history programme for the purpose of using long-standing protocols to grant the necessary access to archival material, it will be driven forward separately by the Northern Ireland Office, consistent with subsection (5) of my noble friend’s proposed new clause.
I turn briefly to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—whom I have always listened to with huge admiration and respect, even when we may occasionally disagree slightly—and my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes. It was in recognition of some of the difficulties that all three of them raised in their comments that the former Secretary of State specified in moving this project forward that, in keeping with previous official histories commissioned by the Government, this official history would focus primarily on the UK Government’s policy towards Northern Ireland during the Troubles, rather than attempting to write a general history of the Troubles themselves.
Returning to my noble friend Lord Godson’s amendment, in respect of funding, I can confirm that the project will be fully funded from the £250 million pot that the Government set aside for the establishment of legacy mechanisms as part of the Stormont House and New Decade, New Approach agreements. Having written to my noble friend, I hope that the update and clarifications have gone some way to providing assurances on the concerns which may have prompted his amendment, and otherwise demonstrated the seriousness with which the Government are approaching this endeavour, so I would respectfully suggest that he does not press his amendment. I am of course happy to engage with him further in advance of Third Reading, recognising his strong interest in this matter and his expert advice, which I warmly welcome.
On that basis, I urge noble Lords to withdraw or not to press these amendments.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate, with powerful contributions from all sides of your Lordships’ House. What is clear from everyone who has spoken is the recognition that all terrorism, from whatever side it comes, is wrong. It is not a question of pitting one atrocity against another or of identifying terrorism with one community. I remember that, during the Troubles, some of the most powerful voices against republican terrorism were in the nationalist community. There were people such as John Hume, who spoke out against terrorism relentlessly. Sadly, what is happening today in Northern Ireland is that that history is being rewritten and there is a revision of the past.
Lord Caine
“(aa) consult relevant organisations in the course of considering each recommendation, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State, when considering recommendations made in the memorialisation strategy, to consult organisations with expertise in reconciliation or anti-sectarianism.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the Secretary of State to consult on the proposed response to the memorialisation strategy with appropriate Northern Ireland departments.
Lord Caine
“(c) that programme is carried out in a way that promotes—(i) reconciliation,(ii) anti-sectarianism, and(iii) non-recurrence of political and sectarian hostility between people in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires designated persons to have regard to certain (additional) matters when carrying out the Troubles-related work programme.
Lord Caine
(b) consult relevant organisations about the proposed designation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State, before designating a person under Clause 50 in relation to the Troubles-related work programme, to consult organisations with expertise in reconciliation or anti-sectarianism.
Lord Caine
““relevant organisation” means an organisation that the Secretary of State considers to have expertise in carrying out, promoting or otherwise facilitating activities that are intended to encourage reconciliation or anti-sectarianism;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines a term used in the amendments in Lord Caine’s name related to the Troubles-related work programme under Part 4.
Lord Caine
“financial year | This has the meaning given in section 2(9).” |
This amends the table of definitions to include the definition of “financial year” that is added to the Bill by the amendments of Clause 2 in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This changes the definition of “reserved provision” to reflect the fact that section 8(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires consent to a Bill for an Act (rather than to the Act itself).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for only Clause 39 (and the associated amendments in Schedule 12) to come into force two months after royal assent.
“(2A) Part 3, except for section 39, comes into force on 1 May 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the rest of Part 3 to come into force on 1 May 2024 (instead of two months after royal assent).
Lord Caine
“5A_(1) The ICRIR must—(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.(2) The statement of accounts must be prepared in accordance with any directions that are given by the Treasury.(3) The ICRIR must send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates.(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts,(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State, and(c) lay before Parliament a copy of each such report and certified statement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the ICRIR to keep accounts and provides for the accounts to be laid before Parliament.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment of clause 2(3)(c) in Lord Caine’s name which allows the ICRIR to have a maximum of 5 other Commissioners. It amends the provision which gives the Secretary of State power to decide the number of other members which the ICRIR has.
“(1A) In exercising the power to appoint Commissioners, the Secretary of State must ensure that (as far as it is practicable) the Commissioners include one or more persons who have experience gained outside the United Kingdom that is relevant to the work of the ICRIR.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State to ensure that there is at least one Commissioner who has relevant international experience.
(b) the Secretary of State has consulted—(i) the relevant senior judge, and(ii) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires consultation in cases where a potential appointee no longer holds high judicial office (as well as in cases where they still hold such office), and authorises the Secretary of State to consult other persons besides the relevant senior judge.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes some wording that is unnecessary as ill health is not a ground for removal from office as a Commissioner.
“(5A) A reference in this paragraph to a person being insolvent, or to being disqualified from being a company director, has the same meaning as in paragraph 11 (see paragraph 11(4) or (5)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This applies definitions of certain terms which appear in paragraph 11 to those terms as used in paragraph 7.
“(6) The following Orders apply to the Commissioners as they apply to constables—(a) the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979 (S.R. 1979/195);(b) the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975/1023);(c) the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions)(Scotland) Order 2013 (S.S.I. 2013/50).”Member’s explanatory statement
This updates the provision about the application to the Commissioners of the law relating to the rehabilitation of offenders. It ensures that the Bill provision reflects the current approach taken in that law.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name about consultation when appointing the Chief Commissioner.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name about consultation when appointing the Chief Commissioner.
Member’s explanatory statement
This clarifies who is to be consulted where a retired judge held two or more kinds of high judicial office.
Member’s explanatory statement
This requires consultation with the President of the Supreme Court where a retired judge was a Law Lord.
(za) is of a duration, not exceeding five years, determined by the Secretary of State,”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to determine the period for which an appointment as a member of the ICRIR lasts - which must not exceed five years.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment requiring the Secretary of State to determine the period of an appointment as a member of the ICRIR.
“18_(1) The following Orders apply to ICRIR officers as they apply to constables—(a) the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979 (S.R. 1979/195);(b) the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975/1023);(c) the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions)(Scotland) Order 2013 (S.S.I. 2013/50).(2) This paragraph does not apply to the Commissioner for Investigations (instead see paragraph 7(6)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This updates the provision about the application to ICRIR officers of the law relating to the rehabilitation of offenders. It ensures that the Bill provision reflects the current approach taken in that law.
“(2) This paragraph does not apply to the Commissioner for Investigations (instead see paragraph 14).”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the Commissioner for Investigations (who is also ex-officio an ICRIR officer) falls only within paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 (as a Commissioner) and not also within paragraph 20 (as an ICRIR officer). Paragraphs 14 and 20 make equivalent provision to ensure that the prohibitions on trade union activity which govern the police do not apply to the ICRIR.
Lord Caine
“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to an assault on a designated ICRIR officer under the law of England and Wales (instead see section 1 of the Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018).”Member’s explanatory statement
This avoids overlap with the provisions of the Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 which will apply to designated ICRIR officers (but is law only in England and Wales).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This increases the maximum penalty for failure to comply with an information notice under section 14 from £1,000 to £5,000.
Lord Caine
“NO IMMUNITY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCESPART 1SEXUAL OFFENCE, EXISTING CONVICTION OR ONGOING PROSECUTIONApplication of this Part
1_ This Part of this Schedule applies if—(a) a person (P) has requested the ICRIR to grant P immunity from prosecution (the “current request”) under section 18 and conditions A to C are met, but(b) this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity for an identified possible offence (see paragraphs 2 and 3).Prohibition of grant of immunity: sexual offences
2_(1) A grant of immunity for an identified possible offence is prohibited if it is—(a) a sexual offence, or(b) an inchoate offence relating to a sexual offence.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph “sexual offence” includes—(a) rape;(b) any offence committed by—(i) sexual assault,(ii) sexual activity, or(iii) causing or inciting another person to engage in sexual activity;(c) any offence relating to indecent images of children.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph “inchoate offence relating to a sexual offence” includes an offence of—(a) attempting to commit a sexual offence;(b) conspiracy to commit a sexual offence;(c) incitement to commit a sexual offence;(d) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a sexual offence.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the meaning of—(a) “sexual offence”, or(b) “inchoate offence relating to a sexual offence”;for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule (including provision specifying offences which are to comprise, or to be included in, that definition).(5) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative procedure.Prohibition of grant of immunity: conviction or ongoing prosecution
3_(1) A grant of immunity for an identified possible offence is prohibited if—(a) P has a conviction for the identified possible offence,(b) P is being prosecuted for the identified possible offence, or(c) P is being prosecuted for any other offence (whether or not a Troubles-related offence), and the immunity requests panel is satisfied that granting P immunity from prosecution for the identified possible offence would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on that prosecution.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) P is “being prosecuted for” an offence if a public prosecution of P for the offence has begun and is continuing;(b) a “public prosecution” means any prosecution other than a private prosecution;(c) a public prosecution of P for an offence “has begun” if a prosecutor has made the decision to prosecute P for that offence;(d) the circumstances in which a public prosecution of P is to be regarded as continuing include circumstances where the trial which forms part of the prosecution ends without P being convicted or acquitted or any other verdict being given and either—(i) the period for the prosecution to seek a retrial is continuing (without a retrial having been sought), or(ii) the prosecution have sought a retrial;(e) the circumstances in which a public prosecution of P is to be regarded as not continuing include—(i) circumstances where the trial which forms part of the prosecution ends with P being convicted or acquitted or with another verdict being given, and(ii) circumstances where the trial ends without P being convicted or acquitted or any other verdict being given and the period for the prosecution to seek a retrial ends without a retrial having been sought.Grant of immunity prohibited for all identified possible offences
4_(1) If this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity for all of the identified possible offences, the ICRIR must not grant P immunity from prosecution in relation to the current request.(2) Accordingly, section 18(1) and (7) to (16) do not apply in relation to the current request.Grant of immunity prohibited for some identified possible offences
5_(1) This paragraph applies if this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity for some (but not all) of the identified possible offences.(2) The immunity requests panel must not decide under section 18(7) that P should be granted immunity from prosecution for—(a) any identified possible offence for which this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity, or(b) a description of offences that includes any identified possible offence for which this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity.(3) The ICRIR must not grant P immunity from prosecution for any identified possible offence for which this Schedule prohibits a grant of immunity.(4) Section 18(7) to (13) have effect subject to this paragraph.PART 2NEW REQUEST FOR IMMUNITY AFTER REVOCATION OF PREVIOUS GRANT6_(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) under section (Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity), a court revokes immunity from prosecution granted to a person (P)(the “revoked immunity”),(b) P requests the ICRIR to grant P immunity from prosecution (the “new request”),(c) the new request—(i) is made before the revocation and is not concluded at the time of the revocation, or(ii) is made after the revocation, and(d) conditions A to C in section 18 are met in relation to the new request.(2) When dealing with the new request, the duty of the immunity requests panel to decide (under section 18(7)) what immunity should be granted to P has effect subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).(3) The panel must not decide that P should be granted immunity from prosecution for any identified possible offence which was also within the scope of the revoked immunity.(4) When the panel is determining under section 18(9) or (11)(b) a description of offences for which P should be granted immunity from prosecution, the panel must frame the description so that it does not consist of, or include, one or more offences which were also within the scope of the revoked immunity.(5) If the panel decides in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) that there are no offences for which P should be granted immunity—(a) the panel must decide that P should not be granted immunity from prosecution, and(b) the ICRIR must not grant P immunity from prosecution (and accordingly section 18(1) does not apply).(6) For the purposes of this paragraph the new request is “concluded” when the ICRIR gives P written notice of the outcome of the request in accordance with section 18(13)(a).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deals with offences for which a person cannot be granted immunity from prosecution. The provision about sexual offences is moved here from Clause 19. It contains provision about previous convictions and current prosecutions (replacing Clause 20(1)). It also deals with cases where a person’s immunity from prosecution is revoked under new Clause (Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require any inquest initiated before the commencement of Schedule 10 to be discontinued on the commencement of that Schedule, unless the inquest is at its very final stage (the determination and any findings).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove paragraph 2 of the new Schedule 1A, which allows a pre-commencement inquest to continue if it is at an advanced stage. A pre-commencement inquest will now be able to continue if it is at its very final stage (the determination and any findings) as it will be outside the scope of the amended paragraph 1 of the new Schedule 1A.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to paragraphs 1 and 2 of new Schedule 1A.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to paragraphs 1 and 2 of new Schedule 1A.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require any inquiry initiated before the commencement of Schedule 10 to be discontinued on the commencement of that Schedule, unless the inquiry is at its very final stage (the determination).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in Lord Caine’s name to paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove paragraph 2 of the new Schedule A1, which allows a pre-commencement inquest to continue if it is at an advanced stage. A pre-commencement inquest will now be able to continue if it is at its very final stage (the determination) as it will be outside the scope of the amended paragraph 1 of the new Schedule A1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendments in Lord Caine’s name relating to paragraphs 1 and 2 of new Schedule A1.
Lord Caine
““(6A) An offence is a qualifying offence if—(a) subsection (7) or (7A) applies to the offence, and(b) the prisoner was convicted of the offence—(i) before the day on which section 18(1) of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into force, or(ii) on or after that day by virtue of a public prosecution begun before that day.(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A)—(a) “public prosecution” means any prosecution other than a private prosecution;(b) a public prosecution of a person for an offence is “begun” when a prosecutor makes the decision to prosecute that person for that offence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This will prevent a prisoner from being released under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 if the prisoner is convicted after the ICRIR’s power to grant immunity from prosecution becomes exercisable (and so is a case where the prisoner could have avoided conviction by obtaining immunity).
(b) the prisoner was convicted of the offence—(i) before the day on which section 18(1) of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into force, or(ii) on or after that day by virtue of a public prosecution begun before that day.(A2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (A1)—(a) “public prosecution” means any prosecution other than a private prosecution;(b) a public prosecution of a person for an offence is “begun” when a prosecutor makes the decision to prosecute that person for that offence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This will prevent a prisoner from being released under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 if the prisoner is convicted after the ICRIR’s power to grant immunity from prosecution becomes exercisable (and so is a case where the prisoner could have avoided conviction by obtaining immunity).
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes some of the amendments proposed to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Those amendments would have allowed prisoners to be released (a) if sentenced to less than 5 years’ imprisonment; and (b) without the need to serve a minimum period in prison.
Lord Caine
“2A_ After section 60ZC of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 insert—<strong>“60ZD </strong> The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery(1) An agreement for the establishment in relation to ICRIR officers of procedures corresponding or similar to any of those established by virtue of this Part may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, be made between the Ombudsman and the ICRIR.(2) Where no such procedures are in force in relation to the ICRIR, the Secretary of State may by order establish such procedures.(3) An agreement under this section may at any time be varied or terminated with the approval of the Secretary of State.(4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Ombudsman; and(b) the ICRIR.(5) Nothing in any other statutory provision prevents the ICRIR from carrying into effect procedures established by virtue of this section.(6) No such procedures shall have effect in relation to anything done by an ICRIR officer outside Northern Ireland.(7) In this section—“ICRIR” means the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery;“ICRIR officer” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.””Member’s explanatory statement
This enables the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to have jurisdiction over ICRIR officers.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the amendment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (which would have made the ICRIR subject to the jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, something no longer needed as the ICRIR will no longer have investigatory powers by virtue of amendment in Lord Caine’s name to leave out paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12).
“5A_ After section 26E of the Police Reform Act 2002 insert—<strong>“26F</strong> The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery(1) The Director General and the ICRIR may enter into an agreement for the establishment, in relation to ICRIR officers, of procedures corresponding or similar to those provided for by or under this Part.(2) Where no such agreement is in force, the Secretary of State may by regulations establish such procedures.(3) An agreement under this section must not be made, varied or terminated except with the approval of the Secretary of State.(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Director General; and(b) the ICRIR.(5) Nothing in any other statutory provision prevents the ICRIR from carrying into effect procedures established by virtue of this section.(6) An agreement or regulations under this section may contain provision for enabling the Director General to bring and present, or otherwise participate or intervene in, any proceedings that are identified by the agreement as disciplinary proceedings in relation to ICRIR officers.(7) Procedures established in accordance with an agreement under this section, or by regulations under this section, have no effect in relation to anything done outside England and Wales by any ICRIR officer.(8) In this section—“ICRIR” means the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery;“ICRIR officer” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.”5B_(1) Article 4 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1098)(agreements to establish complaints procedures) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The Commissioner and the ICIRIR may enter into an agreement to establish and maintain procedures which correspond to or are similar to those contained in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Act in relation to complaints made about the acts or omissions of the ICRIR and ICRIR officers.”(3) In paragraph (7), after sub-paragraph (d) insert—“(e) any statement made by a person who is, or has been, an ICRIR officer about the terms and conditions of their service;”.(4) In paragraph (14), after sub-paragraph (b) insert—“(c) “ICRIR” means the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery;(d) “ICRIR officer” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.”5C_(1) The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602) is amended as follows.(2) In article 3 (agreements to investigate serious incidents), after paragraph (17) insert—“(17A) The Commissioner and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (the “ICRIR”) may enter into an agreement for the Commissioner to investigate and report, where requested to do so by the ICRIR, on any serious incident involving the ICRIR.(17B) A “serious incident involving the ICRIR” has the same meaning as a “serious incident involving the police” in section 41B of the 2006 Act except that “a person serving with the police” means an ICRIR officer (which has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023).”(3) In article 4 (investigation of crimes and deaths), after sub-paragraph (h) insert—“(i) an ICRIR officer (which has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023).””Member’s explanatory statement
This enables the Independent Office for Police Conduct (in England and Wales) and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (in Scotland) to have jurisdiction over ICRIR officers.
“(e) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This changes the amendment of section 58 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 so that it operates on section 58(4) rather than on section 58(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the amendment of Schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (which would have made the ICRIR a “relevant public authority” for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act and enabled it to use investigatory powers).
“7A_ In section 379 of the Sentencing Act 2020, in the table in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—“Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
section(Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity) | revocation of immunity under that Act | making of false statements”” |
This is in consequence of new Clauses (False statements: offence) and (Subsequent convictions: revocation of immunity).
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 153-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (3 Jul 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before we begin Third Reading, I will make a statement on legislative consent.
The Government remain committed to delivering better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles by providing more information in a more timely manner to more people than is possible under current mechanisms. We have, however, been unable to secure legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is of course not sitting currently. It is important to note that the Government are working tirelessly to see the return of effective, locally elected and accountable devolved government, which is the best way for Northern Ireland to be governed. However, I also acknowledge the possibility —if I can put it that way—that, even if an Assembly were sitting, it may have chosen not to provide legislative consent in this case.
The Government have also not secured legislative consent from the Scottish Government. We are therefore, regrettably, proceeding without consent, as this legislation requires a UK-wide approach. As the Government, we must make difficult and realistic decisions about how we can best deliver for families in Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords across the House that the Government will continue to engage with all Northern Ireland parties and the Scottish Government on this matter.
Clause 42: Tort, delict and fatal accident actions
Amendment 1
Lord Caine
“(8A) This section does not apply to a relevant Troubles-related civil action if, or to the extent that, section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)(1) applies to the action (prohibition of civil claims alleging invalidity of interim custody orders).”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that Clause 42 does not apply to proceedings to which subsection (1) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) applies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I committed to tabling an amendment at Third Reading in response to widespread concerns raised by the House over the 2020 Supreme Court ruling concerning the validity of interim custody orders made under Troubles-era internment legislation. We debated these issues at length during the amending stages, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Godson for raising these matters and for the constructive manner in which they engaged on the amendments that I tabled late last week.
To be clear, it has always been the Government’s understanding that interim custody orders, made by Ministers of the Crown under powers conferred on the Secretary of State, were perfectly valid. To restore clarity around the legal position and ensure that no one is inappropriately advantaged by a different interpretation of the law on a technicality, I have tabled amendments that retrospectively validate all interim custody orders made under Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, as well as paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. This has the effect of confirming that a person’s detention under an interim custody order was not unlawful simply because it had been made by a junior Minister rather than by the Secretary of State personally, as was always the understanding of successive Governments.
The amendments would also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings, including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice, and appeals against conviction which rely on the 2020 ruling from being brought or continued. To align with other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement.
There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. Importantly, this exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions. I make it clear that this amendment would not lead to convictions already reversed being reinstated. I hope the House will join me in welcoming the legal clarity that these amendments bring. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments in response to amendments tabled by me and the noble Lord, Lord Godson, which were supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I thank the Minister and his officials very much for the constructive way in which they engaged with us to produce this complex amendment in response to our simpler but plainly inadequate amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is not in his place. He supported the amendment on the basis of the well-understood Carltona doctrine.
I have also been asked to mention the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is in the interesting position of being the only living Minister who was in Northern Ireland at the time and directly involved with this and a number of other ICOs. I thank him and many other noble Lords for their help with these amendments. They will do a great deal to restore the Carltona principle to its proper place and it will put right a decision of the Supreme Court which was no doubt reached in good faith but which was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, of which I have given him notice. The first is in relation to the commencement date for the two new clauses. They are described as coming into force two months after Royal Assent. I understand what he says about those extant criminal appeals. It seems that delaying this for two months risks there being some further appeals which will go forward on the rather unfortunate premise that the relevant ICOs were unlawfully entered into. Can he clarify that?
Secondly, the second proposed new clause contains an order-making power, for regulations under Section 55(2), which is consequential on the section and allows a Minister to amend this Act. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, but I am concerned, as the House always is, by powers of this scale. I seek an assurance from the Minister: although I know that the current Secretary of State will not be amending the Act to, in any way, take away with the left hand what it has given with the right, it would be useful to have on record the assurance that the Bill does not intend to amend its provisions in any substantial way, particularly those that are the subject of these amendments.
I welcome these amendments and thank the Government very much for their co-operation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments, but mention has been made of the Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams [2020] UKSC 19, which caused the difficulties that these amendments are designed to address.
On 26 June, on Report, my noble friend Lord Faulks referred to Policy Exchange as having
“consistently and cogently argued that the decision flew in the face of the well-established Carltona doctrine”.
That has been explained as the doctrine that the powers of the Secretary of State may be exercised on their behalf by junior Ministers or officials. My noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell expressed concern that the Carltona judgment
“has been thrown into doubt by this judgment”,
which he described as “this very extraordinary ruling”. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that he was
“astonished, frankly, that such a legal error could have been made”.—[Official Report, 26/6/23; cols. 502-6.]
The judgment of the five judges of the Supreme Court was given by the late Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, a distinguished and much-respected jurist. In his judgment, Lord Kerr recognised the role and importance of the Carltona principle. His reasoning was that the principle did not apply in the Gerry Adams case, because of the specific wording of the relevant statutory provision, which expressly distinguished between the making of the detention order and the signing of the order. The statutory provision said that the order could be signed by the Secretary of State, a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State. Lord Kerr’s conclusion was that the distinction expressly drawn in the statutory provision between the making and the signing of the order necessarily meant that only the Secretary of State could make the order.
My point is that it is simply wrong to accuse Lord Kerr of ignoring the Carltona principle or throwing it into doubt. The judgment, whether or not you agree with it—different views are, of course, permissible—was based on an analysis of the express terms of the relevant statutory provision. I am concerned that this House should not unfairly impugn the reputation—the well-deserved, high reputation—of the late Lord Kerr.
If I understood the Minister’s opening remarks correctly, he said that the amendment restores the legal position, as it had been widely understood by Ministers, prior to the Supreme Court judgment. With respect, that is not quite right, because Lord Kerr’s judgment refers to the legal advice that was given to the Attorney-General in July 1974 by JBE Hutton QC, later Lord Hutton of Bresagh. Mr Hutton, as he then was, advised Ministers through the Attorney-General. I quote from paragraph 6 of the judgment of Lord Kerr that
“a court would probably hold that it would be a condition precedent to the making of an ICO that the Secretary of State should have considered the matter personally”.
I repeat: I support the amendment, but I hope it is appropriate to put those matters on record.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in welcoming the amendment put forward by my noble friend the Minister that reverses the effects of R v Adams, thus restoring the Carltona principle and stopping compensation wrongly being paid for what was an entirely lawful action by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. I also join in the tributes paid earlier to Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who retired from this House a fortnight ago and was one of the most formidable critics of the Supreme Court’s judgment in that case, thus showing his own remarkable independence of mind, which was characteristic of his career here and on the Bench.
There has been much objection in this House to the Bill’s immunity provisions, as if they were somehow unique and unprecedented. However, immunity has already been widely granted to terrorists, such as the early release for prisoners, which was a key element of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, implemented by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. There were also 187 comfort letters issued to those on-the-runs between 2000 and 2014. The issuing of these letters was further pressed on Tony Blair as Prime Minister by Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach in December 1999, along with the cessation of extradition requests.
There has also been widespread use of royal pardons: 418 were issued in Northern Ireland between 1979 and 2002, including many for convicted terrorists. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill of November 2005 further sought to fulfil commitments made by the British and Irish Governments in 2003, with its offer of judicially based immunity for offences committed before 10 April 1998—that is, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
These are all extraordinary departures from the normal rules of law. Privately, Tony Blair admitted to Members of this House that they had ripped up the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. This was not just for terrorists but for security force personnel as well, which is why the investigation into Bloody Sunday was an inquiry led by a judge, not a criminal investigation led by the police.
This Bill seeks to implement a legacy programme that is even-handed and counters the relentless tide of anti-state revisionists and revisionism. That is why I believe it deserves our support.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s amendments and I will confine my remarks to them. First, I observe that this shows how quickly the Government can move when they decide to legislate in respect of Northern Ireland to remedy an obvious injustice. Therefore, I hope that, on future occasions when we raise issues of concern that have support in Northern Ireland, the Government will be loath to use the argument that parliamentary time does not permit.
Secondly, people from right across all communities and all parties in Northern Ireland—except Sinn Féin, of course—will breathe a sigh of relief at the prospect that the godfather of terrorism over many decades, Gerry Adams, will not, on a technicality, be able to benefit from the largesse of the British taxpayer, when so many widows and the thousands of families that he and his organisation caused such suffering to, have struggled with very little compensation or recompense for many years. That injustice will be put right in this House and this Parliament. That will be warmly welcomed by those who really believe in true justice.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, Clause 42, to which this amendment applies, deprives those who suffered loss or damage as a consequence of the Troubles of the ability to bring or continue any civil action after 17 May 2022—some 14 months ago. A relatively small group of UK citizens from every part of these islands is to be deprived of their rights not only to bring a civil action but to inquests and to full human rights-compliant criminal investigations by virtue of the restrictions still placed on the investigative powers of the ICRIR by this Bill.
The long title of the Bill is amended by one of the amendments. It describes the purposes of the Bill as being to
“promote reconciliation by establishing an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints”.
The purpose of the Bill is clearly stated, but at no stage has the Minister explained how it is expected that limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and the investigation of police complaints will promote reconciliation. I am unaware of anyone who thinks it will.
The real purpose of the Bill is to protect the Government from having to pay damages for those occasions on which investigation reveals that the state acted in breach of its duties to protect life. At its simplest, if somebody was murdered, and the state had prior knowledge and did not intervene or prevented proper investigation—and we know that these things happened right across our communities—a cause of action is disclosed. Now, in addition to the provisions of these amendments, there will be no right of action for bereaved and grieving families. That is the first purpose: to stop civil actions. The second purpose is to control access to information so that some people will never be able to prove what happened in cases involving state actors. The third purpose is to protect those veterans—they are few—both police and military, who may have committed the greatest crime, that of murder, from being subjected to due process. This Bill, as everyone has said, has been roundly and consistently condemned in the UK, by the Council of Europe, by the European High Commissioner for Human Rights, by the UN and by many others. It is a terrible breach of our international legal obligations.
Internment without trial was introduced on 9 August 1971 and continued until 5 December 1975. About 340 people were detained initially, often just scooped up by the Army because of their age and where they lived. About 100 were released within 48 hours; 17 people died in the rioting which followed and an estimated 7,000 Catholics had to flee their homes when they were attacked by loyalists. Initially, internment was carried out under regulations made under the special powers Act. All those detained were from the Catholic community. The interpretation of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—introduced that November—by the Supreme Court is the subject of today’s government amendment. Overall, 1,981 people were detained without trial, 1,874 from the Catholic/nationalist/republican community and 107 from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community. That began in 1973. It is generally accepted that internment without trial was a major recruiting agent for the IRA, and the Government said decades ago that they would never introduce it again.
It is also generally accepted in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that Gerry Adams was in the IRA and that he served on the IRA army council. As one who, as a young woman, lost my baby when I was caught in an IRA bomb explosion, I fully understand the revulsion at the idea that he and others who were involved in violence might now be able to recover even more money as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in this case. A briefing on the Supreme Court judgment by Richard Ekins KC and Sir Stephen Laws is helpful in defining the justification for and the parameters of the amendment. Ekins and Laws describe how the process worked. Detention began with the making of an interim custody order, which was an exercise of a power conferred by the 1972 order on the Secretary of State. The order specified that only the Secretary of State, a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State could sign an interim custody order.
They went on to say that
“detention under the 1972 Order only began with the making of an interim custody order. Detention was only able to continue for more than 28 days when the Chief Constable had referred the matter to the Commissioner (a former judge or senior lawyer) who would consider the matter afresh. If the Commissioner was satisfied that the person in question was involved in terrorism, the Commissioner would make a detention order. When Mr Adams escaped from custody, his continuing detention, beyond the period of the interim custody order, had been authorised by a Commissioner who had made a fresh decision”.
This amendment seeks only to address the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is not about the merits of detention without trial. It is about whether the Carltona principles should have applied to prevent the Secretary of State having to consider each application personally. It is also about stopping the significant number of civil actions lodged after the Supreme Court judgment.
Internment without trial should never have happened, but this amendment is not about that. For that reason, while I will not oppose these amendments, I look forward to the Minister giving the assurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the extent of the exercise of powers anticipated to make secondary legislation under the powers conferred by the Bill.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I broadly welcome these government amendments. This is a complex matter, as the interventions this afternoon have illustrated, but I am glad that the Minister has managed to find a solution that is, broadly speaking, acceptable to all, subject to the comments made for the record by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
I have only one question for the Minister regarding these Third Reading amendments. I assume that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice was also consulted and that it is happy with these proposals. Could the Minister perhaps confirm that that is the case?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this is the third occasion on which your Lordships have had the opportunity to discuss what has become an increasingly complex issue. I am delighted that it is probably the last as, should there be any more, it would get even more complicated.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that Lord Kerr was a very eminent judge. Many of us remember him and the great work that he did. However, there has clearly been a problem with this particular judgment, and the principle of junior Ministers signing orders on behalf of the Secretary of State, even if it applied all those years ago, must be sustained. So I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to this short debate. We will not be opposing this amendment.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am as always very grateful to those who have contributed. In direct response to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I can assure her that the DoJ in Northern Ireland was consulted on these amendments.
I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for the very constructive way in which he has engaged on these matters. With respect to commencement, it is the Government’s intention that this should commence at the same time as the Clause 42 prohibition in the Bill relating to the ending of civil proceedings: that is, two months after Royal Assent, which is the normal commencement date. We believe that a consistent approach is important, particularly when bringing forward an amendment that is about ensuring legal clarity.
The Government believe that there is little or no prospect of compensation claims being hurried through in the two months between Royal Assent and commencement. To give an illustrative example of the pace of such claims, there has to date, to our knowledge, been no payment of compensation to anyone bringing a claim as a direct result of the Supreme Court judgment in 2020; nor are the Government aware of any of these cases being close to awarding compensation. This includes the significant cohort of civil claims in this area, which remain at a relatively early stage.
On the issue of consequential powers raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in her remarks, the power exists for the new provisions. I assure the House that this is solely for the purpose of consequential amendments and not to be used to alter fundamentally the policy intent of the provisions within the amendments, or their scope in bringing relevant proceedings to an end. It is intended to be very limited indeed.
Lord Caine
“Interim custody orders: validity
(1) This section applies in relation to the functions conferred by—(a) Article 4(1) of the 1972 Order, and (b) paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act,(which enabled interim custody orders to be made, and which are referred to in this section as the “order-making functions”).(2) The order-making functions are to be treated as having always been exercisable by authorised Ministers of the Crown (as well as by the Secretary of State).(3) An interim custody order is not to be regarded as having ever been unlawful just because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(4) The detention of a person under the authority of an interim custody order is not to be regarded as having ever been unlawful just because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not limit the effect of subsection (2).(6) This section and section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) apply only in relation to an exercise of any of the order-making functions which was conduct forming part of the Troubles (see, in particular, section 1(2)); and for this purpose any exercise of any of the order-making functions must be assumed to have been conduct forming part of the Troubles unless the contrary is shown.(7) In this section and section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)—“1972 Order” means the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1632 (N.I. 15));“1973 Act” means the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973;“authorised Minister of the Crown” means a Minister of the Crown authorised to sign interim custody orders—(a) by Article 4(2) of the 1972 Order (in the case of such orders under that Article), or(b) by paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act (in the case of such orders under that paragraph);“interim custody order” means an interim custody order under—(a) Article 4 of the 1972 Order, or(b) paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act;“order-making functions” has the meaning given in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the corresponding provision in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 to be read as having allowed junior Ministers to make interim custody orders (which was understood to be their effect at the time when the powers were in force).
“Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation
(1) On or after the commencement day, a civil action may not be continued or brought if, or to the extent that, the claim that is to be determined in the action involves an allegation that—(a) the person bringing the action, or another person, was detained under the authority of an interim custody order, and(b) that interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(2) On or after the commencement day, criminal proceedings relating to the quashing of a conviction may not be continued or brought if, or to the extent that, the grounds for seeking to have the conviction quashed involve an allegation that— (a) the person bringing the proceedings, or another person, was detained under the authority of an interim custody order, and(b) that interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(3) If criminal proceedings relating to the quashing of a conviction are pre-commencement proceedings—(a) subsection (2) does not apply to the criminal proceedings;(b) section (Interim custody orders: validity) does not prevent the court from quashing the conviction on the ground that an interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions.(4) On or after the commencement day, no compensation for a miscarriage of justice is to be paid in respect of a conviction that has been reversed solely on the ground that an interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions.(5) Regulations under section 55(2) which make provision that is consequential on section (Interim custody orders: validity) or this section—(a) may amend this Act (including this section);(b) (whether or not they make such amendments) are subject to made affirmative procedure, unless they are instead made in accordance with section 55(5) (the affirmative procedure) or 55(6) (the negative procedure).(6) In this section—“commencement day” means the day on which this section comes into force;“compensation for a miscarriage of justice” means compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;“pre-commencement proceedings” means proceedings—(a) for which leave was given before the commencement day, or(b) which follow from a referral made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission before the commencement day.”Member’s explanatory statement
This prohibits civil and criminal proceedings and payment of compensation for miscarriages of justice which are based on interim custody orders made by junior Ministers having been unlawful.
Lord Caine
“(4A) Where regulations under this Act are subject to made affirmative procedure, the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament after being made.(4B) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (4A) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4C) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(4D) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4B), that does not— (a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This sets out the made affirmative procedure for Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations under Clause 55 which make provision in consequence of Clause (Interim custody orders: validity) or (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation).
Lord Caine
“(3A) Sections (Interim custody orders: validity) and (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) extend to Northern Ireland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the two new Clauses in Lord Caine’s name to extend only to Northern Ireland (like the 1972 Order and 1973 Act, to which the new Clauses relate).
Lord Caine
“(aa) section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)(5);”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for subsection (5) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) to come into force on royal assent (as it relates to the power to make consequential provision which comes into force then).
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the two new Clauses in Lord Caine’s name to come into force two months after royal assent (except for subsection (5) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) which is dealt with by the amendment of Clause 60(1) in Lord Caine’s name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of Clause 60 in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Clauses (Interim custody orders: validity) and (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation).
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 18th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 18 July 2023 - (18 Jul 2023)
17:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 200 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 20.
Lords amendment 44, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1 to 19, 21 to 43, 45 to 118 and 120 to 129.
Lords amendment 119, and Government consequential amendment (a) to Lords amendment 119.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am delighted to speak to this Bill following its year-long passage through the other place. I pay tribute to Lord Caine for his expert stewardship of the Bill in that place, as well as to all the Opposition spokespeople for their patience and engagement on the Bill.
Hon. and right hon. Members will know all too well that the legacy of the troubles remains one of the outstanding issues since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was reached in 1998. As a Government, we have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can do to best deliver for those affected by the troubles over a quarter of a century after that agreement and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise, and I know the House recognises, that this is a hugely difficult task. That is reflected in the many valiant attempts made to address this issue since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement all those years ago. It is also incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible, as well as for society in Northern Ireland as a whole. We maintain that the Bill before us is the best way of doing that.
The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future.
The Bill left the House of Commons over a year ago. In that time, my ministerial colleagues and I have held more than 100 meetings with victims groups, veterans groups, Northern Ireland political parties, the Opposition, the Irish Government, academics, US interlocutors and Members of both Houses, in an effort to make meaningful changes to improve the Bill. As a result of that extensive engagement, the Government have brought forward a significant package of amendments that provide greater assurance regarding compliance with our international obligations; enhance the independence of the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will call that by its catchy nickname, ICRIR, from here on—provide a much greater focus on the interests of victims and families; and strengthen provisions related to the process of granting immunity from prosecution to those who engage meaningfully with the commission, while keeping open the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to do so.
Let me run through the Government’s Lord amendments thematically, as well as our responses to Lords amendments 20 and 44. First there is conditional immunity and incentives to co-operate with the ICRIR. As I said from the outset, the aim of the Bill is to provide more information to more people than is possible under current mechanisms, and we will do that by creating an effective information recovery process. The commission will conduct reviews with the primary purpose of providing answers to those who want them, and will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.
I know that is challenging for many, but conditional immunity is a crucial aspect of the information recovery process. The Government believe it is the best mechanism by which we can generate the greatest volume of information in the quickest possible time, to pass on to families and victims who have been waiting for so long. That is why the Government cannot accept Lords amendment 44, which seeks to remove clause 18 and conditional immunity from the Bill.
As many Members of the House will know, there is a significant precedent regarding limited immunities and amnesties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, following periods of violence. That includes, following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, an amnesty for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and limited immunity for individuals who share information about the location of victims’ remains. If we look back further, the newly created Irish state legislated three times between 1923 and 1924 for amnesties, dispensing with civil and criminal liability for violence for UK state forces, republicans and Free State forces.
Through Government amendments, we are making the conditional immunity process more robust. That includes amendments to clause 18 in my name, which were agreed in the other place but fell when the clause was removed from the Bill. The commission is already required to consider all relevant information that it holds when forming a view on the truth of a person’s account, as part of their application for immunity, including information obtained through a related review. Through Lords amendment 49, we are strengthening that provision by placing the commission under a positive duty, requiring it to take “reasonable steps” to secure information relevant to that assessment.
The Government are further strengthening the immunity provisions by introducing circumstances under which immunity may be revoked, or may not be granted. I have restored Lords amendment 60, which makes it clear that where a person applying for immunity is subject to an ongoing prosecution, immunity may not be granted if there is a risk that it might prejudice that ongoing prosecution. Through Lords amendment 63 we are creating a new criminal offence for those who wilfully or recklessly choose to mislead the commission when providing information. Individuals who are granted immunity will automatically lose it if they are convicted of such an offence.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House how many ongoing IRA trials are taking place vis-à-vis how many ongoing trials against members of the security services are taking place?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I do not have those figures with me, but I will get them from my officials and give them to the hon. Gentleman when, with the leave of the House, I reply to the debate later.
Building on what I was just outlining, Lords amendment 62 ensures that a grant of immunity must be revoked if an individual is subsequently convicted of terrorism offences or offences connected to terrorism committed after the immunity has been granted. That includes offences relating to fundraising, involvement in terrorist fundraising arrangements and the encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. The offender will also be precluded from obtaining immunity for offences within the scope of the revoked grant.
We are also disapplying the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for future convictions. That means that individuals who choose not to engage fully with the commission and are not granted immunity, but who are subsequently convicted of an offence, will not be able to apply for early release and will be liable to serve a full sentence. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising that issue before the Bill left the Commons this time last year. Alongside that, having listened to suggestions in the debates in this House, we are increasing the financial penalty for non-compliance with the commission from up to £1,000 to up to £5,000, which is in line with the asks during this Bill’s passage.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Secretary of State said that it has taken a year for the Bill to go through the House of Lords—I and others campaigned for four years for the Bill even to be introduced in the first place. I fear that some of the Government’s own amendments introduced in the other place have had the effect of swinging the pendulum too far—I admit it is a delicate balance—against our veterans who served in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Specifically, the Bill now gives the independent commission extremely wide and latitudinal powers to decide whether a veteran should still be investigated, even despite the Bill’s so-called double-jeopardy provisions. The decision still ultimately lies with the commission. It also has great latitude in deciding whether a veteran has complied with an investigation, which would then allow them immunity. They would not get it if the commission ruled they had not complied. Can the Secretary of State absolutely assure me in his heart of hearts that we are not institutionalising the mechanism for a republican lawyer fest, which would be totally contrary to the whole point of bringing in the Bill in the first place?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am a great believer in short and honest answers to such questions, and the answer is yes.
I now turn to the conduct of reviews by the commission and, in particular, Lords amendment 20, which establishes minimum standards for reviews conducted by the ICRIR to ensure that conduct is investigated to criminal justice standards, along the lines of Operation Kenova.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The right hon. Gentleman really does have to be pithier than he was in his last intervention. By their very nature, interventions should be short.
Mr Francois
I thank the Secretary of State for that clear answer, but could he just with a couple of sentences pithily explain why he is so confident that he is right?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will turn to elements of this later in my speech, but I referred earlier to the importance of the conditional immunity clause. I think what my right hon. Friend will hear in the course of this debate is how many people think the pendulum has swung in this delicate balance, as he has put it, too far in the opposite direction to the way he believes it has swung.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that it was back in April 2017 that the then Defence Committee first recommended drawing a line with a statute of limitations coupled with a truth recovery process. We recognised that the process had to be for everyone or for no one. Does he accept that there is a risk of having overcomplicated the process, and is any remedy likely to be available if, in putting this into practice, it is found that service personnel are not being sufficiently protected for ongoing prosecutions?
Chris Heaton-Harris
There is obviously no statute of limitations. The Bill has moved on and, as I said, I would like to think it has been improved a great deal. But it will be an independent body that allows for these things to happen. That is vital both in dealing with the issues of the past, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and in helping all victims perhaps to get some information about the circumstances by which they lost loved ones or others.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
We recently held the memorial concert for the Deal marine musicians who were murdered by the IRA bomb in Deal in 1989. No one has ever been brought to justice for that. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the process will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom? What information can we hope might come forward that has not already done so in more than 30 years?
Chris Heaton-Harris
In answer to my hon. Friend’s first question, I confirm the geographical jurisdiction. On her second question, it rather depends on the evidence that might be held by individuals or organisations. I know that the case she raised has been subject to a number of past investigations, and there is limited information in the public domain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State mentioned the issue of all the victims. The justice that many victims want is quite clear to me and to others on the Opposition side of the Chamber. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has said that even if there was only a candle of light of a possibility for justice some day, we would all want to see that—I want to see that for all the people I know. The Secretary of State will remember how, last time we spoke on this, I named every one of those people who we really feel justice is not there for. Whenever he talks about justice for all, I do not see it, and my people do not see it. Where is it?
Chris Heaton-Harris
It is contained within the Bill and within the independence of the commission, which will be able to conduct criminal investigations when the families ask it to do so. I have met numerous families in my time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and there is a complete range of views as to what people want when it comes to seeking information about what happened to their loved ones. I know, as I mentioned at the top of my speech, that the Bill will not satisfy everybody. However, lots of time has passed—the hon. Gentleman will know that better than most—and there is now a dwindling opportunity for investigations leading to criminal prosecutions. People do need to have information, if it can possibly be found.
Jim Shannon
Fifty-one years ago, my cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered—[Interruption.] Kenneth Smyth was murdered. His friend Daniel McCormick, a Roman Catholic, was also murdered. Fifty-one years later, there is no justice for my family and no justice for Daniel McCormick’s family. And there is no justice for the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered in Ballydugan, or for the young lad Stuart Montgomery, also murdered. Our pain is still here; our pain is still raw. Our people grieve; my constituents grieve. The Secretary of State says that they will have justice, but we cannot see justice.
The people who killed my cousin—three of them—ran across the border and got sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland. Two of them are dead and one is still living. There was no justice. Nine people were involved in the murder of those four UDR men, and one of them is dead today—it was in the paper this week—Colum Marks, an IRA commander. He is in hell, burning—the best place for him. Where is the justice for my family and for my constituents? I do not see it. The Secretary of State says we are going to have it. No, we are not. I do not see it at all.
Chris Heaton-Harris
First, I completely recognise the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman has expressed his views. He knows that I have met a huge number of people who have reflected with passion on the people they have lost. I cannot put myself in the hon. Gentleman’s shoes—I would not try to—and nor can I right the wrongs of something that happened 51 years ago. The hon. Gentleman’s family have gone without justice or much information for 51 years. He knows that, unlike him, there are families across the piece, some of whom are his constituents, who have not had any information about the circumstances in which they lost loved ones during the course of the troubles.
This Bill is definitely not perfect. But after 51 years, should people choose to use the powers of the independent commission in this legislation, they might just able to get some information that allows them to remember their loved ones in the appropriate way. My heart goes out to the hon. Gentleman. I know that this is an imperfect Bill for him, but it might just work for some others. This piece of legislation is a difficult balancing act.
I was talking about Lords amendment 20, which raises a number of important issues that have been addressed by Government amendments tabled in the other place and for Commons consideration. We cannot accept any amendment that seeks to make every review a criminal investigation. The legislation rightly ensures that the independent commission, via the commissioner for investigations, has the flexibility to determine if and when it is appropriate to utilise police powers during the course of its review.
A one-size-fits-all approach requiring criminal investigation in all cases would remove such flexibility and significantly increase the likely time to complete reviews, further delaying the provision of information for many families. I point to a case raised with me in oral questions only a few weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), should anyone not believe that such investigation is useful. Further, in cases where the investigative duty under article 2 or 3 of the convention applies, a criminal investigation may not be sufficient means of discharging that duty. That is because there may have been failings by the state that contributed to a death, but which were not themselves criminal in nature.
Lords amendment 20 also seeks to introduce a reference to compliance with the European convention on human rights. As a public authority, for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the ICRIR and its commissioners are required to be compatible with convention rights within the meaning of the Act when exercising their functions under the Bill. Government Lords amendments 19 and 22 expressly confirm that the commissioner for investigations must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews and others functions,.
Lords amendment 20 references gathering as much information as possible and exploring all evidential opportunities. The commissioner for investigations is required to ensure not only that a review is carried out when a valid request is received, but that each review looks into all the circumstances of the death or incident -in question, including but not limited to criminal activity. Furthermore, as I set out, Lords amendment 49 will place the commission under a positive duty to take reasonable steps to secure information for that assessment.
To strengthen further our commitment around the conducting of reviews, I have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 20, which seek to clarify that the duties of the commissioner for investigations when looking into the circumstances of a death or serious injury apply regardless of whether a criminal investigation forms part of the review. They also place a duty on the chief commissioner to provide, where possible, answers to questions posed as part of a request for a review.
Mr Francois
Sinn Féin has always argued that, because in the early years of the troubles fatal shootings by armed forces personnel were investigated by the Royal Military Police, and only after a few years was that transferred to the RUC, those investigations were not article 2 compliant. As the Government have deliberately strengthened the role of article 2, via their own amendments, does that mean in practice that every single fatality prior to 1972 is likely to be reinvestigated in order to be article 2 compliant?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will happily explain a bit later, when I have finished what I am saying.
Turning now to the role of victims and families, through our extensive engagement with stakeholders we have sought to make the Bill more victims-centred. To achieve that, I am placing the commission, when exercising its functions, under a duty to have regard to the general interests of persons affected by troubles-related deaths and serious injury. The Bill will also make it clear that in exercising its functions, the commission’s principal objective is to promote reconciliation. That is a crucial overarching principle that will embed the need to promote reconciliation in everything the ICRIR does when carrying out its work.
The commission will also be placed under a new duty to offer victims and their families the opportunity to submit personal impact statements, setting out how they have been affected by a troubles-related death or serious injury. The statements must be published if the person making the statement so wishes, subject to limited exceptions that ensure no individuals are put at risk and that the Government’s duty to keep people safe and secure is upheld. We tabled the amendment as a direct result of engagement with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, who maintained it was crucial that victims had a voice in this process. We agree.
The Government fully recognise the need for the commission to have credibility, expertise and legitimacy so that effective investigations can be carried out and information provided to families as soon as possible. On 11 May, I announced the intended appointment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, as chief commissioner-designate, having obtained input from the Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland, and England and Wales, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, all of whom I would like to thank publicly. To allay further concerns around the integrity and independence of the immunity process, the Government’s Lords amendments place a duty on the commission to produce guidance that is related to determining a request for immunity. That will replace the power that previously rested with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
There are also amendments relating to oral history and memorialisation. We are, I am afraid, never going to agree in Northern Ireland on a common narrative about the past, but we can aim to put in place structures to help all in society, including future generations, have a better understanding of the past, with the overarching aim of enabling people to move forwards. Therefore, our memorialisation strategy will seek to build consensus around inclusive new initiatives to commemorate those lost in the troubles and seek to ensure that lessons of the past are not forgotten. I fully understand concerns raised regarding the need to prevent the glorification of terrorism in relation to the memorialisation strategy and other measures in part 4. As a result, we have added an overarching requirement to clause 48 so that designated persons must have regard to the need to ensure that the way in which the troubles-related work programme is carried out promotes reconciliation, anti-sectarianism and non-recurrence.
We also amended the Bill to broaden the requirement to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with a duty to consult organisations that are experienced in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism, and to consult relevant Northern Ireland Departments before deciding on a response to each recommendation in the memorialisation strategy. We added an additional requirement in clause 50 that the Secretary of State must consult organisations that have an expertise in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism before designating persons for the purposes of this part of the Bill.
There are also Government amendments relating to interim custody orders. We have made the amendments in response to concerns raised by Members of both Houses over the 2020 Supreme Court ruling concerning the validity of the interim custody orders made under the troubles-era internment legislation. To be clear, it has always been the Government’s understanding that interim custody orders made by Ministers of the Crown under powers conferred on the Secretary of State were perfectly valid. In order to restore clarity around the legal position and to make sure that no one is inappropriately advantaged by a different interpretation of the law on a technicality, the Government tabled amendments that retrospectively validate all interim custody orders made under article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, as well as paragraph 11 of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. That has the effect of confirming that a person’s detention under an ICO was not unlawful simply because it had been authorised by a junior Minister rather than by the Secretary of State personally.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has made an important point about the R v. Adams case and the disregarding of the Carltona principle by the Supreme Court in 2020, and he is right to affirm the Government’s view that the signing of warrants by a Minister of the Crown was always a lawful act, but why has this taken three years, and why did the amendments originate from the Back Benches rather than the Government? Is the Secretary of State right to describe them as Government amendments? For a great many people in Northern Ireland who thought that this was a welcome step during Bill’s passage, it came rather late.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Well, perhaps it is a case of better late than never. These are Government amendments, but I am the first to admit that amazingly good ideas sometimes emerge from the Back Benches of both Houses of Parliament.
The amendments could also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings—including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice and appeals against conviction, which rely on the 2020 ruling—from being brought or continued. To align with the other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement. There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. The exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions, and I want to make it clear that the amendment would not lead to the reinstatement of convictions that had already been reversed.
There are other amendments relating to criminal justice outcomes. The Government’s primary focus has always been on establishing one effective legacy body seeking to provide better outcomes for families. We also want to ensure that organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the judiciary are able to concentrate their capabilities on more present-day issues.
It remains our view that the independent commission, when established, should be the sole body responsible for troubles-related cases, but we are also mindful of the concerns raised about the ending of the ongoing processes, especially given the current legislative timetable and the expected timeframe for the commission’s becoming fully operational. Our amendments would therefore ensure that ongoing criminal investigations, ombudsman investigations, the consideration of prosecution decisions, coronial inquests, and the publication of reports will continue until 1 May 2024, when the commission will become fully operational. We hope that the additional time provided will allow such cases to conclude their work, while ensuring a smooth transition between the ending of the current mechanisms and the commission’s taking on full responsibility for outstanding legacy cases.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Does the Secretary of State recognise the huge concern felt by families who do not think it is practical to expect all inquests to be completed by next spring? Some have not even begun, and it is feared that a two-tier approach will emerge. Owing to a number of factors, some cases scheduled by the former Lord Chief Justice will have started and may well finish, while others have not even had a chance to start. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, people do not believe that the new process will have the rigour of an inquest.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Our amendment provides until 1 May 2024 for inquests to conclude. Since the Bill’s introduction, expeditious case management of inquests in order to reach “an advanced stage” has resulted in the overloading of a system that was already struggling under incredible pressure, causing delay and frustration. We hope that the amendment will ensure that resources will now be focused on completing those inquests that have a realistic prospect of conclusion in the next year. The Government expect troubles-related cases that do not conclude via the coronial process by 1 May 2024 to be transferred to the fully operational ICRIR, led by Sir Declan Morgan as chief commissioner-designate, through the use of provisions already contained in the Bill, and I believe that those provisions will allow him to maintain the relevant level of investigation.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State is very kind and generous to give way. Before he concludes, would he care to mention any response to the Irish Government threat that they intend to take His Majesty’s Government to court on these matters? How does he view that threat, and what has been the response back to the Irish Government, given their own dire record of dealing with legacy?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been a number of quite forthright conversations between the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and myself on this matter. Obviously anything could be tested in legal action as we move forward, but I believe that the Bill is article 2-compliant. I do not see that as negative, because there are five elements to article 2 compliance—independence, capability of leading to the identification and punishment of perpetrators, prompt and reasonably expeditious, involvement of next of kin, and a degree of public scrutiny, which I think are all included in this. So I think we are in a strong place to resist any such potential charges, and I would like to think that means that we can happily move on together.
Mr Francois
I have been waiting patiently for the Secretary of State to answer the question that I asked him earlier about the interrelationship between article 2 and pre-1972 investigations. I am sure he meant to answer the question before he sat down. He has very few bits of paper left. Could he now please give a direct answer to my question about the interrelationship between the two?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I think my hon. Friend will remember that I gave him a direct answer and he wanted something that was a bit longer. I have just given him something that is a bit longer that identified why there is article 2 compliance, and we believe—[Interruption.] I did directly, which I think is the best way of dealing with this.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The ICRIR has always, as a public body, needed to comply with all its duties under the Human Rights Act. We have made it clearer, on the face of the Bill, that the commissioner for investigations must comply with those duties when carrying out their reviews. It is a very straightforward—it generally is a straightforward—answer to a straightforward question, and I hope that my hon. Friend, when he reads Hansard, will see that his questions have been answered threefold in what I have said.
Chris Heaton-Harris
There you go; we beg to differ.
Finally, through these amendments the term “the relevant day” has been removed from the Bill, so a consequential amendment (a) to Lords amendment 119 in my name simply seeks to remove the power to define the relevant date.
I am very confident that the Government’s legacy Bill provides the framework that will enable the independent commission, established by the Bill, to deliver effective legacy mechanisms for families and victims, whilst complying with our international obligations. When the Bill becomes law the delivery of those mechanisms will be led by Sir Declan Morgan KC, currently chief commissioner-designate of the independent commission. Sir Declan is also an individual of the highest calibre, with a track record of delivery on legacy issues, and I know that he will approach the task with the rigour, integrity and professionalism required.
The challenge before us is immensely difficult, but it is also clear. If we are to place the legacy of the troubles in the rear-view mirror and to help all in society to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation, we must try to do things differently.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Bill has managed to unite all Northern Ireland parties in opposition to it. The word “reconciliation” may be in its title, but victims say that it is traumatising. Both the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Northern Ireland have criticised it. The Labour party has voted against it at every stage. That is because it benefits terrorists more than their victims.
Anyone doubting that should read the BBC front page today, and the story about Louie Johnston, who was just seven years old when his Royal Ulster Constabulary officer father David Johnston was shot by the IRA. Louie has asked MPs to show empathy with his family today and not force through this Bill.
Lords amendment 44 addresses the flaw at the centre of this Bill, by removing the immunity clause. The Government must not put immunity back in. It is not a wrecking amendment, as the independent commission would have a better chance of winning people over without it.
I listened with interest to the Secretary of State’s recent speech to the Institute for Government. He told a story about meeting three RUC widows, and how all three wanted different things in relation to their husband’s death. He said that, if he were a member of the public, he would side with the widow who wanted justice above all else. He suggested that conditional immunity in exchange for information would satisfy two of the three widows, and he said this is progress on legacy.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was intrigued to hear the Leader of the Opposition publicly state last week that, if he were to become Prime Minister, he would repeal this Act. This surprised me for a variety of reasons, and I wonder if the shadow Minister might indulge me for a second. Am I right in thinking that public protestation means Labour has no intention of drawing a line under legacy issues in Northern Ireland and moving on? And does it mean that Labour has no wish to stop vexatious complaints being made against British servicemen?
Peter Kyle
Labour believes in a more consensual way forward. We believe that, in the past, there has been agreement that drew more consensus. This Government published a Bill that had broad agreement in Northern Ireland and was deemed human rights compliant, yet they jettisoned the Bill after gaining all that consensus and chose a different way forward. We believe the way forward lies in the origins of that draft legislation, and we believe there is a way forward that takes into account the learning since.
The hon. Gentleman mentions vexatious litigation against former servicepeople in the Northern Ireland context. Perhaps he could give an example of vexatious litigation where someone is currently being prosecuted or pursued as a result?
Peter Kyle
Okay. I will move on.
The Secretary of State has clearly been trying to do his best with a Bill he inherited from one of his predecessors, but this Bill will slam shut the doors to justice. It is now well over a year since the Bill was published. In that time, Ministers have had ample opportunity to consult. The Secretary of State outlined dozens of meetings, and he has had the chance to consult and listen to victims, their representatives and local Northern Irish politicians. That is ample opportunity to win the people over to the Government’s approach, yet nobody has been won over—no politician, no victim, no international partner, no one.
Immunity from prosecution for murder would work only if it had popular support in Northern Ireland. It does not. The Government have underestimated the strength of feeling among victims. I have been asked by some victims to put their views on the record. On 10 August 1996, John Molloy had nearly reached his home in north Belfast when he was confronted by a group of young men and women. John was Catholic. He was repeatedly stabbed in a frenzied attack and was left to bleed to death on the pavement. He was just 18 years old. John’s still-grieving parents, Pat and Linda, want to know how offering his killers immunity will aid them in reconciliation? We are trying to heal divisions but this Bill is damaging.
Take the case of Cecil Caldwell, a 37-year-old construction worker who was travelling in a minibus from Omagh, where he and his colleagues had been repairing an Army base. A roadside bomb was detonated, killing eight of the 14 people on the bus. As the dead and dying lay on the road, their pay packets were stolen. A simple, dignified monument was erected at the site, and it is regularly vandalised. Cecil’s wife, Jean, does not want this legislation. She has asked whether the Government have any idea of what victims have gone through. If the Bill is not an aid to victims such as her, what is the point?
Clearly, the Government are also conflicted. In the other place, amendments were introduced to stop Gerry Adams receiving compensation, following a Supreme Court ruling in 2020. We support the upholding of the Carltona principle and that amendment. However, there is a disconnect between the horror the Government feel at the idea of giving Gerry Adams compensation and the potential implication of the immunity clause we are debating. I want to explore that in a hypothetical.
Gerry Adams has, of course, always denied being a member of the IRA, but he is currently being sued in the High Court by victims of the IRA in a civil case. Not only will this Bill halt any similar cases, but the immunity provisions remain open to Gerry Adams if he were ever to need them. Immunity is worth a lot more than compensation. In this hypothetical, should Gerry Adams seek to avail himself of immunity, nothing in this Bill could prevent it, and the people supporting the Bill would be the very first ones on their feet screaming for emergency measures to prevent it from happening.
Even if we choose to ignore the moral problems of this policy, there is also doubt about it on the Government’s own terms. Members need not take my word for it, because this is the view that Sir Declan Morgan gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last year. The House will know that Sir Declan has been named as the chief commissioner of the independent body. He said:
“The only group who will go for immunity are those who have been the subject of investigations, brought in for questioning and it looks like there is a viable case. It seems to me like that is a vanishingly small number of people.
Again, the question then arises of why you would put immunity in place for such a small number of people in the circumstances. You must be able to justify that. That presents a challenge.”
I do not have reason to believe that Sir Declan’s views on the number of people who will go for immunity have changed since his appointment.
Immunity cannot be justified when the rest of the Bill shuts processes down which have worked for some victims.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I was going to make that clear in my comments. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what he is saying. I understand entirely what motivates my colleagues on the other side of the House who served in the armed forces; I had the honour of serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. But here is the problem for me: for all those whom we are seeking to protect from prosecution, there are countless others who put on a uniform of the Crown, in the armed forces and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and were murdered in cold blood by terrorists and whose families will not now have the opportunity of justice. I cannot look those people in the eye. Louie Johnston is one of my constituents, and the shadow Secretary of State referred to him. I recall having just been elected a Member of Parliament in 1997 and the news coming through about the murder of his father, Constable David Johnston, and of Constable John Graham in Lurgan. Louie was in my office recently and the current system is not delivering for him—we do need change. We need a system that can deliver, but surely it is the victims who should have the choice. Surely it should be down to the families to choose whether they want to pursue justice or information. When we deny them that route and we take away the access to justice, we diminish the prospect of achieving the second objective of this Bill, which is reconciliation.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Member makes his point passionately, with great erudition and personal experience as the representative of the Lagan Valley. There is very little I can add to the insight that he has just given the House. We in this place have striven in recent years to give extra rights to victims. Indeed, the Victims and Prisoners Bill is passing through the House—I believe it has just passed Committee stage. In England and Wales, we are passing legislation that gives more rights to victims. Only in Northern Ireland are we doing something that disempowers victims and puts in place a set of institutions that will make it immeasurably more difficult for victims to get the reconciliation that they so desperately deserve, so I have complete sympathy with the right hon. Member.
Ian Paisley
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for emphasising that point, because it highlights the folly of the decision taken by some people in this House to support this legislation because it will protect “our boys”. The fact of the matter is that the only ongoing cases that have any likely prospect of getting to trial are cases against “our boys”. None of the cases against terrorists will ever be able to get to court and, more importantly, the immunity provisions will exclude former security personnel from benefiting from them. Members should think again about why they are supporting those measures.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. These are very difficult issues and of course I understand why people want to speak in support of people who have served in our armed forces. I feel this intensely and strongly myself, coming from a family where one of my parents—my father—served in our armed forces.
I will come to the issue again later in my speech, but I will go into it in some detail now. The only recent case against a member of our armed forces is that of David Holden, a member of the Grenadier Guards, and it is worth reflecting on the judge’s summing up in that particular case. Paragraph 105 of the judgment says:
“Instead, according to his frankly incoherent evidence, he put his right hand on the pistol grip which somehow resulted in his finger slipping onto the trigger and doing so with the significant pressure required to fire the weapon. I do not believe that evidence. I conclude that it is a deliberately false account of what happened.”
Paragraph 120 says:
“To summarise the conclusions above I find that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that…the defendant lied repeatedly to the police.”
If this case had come to light after the Bill had passed, prosecution would not have been possible. I do not believe for a second that this case and the person responsible—David Holden—reflect the values that we expect from those who serve in our armed forces, and that the vast majority of people who serve in our armed forces expect from their fellow members.
After five years, the Bill provides a general amnesty for anyone and everyone, as the independent body will wind up. All other investigations, inquests and civil cases will be shut down. It is clear that the Government have chosen immunity to satisfy some on their own Benches. They say veterans face “a witch hunt” in Northern Ireland; that is the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). I do not believe that that is the way that we should frame or explain the reconciliation challenge of Northern Ireland. The vast majority of our soldiers served with distinction in the most difficult of circumstances. There can be no equivalence drawn between their actions and those of terrorists, but that is precisely what this Bill does. Where standards were not upheld, it is important that there is accountability. There have been a total of six military personnel charged with offences related to the troubles, two of which cases are currently ongoing. What has changed since this Bill’s inception is that there has now been a conviction of the former Grenadier Guardsman, David Holden, for the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie. We cannot ignore the fact that this Bill is designed to stop the outcome that the McAnespie family finally achieved.
I also wish to put it on the record that veterans are victims too. The IRA shot Private Tony Harrison five times in the back while he was sitting on the sofa at his fiancée’s home in east Belfast in 1991. His family have been clear that they do not want immunity for his killers. I would be a lot more sympathetic with the Government if their approach had been to try to secure justice for more, not fewer, people.
This Bill will affect the entire United Kingdom and our reputation abroad. The families of the 21 victims of the IRA Birmingham pub bombing have been clear that they do not want immunity to be on offer. In November, the chief constable of West Midlands police confirmed that files had been passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service. Immunity will be open to that suspect if this Bill passes before a decision is made. Voting down Lords amendment 44 could shut off justice for families who have waited 50 years, right at their moment of greatest hope. There is still time for the Government to pause and reconsider this approach, just as the Irish Government have formally requested. The 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement is the moment to reflect on the power of consensus. To pass this Bill with immunity would be to fly in the face of everything that we know about progress in Northern Ireland; it should not happen.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I do not intend to spend long on my feet, as I have made all the points that I would seek to make on this Bill at previous stages. It is also important that we get to hear as many voices as possible from Northern Ireland.
I will make just two points: first, that reconciliation is something that is achieved, not imposed; and, secondly, to hold fast the principle that, where there is a sufficiency of evidence and an independent prosecutor decides that it is in the public interest, a prosecution should be able to go ahead. That is why the SNP continues to oppose the Bill, notwithstanding the amendments that are on the table today. I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that, without that ability to pursue justice, reconciliation becomes less likely.
I appreciate very much the steps that the ministerial team—this iteration of it—have made in seeking to address the concerns that have been raised, but that fundamental point of principle about denying prosecutions, and therefore in our view justice, remains. That is why my party will support Lords amendment 44 this afternoon.
We also support Lords amendment 20. We think that Operation Kenova sets the gold standard for the investigative processes that should be carried out, and particularly the commitment by the Government to pursue all evidential opportunities. The Secretary of State has been keen to stress that he is offering great assurances on ECHR compliance. I have to say that we remain without the assurances that we need, and if Lords amendment 20 were to be put to the vote tonight, the SNP would certainly support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have seven Members who wish to speak. I will impose a seven-minute time limit to make sure that everybody gets in.
Gavin Robinson
I appreciate the brevity with which the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) spoke, and the fact that Members from all parties representing Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to speak. I thank the Secretary of State for at least engaging in the debate in a way that is constructive, non-combative and as compassionate as possible, as I believe he has this afternoon. That has been markedly absent from some previous debates on the Bill that were not led by him.
The Secretary of State was right that different victims have different approaches. Victims are frustrated with the continuous obnoxious attitude that it is information that they need. For some that is undoubtedly true, but many others know exactly who perpetrated acts of violence against their family. They know exactly which neighbours in their community are responsible for taking the lives of their loved ones. It is not an answer that they seek; it is justice.
I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for accepting many of the amendments that we tabled last year. He mentioned the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 provisions, and wrongly credited one of his colleagues; that was an amendment tabled by my colleagues and me. The increase in fines is also beneficial to the Bill. The ability to revoke immunity should somebody obtain it through deception, deceit and lies is good—that provision was tabled in the House of Commons. The Government committed to deliver it in the House of Lords, and we are grateful that they did so. The Government also made a commitment on the amendment to clause 21(4) that we tabled in the Commons, and they delivered on it in the Lords.
All those amendments are beneficial, but none of them removes the irredeemable quality of the Bill. I have heard people, particularly in the other place, describe our position as populist, and refer, as the Secretary of State did, to previous efforts. Let me be clear: colleagues who predate my time in this House—colleagues in my party and in other parties represented here—stood against on-the-runs legislation as something that was immoral under the Labour Government, and actively opposed the Conservative Government when it was shown that they had been providing letters of comfort to terrorists. We did so because the Government’s position was immoral.
Today, we say that the Bill is irredeemable not because we are populist on this issue, but because we are principled on it. The quest for justice, be it from last week, last year or 50 years ago, is as important for those affected by the vagaries of terrorism today as it was at the time of their loss. We do not believe that the Government have gone far enough on the provisions regarding the glorification of terrorism. The Bill is about bringing communities together and resolving the issues of the past, not absolving individuals of their crimes and ignoring the memory and hurt of victims.
As I mentioned, I was pleased that the Government resolved the compensation issue related to the Adams case. I am sorry to say that, although they have taken steps to consider some of the aspects of investigations that touch on criminality, and have moved some way in their position in response to Lords amendment 20, for us they have not moved far enough. Whether the Bill and the Government’s actions are compatible with their obligations under the European convention on human rights will ultimately be a matter for the courts, but it does not pass our smell test for what we believe is righteous or just.
That is why we will vote against the Government when it comes to Lords amendment 44. We will vote against the ability to offer immunity to terrorists and to ensure that they never face justice for their crimes, and subsequently to give them the ability to talk openly and freely about their exploits, as those who have already been convicted do. We do not need a crystal ball to guess that people who are unencumbered by the justice system will have the freedom not only to share their experience, but to torment their victims and their victims’ loved ones further. That is the true reality of what will happen, because glorification of terrorism has not been satisfactorily addressed in the Government’s amendments.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Unlike some of the people who have been involved in this debate more recently, who have left the Chamber of course, we care about the victims and we want to put the victims at the heart of all this.
I have been working on this issue for about 20 years. I know many of those victims. They are not people who want to live in the past; they are people who want a better future. But unless we deal with this issue, they will never be able to have the reconciled future that they crave. The Bill is a licence for impunity and a signal to other countries that they can murder their own citizens and get away with it, but mostly it is legislation written in very dark corners of the British establishment to ensure that light is not shone into those corners.
The Secretary of State tells us he has had a lot of meetings and I am sure he has. He has met victims’ groups, human rights groups, the United States Administration and European politicians, and he has met all of us. I would love to know whether he came away from any one of those meetings with the impression that people actually wanted this Bill. As the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, we do have an agreement: not only are we agreed that we are opposed to the Bill, but we are agreed that Stormont House is the way to carry out this process. To pretend that we have all been fighting over this issue for the last seven or eight years is just nonsense.
Moreover, the pretence that the Bill is about allowing people to get to the truth is quite easily debunked. I remember the Bloody Sunday inquiry. The soldiers were offered immunity within that inquiry and they lied through their teeth; if hon. Members do not believe me, they should read the Saville report. One after another, they lied through their teeth. The notion that, if we give people immunity, they will all of a sudden come and tell us all they know is just not practical or realistic. I do not believe victims will engage in that process.
I also want to say something about the nonsense that we have all these vexatious prosecutions. Nobody has ever pointed one out to me. There are no vexatious prosecutions. I would love someone to tell me exactly how many British soldiers served time as a result of what they did in Northern Ireland. It would not take very long to count them.
We are disappointed that Lords amendment 20 is being opposed by the Government. Operation Kenova, run by Jon Boutcher, has been lauded around the world and is internationally respected as a good approach to dealing with these issues. It has family approval. Families are bought into the investigation and the outcomes they desire. It proves the point that, if we want to get to the truth, we have to investigate. Time after time, whether it is the Government or paramilitary organisations, they have proven to us that they will not give the truth just because we ask nicely.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
To support the hon. Member’s point about the work of Jon Boutcher and his team in Op Kenova, he will be aware that, as a result of their rigorous investigative process, a number of files have now been passed to the Public Prosecution Service, including—I am careful about what I say here, Mr Deputy Speaker—potential prosecutions against members of illegal, proscribed terrorist organisations, yet we have had no outcome to that process from the PPS. Given that this legislation is coming down the road, one wonders why there does not appear to be sufficient progress being made in following through on the work of Jon Boutcher’s team and moving on those potential prosecutions.
Colum Eastwood
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The families involved—we do have to be careful—in those investigations are largely very happy about the way in which Jon Boutcher’s team have dealt with them. But, of course, some people—a lot of people—do not want the truth to get out: people in the British Government, people in paramilitary organisations, and some people who were in both of those things at the same time. They do not want the truth to come out because they are very worried that the glorified version of their history actually turns out to be a dirty little war.
Stephen McConomy was 11 years old when he was shot in the back of the head at very close range by a British soldier firing a plastic bullet in Derry in 1982. His brother Emmet, who has been fighting for justice ever since, says that the “real winners” of this legislation are the perpetrators of violence, and he is absolutely right. Some of the files in Stephen’s case will not be opened until 2071, almost 100 years after Stephen’s murder.
James Miller, whose grandfather David Miller was killed by the IRA’s horrific bomb in Claudy in 1972, said:
“I describe it as the family having a sore, and that sore is there all the time—it’s open and we just want that sore to heal.”
James went on:
“They are just closing the whole process down…for a reason…. A lot of stuff may come out that will make the government look bad.”
That is what this is about. I have been dealing with this for 20 years. Although we work tirelessly on this—lots of people did in political parties in Northern Ireland—I have always believed that the dark forces within the state will do all they can to prevent the full truth of what happened from coming out. Some people say that they oppose the Bill because it creates a moral equivalence between the British Army and paramilitary organisations. That is not why I oppose it. I oppose it because it benefits murderers, whether or not they were wearing a uniform. That is a fairly simple principle to stand by.
What we are talking about here is much more important than has been mentioned. We are talking about how we can build a future together—a reconciled future for our people. Some of my colleagues here want that to be within the United Kingdom; I want it to be within a new united Ireland. But I know that, to get to that place, we cannot keep glorifying the ugliness and horribleness of the past.
Whatever the future brings, we still have to come together as a community, but the Bill gives cover to those who are putting Ulster Volunteer Force flags up lampposts or singing “Up the ‘Ra” in pubs. I appeal to anybody who thinks that that is a good way to bring society back together again to talk to some of the victims I speak to regularly, many of whom I know very well. All those things hurt them. Although the rest of us have been allowed to move on and build a life as a result of the peace process, they are still stuck, and not because they want to be. They are more future-focused than anybody I have ever met, because they do not want their grandchildren to stay stuck having to deal with the mess that they have been left.
I wish that we did not have to be in this Chamber. I am glad that the Labour party has committed to repealing the Bill once it is law but, in reality, between now and the new Labour Government, a lot of people could have little letters that they can bandy about because they will have got away with destroying lives and families, and this British Government are giving them a blank cheque to do it.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I want to speak in favour of the Lords amendments, particularly amendment 44, relating to immunity.
Towns and villages in St Helens—like those in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker—have strong and historic links to the Army, particularly the Cheshire and Lancashire Regiments. I have a significant, active and very supportive armed forces community locally, and I hope that veterans and their families would say in return that I have always respected, represented and worked hard for them. But I am also honest with them when we talk about the issues in this Bill or about Northern Ireland more generally, because there are not legions of veterans being paraded before the courts. There are no vexatious complaints. There is no witch hunt. It is a myth, and it is a dangerous and disingenuous one.
I want to be honest with the House and with myself too. I sometimes think we should just draw a line under this whole thing—that it would be the easiest thing to do—and then I realise how selfish of me that is. I say to myself, “How dare you be so selfish?” and I ask myself, “Easy for who?” I remind myself that I have no authority, politically, legally and, most of all, morally, to tell anybody to forget, to move on and to put it all behind them—none of us do. What I have learned is that, while legacy is spoken of as something historical, it is not just history; it is something lived by the victims and their families in the present, every day.
I have spoken before in this House of things that were done where I grew up in South Armagh, the place I love and am so proud to be from: Kingsmills and the Reaveys—too much and too many. There is the realisation for me that, even now, as Christy Moore sang in “North and South”,
“There is no feeling so alone
As when the one you’re hurting is your own.”
We can all point to those cases that are beyond tears because of their awfulness, their brutality and the sheer human cost, but it is those that we do not often recall and that are only remembered by those who knew and loved them that are affected by the Bill—like Martin Rowland, who was 26 when he was shot dead on 5 October 1979, his body left on the Quarter Road in Camlough. He is remembered by locals as a quiet, inoffensive fella. His family said at the time,
“He was an enemy to no man.”
No one ever got any answers about why he was murdered, never mind who killed him, although it is widely suspected that there was a strong element of collusion between loyalists and Crown forces. Martin’s sister and brothers are dead now. Does that mean he should be forgotten or that he does not deserve the truth?
I told my father, Pat, who knew Martin, that I intended to mention him, and he was pleased, but he—a lifelong Republican and former Sinn Féin councillor—said,
“there was also a UDR man from Bessbrook shot dead… that morning. It would be disrespectful to mention one neighbour without mentioning another.”
So I rang my friend Danny Kennedy, a former Minister and deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party, who told me about George Hawthorne, a 37-year-old father of three who had left the UDR the year before and was murdered on his way to work as a forklift driver at the timber yard in Newry. His wife, sadly deceased, worked with my mother in the furniture shop in the village. They were quiet, civil people. Should that be forgotten or dismissed? I do not tell these tales together to be self-righteous or to tick the dreaded what-aboutery box. I tell them to illustrate that this stuff is complicated, it is personal, and it still affects us all, because it happened to all of us or to people we know and people we love.
When I take my kids to South Armagh now from St Helens, they take great joy in winding up their uncle and their granda as we travel from the airport in Belfast by cheering when they see a Union flag flying in some of my hon. Friends’ constituencies. You do not have to look very hard at this time of year—there is constant noise all the way down the motorway. They say, “Look, dad, there’s our flag. They’re welcoming us home,” because kids are great.
When we pop in for a cupán tae—a cup of tea—in McCooey’s in Newry, or I see my friend Michael O’Hare in Whitecross, the conversation often turns to Majella O’Hare and what a great girl she was. They talk about her as if she were here today—playing out the front, happy and without a care in the world, like my two—but she was 12 years old when she was shot by a soldier of the Parachute Regiment in 1976. In 2011, the Government apologised for her unjustifiable killing. That was welcome, but what is it worth if this Bill becomes law, and how can there be any justice or peace for her family when the files relating to her death have been closed until 2065? The O’Hare family—like almost every family, survivor and victims group—oppose the Bill. That speaks more about it than I ever could.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State said that immunity will be blocked if there is an ongoing process. Of course, in all likelihood, the only trials that will actually take place—that are in process at the minute and could take place—are those against members or former members of the security services. No IRA alleged terrorists are about to face trial or are up for trial, and at present it is unlikely that they will be. Therefore, Government Members who think that, by supporting the Bill, they are supporting the security personnel and protecting them from prosecution are wildly mistaken.
Some republicans will not let this issue go. There have been a couple of comments tonight, from Members on both the Front Bench and the Back Benches, suggesting that no vexatious cases are ongoing. Actually, vindictive and vexatious cases are ongoing, and I want to put one before the House tonight. Colum Marks was lawfully shot dead by an RUC officer in an action justified by the police, the Army and those involved because he was about to murder and maim in Downpatrick. It is very unfortunate that that was the action that had to be taken.
The officer who took part in that operation has now faced three trials. He was most recently cleared by the Director of Public Prosecutions with the words that this was a lawful killing, not only in his self-defence but in the defence of the state and the people living in Downpatrick. Was that the end of it? No, there is now going to be another trial—another attempt to drag that officer, known as Officer B, before the courts. That is vindictive. That officer has long since retired. He has another family and is trying to live his life, yet this continues to hang over him. We have a certain shameful snake-oil salesman of a legal practitioner saying that he is going to take this person—this “RUC murderer”—back to court on behalf of the Marks family. That is vindictive and it is ongoing, and those matters do offend.
Colum Eastwood
Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to be very careful in his language? The last time that solicitors were named in this House, we ended up in a very bad and dangerous place. I would just ask him to be very careful about his language, because we can never go back to those days, and people in this House should not be giving licence for that.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Member for that, but he should be very clear that I did not actually mention solicitors. I said a legal practitioner, because they are not a solicitor. He wants to draw that out, as he has done by his comment, but he will now see that it is someone very specific. People will be able to look up the website of that person, who makes snake-oil sales in this case in that particular way, and it is wrong because such a person should recognise the outcome of the justice process.
In the Republic of Ireland there is no legacy equivalent. In the Republic of Ireland there is no equivalent for the right to access historical legal papers. There is no equivalent in the Republic of Ireland for ombudsman inquiries into Garda Siochana activity. In the Republic of Ireland there were requests by this state for 116 warrants for extradition to bring known terrorists back over the border to face prosecution in our courts, but only eight of those warrants were ever pursued and delivered on. More importantly, in the Republic of Ireland the possession of weapons in Northern Ireland is not regarded as a criminal offence and is not regarded as a terrorist offence. The possession of weapons in Northern Ireland, according to the Republic of Ireland, is a political offence, and people cannot face prosecution for a political offence.
I think Members can see some of the problems. The idea that we have a view from another state that all that is happening here should be dragged to court somewhere else by us on some sort of high moral ground is absolutely shameful. The Republic of Ireland has threatened His Majesty’s Government to take them to court on this issue, and they should have a good, hard, long look at themselves, because if this issue of legacy is going to be resolved, it will have to be resolved by both the north and the south, as well as by the United Kingdom Government, properly looking at this issue and resolving it.
I would go so far as to say that the Republic of Ireland actually has a duty to address these issues. Do Members want to know how many murders have a cross-border element to them? Of the 3,700-odd terrorist offences, or the almost 3,700 dead, almost 600 have a cross-border element. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned his own personal circumstances and the cases involving his family, where the terrorists fled back over the border. That is where weapon hoards were stored, and where the Republic of Ireland gave sanctuary to those people who were involved in almost 600 murders—of Roman Catholics and Protestants—in Northern Ireland. Remember that there were more Roman Catholics murdered by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland than there were Roman Catholics who were done to death by any other organisation, including the state. It is important to remember that the biggest group of people who get off the hook here is the Provisional IRA, and we should be guarding strongly against that.
I want to put on the record the comments of Senator Michael McDowell, the former Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland. Once again, the Senator has made it clear that, in the Republic of Ireland—he wrote this in The Irish Times—
“the Irish Government of which I was a member took the decision that further investigation and prosecution by An Garda Siochana of such historic offences was no longer warranted or justified by reason of the greater interest in ending the Provisional campaign and all other political violence in Northern Ireland.”
Of the Irish Government, he concludes:
“And so, as far as this state was concerned, a line was drawn across the page of historic Provisional IRA criminality in Northern Ireland.”
If Members want to look for immunity from justice, look no further than 60 or 70 miles from where I live, which is across the border in the Republic of Ireland, where they granted immunity.
Of course, in relation to the Government here, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made comments about the on-the-run letters and about the decision by those who support the Belfast agreement to let the prisoners out of jail, and all of those things turned justice on its head. I think we have to recognise that this is not going to be an easy fix. But I can tell you one thing, Mr Deputy Speaker: what the Government are proposing today will not satisfy people on the Government Back Benches and it will not satisfy the victims in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to the Government to think again.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I will start by putting on the record my appreciation for the efforts of the Government, in particular Lord Caine, over the past year, in trying to improve the Bill with the amendments that were tabled in the House of Lords. It is, however, a matter of regret—this will probably be a common theme across the Northern Ireland parties—that the Bill remains fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose. Even at this eleventh hour, it is important that we say to the Government—that is what we hear from most stakeholders in Northern Ireland—that they should withdraw the Bill. It is not wanted, and it is not going to work and achieve what the Government think it will. Even at this stage, I urge a rethink. Do not take the Bill over the line and end up with a situation where we have something that will not deliver for anybody in that regard.
The Bill is not fit for purpose in the sense that it is not compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. It does not have the support and confidence of stakeholders in Northern Ireland, whether that is the political parties—it is rare that we are so united, but we are on this point—the different victims groups, whose voices are particularly to be listened to; or the views of virtually every independent expert, such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory role to give its views on such matters. They are all deeply concerned about the Bill and do not believe it will deliver or that it is legally competent.
I want particularly to focus on immunity, as that is one of the core areas of debate, and on the Government amendments, which I will shortly be opposing. The concept of immunity is seen as being fundamentally unjust by victims. Most victims appreciate that they are unlikely to see their day in court and a successful prosecution of the culprits who took away their loved ones, but they do not want to have that hope extinguished. As long as there is hope, people are clinging on to that. That is the real fear, and it is on that pivot that people become particularly emotional. That is at the heart of the comments that the Government are hearing from victims across the political spectrum.
The concept of immunity is also seen as a de facto amnesty, which has its own implications. First, it goes against emerging caselaw at European level, but it also carries certain connotations that will weigh heavy on certain people. Let me frame this for a moment from the point of view of some people who have worked in the police, the Army and other security services over the past decades. I want to start by reflecting that the vast majority of people who served did so with honour, and with the intent of upholding the rule of law and protecting the entire community. There is a clear distinction between them and the terrorist, in that the former did not set out to do harm but rather to protect the community, whereas every day the mission of the terrorist was to do harm. That is a clear distinction.
The concept of immunity, particularly for those who were based in Northern Ireland, almost reinvents the whole nature of their service. They say, “We don’t need immunity because we didn’t do anything wrong. Why are we given this abstract concept? Where our colleagues did wrong, they should face justice because that is the rule of law, and the justice system is among many other values that they were serving.” This process turns that entirely on its head, and almost puts them at the level of the terrorist. That said, justice should be blind, and where there are issues to be followed through, whatever legacy mechanisms we have in place, that should proceed without favour to anyone.
That brings me to a wider point about the genesis of the Bill, and this is a fundamental reason why there is this lack of confidence. The Government cannot escape from the rationale set out at the beginning and the need to protect certain elements who are clamouring for protection against vexatious claims, who I think were generally more GB-based than in Northern Ireland as such. We have the comments from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis) when he was introducing the Bill and its pretext of giving protection to veterans who had served, in particular in the Army. Again, I stress that many other veterans do not want that protection.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise to oppose this legislation in the strongest possible terms and to speak on behalf of the many innocent victims of terror in Northern Ireland, for whom this Bill has caused great distress and anguish. As I was leaving Northern Ireland this morning, the real-life story—it has already been mentioned in this place—of Louie Johnston was booming out on the radio. Louie was the son of a police officer murdered in my constituency. Louie was seven years old when his daddy was killed by IRA criminals because he wore the uniform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I encourage all Members to google Louie’s news article today and see the picture of him walking behind his dad’s coffin, a broken child. It was one of the most powerful pictures of the troubles. His dad, David Johnston, along with his RUC colleague, John Graham, were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan. When he was told of his father’s death, he said, “Why would anyone want to kill my daddy?” He asked today for us to show some empathy, and he asked whether we believe it is morally right to take away his avenue to justice. It is on those comments that I make my remarks today.
It speaks volumes that not one victims’ group endorses this legislation. It is a sad reflection that this Government today choose to ignore Louie’s call and the calls of the many who represent innocent victims. This House, I trust, will forgive me for labouring the point about the hurt and the lasting legacy of the troubles on their lives. They have physical and emotional scars that will never heal, and those are made worse when people sound out or imply that it is time to move on and draw a line in the sand. They feel that is code for, “Forget about the victims, and forget about what happened.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend also think that we are talking not just about the legacy of the past and the hurt that that has caused, but about the impression left on young people today when they see that the state will grant immunity to people who have carried out some of the most horrible crimes, deeming that to be okay? In other words, someone can commit a crime, and if the political circumstances or whatever are right, there can be no consequences. Does that not eat at the very moral core of society?
Carla Lockhart
My right hon. Friend makes such a valid point on the impact the Bill will have on young people and their outlook on these issues. It is unacceptable and does not sit well in our society. Victims in Northern Ireland have already suffered and have to endure the fact that, because of the Belfast agreement, they can meet the perpetrators of some of these acts walking down the street or in the supermarket. They live with the continual flaunting and glorification of terrorism by someone who claims to be the First Minister for all and who has said there was no alternative. Indeed, the Member for Belfast North (John Finucane)—a Member of this House—recently showed his true colours in that regard as well. In the face of all the sickening actions, the taunting and the re-traumatising, I applaud the fortitude, dedication and determination of innocent victims to fight for such basic concepts as truth and justice. Sadly, those concepts are lost in the Bill.
The other place has sought to make this imperfect Bill less imperfect. I welcome some of the amendments. It is of deep regret that the Government propose to disagree with Lords amendment 44 in relation to immunity. The amendment would have removed from the Bill provisions allowing immunity from trouble-related crimes, which the Democratic Unionist party, and I believe the majority of people in Northern Ireland, support. In my discussions about the Bill with victims’ groups in recent months, I have heard how immunity is what causes the most grievous hurt. Why? It is because it closes the door, erodes victims’ access to redress and draws a moral—or should I say immoral—equivalence between blood-thirsty terrorists and public servants. Quite frankly, it weakens our entire criminal justice system throughout the world. I find it most remarkable that the Government should endorse such a move. The decision is repugnant not just for its perversion of justice, which we in the UK claim to value, but for the trauma and hurt that it inflicts on innocent victims.
I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 20. Every family deserves the ultimate hope of a full and fair investigation into the circumstances of a loved one’s death. Such an investigation should be subject to the highest standards. The amendment would have established minimum criminal justice standards for a review along the lines of Operation Kenova following expressed fears of watered-down investigations. The commissioner should be under a duty to ensure that an article 2-compliant investigation either has been carried out or will be carried out. Is that too much to ask? It is difficult to come to any conclusions other than that the commissioner for investigations will be able only to comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 to the extent dictated by the authority and resources granted to that office holder under the Act. The restriction of criminal enforcement actions is such that even if the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery refers all conduct to the Public Prosecution Service, much of that material will be admissible. Compliance with fundamental rights needs to be a cross-cutting safeguard in how troubles cases are dealt with. Irrespective of whether an investigation is at least partially the granting of immunity to perpetrators, its value is diminished.
The Government, by erasing the other place’s amendment to the Bill, simply fail to acknowledge the rights of victims in terms of the standards of an investigation. However, that is only one part of the jigsaw. For victims, it is equally important to have their day in court and the prospect of conviction and custodial sentences to grant some form of closure as it is to have a proper investigation. The Bill fails in those respects.
The Government’s objection to Lords amendment 20 will remove the requirement for a Kenova-standard investigation from the Bill. The Government, through their amendment, seem to want to provide an assurance, irrespective of whether a commissioner decides a criminal investigation is to take place as part of a review, that all the circumstances of a death, including potential offences, will be looked into. I am sorry, but there would appear to be a huge gulf between carrying out a historical investigation that gathers and explores as much information as possible in relation to a death or harmful conduct and the Government’s suggestion simply to look into that.
We oppose the Bill because we believe in justice and in holding fast to hope for those who paid the biggest price for our troubled past. The Bill will lead not to reconciliation but to greater distress, distrust and disillusionment among victims that they matter to this Government. We stand with those victims.
Jim Shannon
I am pleased to speak in this debate and to put forward the desires of the people of Strangford in this place, and also my own family. [Interruption.] Sometimes when you are at the end your emotions get you, and they have got me today. Fifty years ago, my cousin was murdered. He was the light of our family, a good man with a good heart who loved his family and his community. My aunt was robbed of the opportunity to see him have the joy of his own children and grandchildren, and I was robbed of my childhood hero and friend. [Interruption.] The perpetrators were never brought to justice—all three of them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I invite the hon. Gentleman to have a glass of water and compose himself. When you are ready, Mr Shannon.
Jim Shannon
Kenneth took us shooting when we were small. I remember him well; he instilled a love of the countryside in me. I named my first son Jamie Kenneth after him. Jamie is 35 years old, and he has that same love of the countryside. My cousin Kenneth lives through him. Three people were responsible for his murder. Two of them are dead. One of them was never made accountable. Where is the justice for Kenneth and our family?
Where is the justice for Lexie Cummings, murdered by the IRA in Strabane? His murderer escaped across the border, a prominent member of Sinn Féin and a former mayor of a council in Donegal. Where is the justice for the four UDR men murdered in Ballydugan—John Birch, Michael Adams, Steven Smart and John Bradley? I knew three of those boys—lovely young boys who loved their country and their families. Where is the justice for those four young men? Where is the justice for Louis Robinson, a detective kidnapped at the border at South Armagh, tortured, beaten up and murdered by the IRA? No one was ever made accountable. There is no justice for Louis Robinson and his family.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
My hon. Friend has just highlighted a number of individuals who potentially will never see justice. If the Bill goes through, the perpetrators can go out and glorify some of the actions they have been involved in. Unfortunately, this is a process of rewriting history.
Jim Shannon
When I think of my cousin Kenneth Smyth, I think of Daniel McCormick, a Roman Catholic. They were best friends and both served in the UDR, but Daniel left. He was murdered by the IRA. No one was ever made accountable. Stuart Montgomery was a young boy of 18 years old who joined the RUC. His daddy was so proud of him. He went to Pomeroy—three weeks in uniform—and was blown up by the IRA. No one was ever made accountable. Where is the justice for Stuart Montgomery and his family?
Where is the justice for Winston Donnell, the first UDR man murdered by the IRA up in County Tyrone? No one was ever made accountable. They left his family with broken hearts, bereft of a son. Where is the justice for Raymond McCord? Every one of us here knows Raymond. He will be watching on TV. His son was murdered by the UVF. Where is the justice for Raymond McCord? I mention all those people because I think it is important that we have them on the record. Senator Barnhill was murdered by the IRA in County Tyrone on the same day as my cousin Kenneth and Daniel McCormick. Again, where is the justice? I have named some of the people involved over the period of time. Those investigations and that quest for justice—we do not see it.
Chris Heaton-Harris
With the leave of the House, I would like to answer a few of the points that have been raised.
First, I recognise the passion, the emotion and the very personal nature of many of the contributions today, including those from the hon. Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As I said, I can never put myself in the shoes of the hon. Member for Strangford and nor would I want to. The question was raised by his party leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) about the choice in the Bill between justice and information. I believe the Bill delivers opportunities for both. The ICRIR allows for criminal investigations to take place, but it also allows for information to be gathered for those families who would be happy with just that. One reason for rejecting the amendment about the Kenova-style investigations is the fact that it rules out allowing for the full remit of reviews through to criminal investigations, which I would like to see.
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for acknowledging that the Bill has been improved on its journey. The one thing of which I have no doubt is the principled position taken by him and by his party on the provisions relating to amnesties and immunities. That position has been well stated and has been constant throughout my political lifetime and before, and I completely understand it.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) talked about Stormont House. I am not quite as sure as he was that the search for consensus on this subject came together in Stormont House; in fact, I think that that consensus has eluded successive Governments. I seem to recall that one political party in Northern Ireland did not agree with Stormont House from the very start, namely the Ulster Unionists, and I am not entirely sure that all political parties on the Unionist side do so now. There may have been consensus on the principle of the idea, but I am led to believe that when it came to trying to deliver on the agreement, the First and Deputy First Ministers came to what was then Her Majesty’s Government and said, “This is all too difficult to do in Stormont: please do it in Westminster.”
Colum Eastwood
That is an interesting take on the matter, given what I remember happening at the time. Yes, the Ulster Unionists had some reservations about the agreement, but all the other parties supported it. It was up to the British Government, along with the Irish Government, to implement it, and it is only because the British Government went off on their own—without the Irish Government—and undermined it by ignoring rather than implementing it that the Bill has ended up in this place. In my strong view, this is where the British Government have always wanted to take things.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest respect, that he has his particular view of what happened following Stormont House, but I believe that history says something a bit different.
Herein lies the issue for us all. It is a question for the party opposite, and it is a question for all Members in this place: if not the Bill, then what? There is no agreement following Stormont House. Families have gone for years, for decades, without answers to what happened to their loved ones, and I believe that the Bill is the right way forward at this point. History has been revisited in many different ways when it comes to how agreements might have worked in the past.
Stephen Farry
May I just point out that “New Decade, New Approach”, which was authored by this Government through one of the Secretary of State’s predecessors, contains a specific commitment to implementing Stormont House? As recently as January 2020, it was the explicit policy of the Government to deliver it. It is there, in black and white, in “New Decade, New Approach”.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The hon. Gentleman is right, but that became unworkable and impractical because the political consensus simply was not there when it came to legislation.
The hon. Member for Foyle asked what would happen if someone lied to the ICRIR. Well, that person simply would not be granted immunity: he would lose that immunity as a result of the new offence in the Bill.
Colum Eastwood
Can the Secretary of State think of any time in history when a murderer lied?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concise argument, but I can also think of no part of Northern Ireland’s history when we have managed to reach a point at which there is consensus on this issue. I believe that the ICRIR will have the ability both to carry out criminal investigations and to conduct reviews and get information for families, and that must be a step forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) asked about article 2. Let me make it clear that the Government amendments go no further than existing obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, and that, specifically, they do not alter the material or temporal scope of those obligations as they apply to troubles-related cases, including those that he mentioned. I think I answered that in a slightly more concise way when he picked it up.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) mentioned a host of things, but I believe he misrepresented the Bill and a number of things in it. What he said about the perjury aspects of the Bill was straightforwardly wrong. Perjury provisions exist in the Bill. Anyone providing an account to the ICRIR when applying for immunity will have to provide an account that is truthful and if they do not, they will not get immunity.
May I start to conclude my comments by thanking my civil servants for all the work that they have done on the Bill, especially over the course of the past year. I would like to think that everybody recognises the huge amount of work that has gone on.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am afraid I do not have the time.
I wish to close by reiterating that the Government have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can best deliver for families, over a quarter of a century after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and nearly 30 years since the first ceasefires and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise that this is challenging for all those involved, but I am prepared to make this difficult decision to try and help Northern Ireland to take a step forward towards reconciliation. This Government will give people the accountability, acknowledgment and information they require to allow Northern Ireland to become a more reconciled society.
It is a matter for regret, though, that the Labour party would rather see veterans and victims treated the same as terrorists. During the Bill’s Second Reading, in May 2022, the hon. Member for Hove said:
“I have been very clear: I want to make sure that the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists and people who committed crime in the era of the troubles”.—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 193.]
Peter Kyle
The Secretary of State is quoting from a response to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), where I stated categorically, in the full extent of the reply, that the Bill gives more rights to terrorists than victims. That is what the full response says. What he read is out of context.
I would also quickly say to the Secretary of State that I did not mention perjury in my opening speech. Could he address the issues that I did raise in my speech—not the ones I did not?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I think I might have struck a nerve there. Today the Government will demonstrate that they are committed to getting victims—veterans are victims, as the hon. Gentleman says—the families and survivors answers, when Labour simply—
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recently asked the Minister for Immigration what the cost to the taxpayer was of painting over murals featuring cartoons designed to welcome lone child refugees at an immigration centre. The Minister replied, saying that there was no cost. To me, this answer does not seem to be possible, unless overstretched workers were redeployed from far more pressing duties and the Minister himself brought the paint in from home. Can I seek your advice on how I can get clarity on the accuracy of the Minister’s answer?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady will be fully aware that all Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the words that they utter in this Chamber. The usual channels will have heard what she has had to say. If the Minister chooses to come to the House and make a comment or correct a statement then that is up to the Minister, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 163-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (4 Sep 2023)
17:19 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 190 - Amendment B1 agreed.
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20A and 20B in lieu.
“(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review, whether or not a criminal investigation forms part of the review,”
“(2B) If particular questions were included in the request for a review (see section 11(1)), the final report must include—
(a) the ICRIR’s response to those questions, if and to the extent that it has been practicable to respond to them in carrying out the review in accordance with section 13;
(b) for each question to which it has not been practicable to respond, a statement of that outcome.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and will speak also to Motions B and C.
We have debated these issues at great length since this Bill was introduced in your Lordships’ House in July 2022. I will therefore speak briefly to the remaining issues today. I have always been the first to acknowledge the challenging nature of this legislation and how it requires some very difficult and finely balanced political and moral choices. The Government have, however, continued to listen and sought to strengthen the legislation. Since July last year, I alone have had more than 80 meetings on legacy issues, mostly in Northern Ireland, but also in Ireland, the US and of course in your Lordships’ House. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also had a large number of meetings on these issues.
Motion A1, regarding the conduct of reviews by the commission, raised a number of important issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, a distinguished former Secretary of State, for the manner in which he has engaged on these matters. This engagement has resulted in a number of key amendments to strengthen this aspect of the Bill. This includes amendments expressly to confirm that the Commissioner for Investigations, when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews and other functions, must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and to make clear that the independent Commissioner for Investigations will determine whether a criminal investigation should form part of any review. The noble Lord has, therefore, already significantly influenced this Bill during its passage, and I genuinely thank him for that.
Respectfully, however, I would suggest that the content of the noble Lord’s amendments has been extensively addressed by the package of amendments tabled both on Report and subsequently at Commons consideration by the Government. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State tabled two amendments in lieu in the other place to address further the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, through these amendments.
The first of these amendments, Amendment 20A, clarifies that the duty to look into all the circumstances of a death or harmful conduct when carrying out a review applies no less rigorously in a case where the Commissioner for Investigations has decided that a criminal investigation should not take place. Amendment 20B emphasises the importance of the involvement of victims’ families in the review process. It does so by placing the commission under an express obligation to include in its final report answers to any questions posed by family members as part of a request for a review, where it has been practicable to obtain the requested information as part of that review. I should remind the House that both these amendments in lieu were accepted in the other place without the need for a vote.
Turning to Amendment 20D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Government are also unable to accept the addition of a power that would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe standards under subsection (6A) as an alternative to attempting to provide for those standards on the face of the Bill.
The Government consider it vital to safeguard the independence of the commission. This is something that we have worked very hard to do, and to strengthen, during the Bill’s passage, in direct response to a number of points made in your Lordships’ House. In our view, any such power as set out in the noble Lord’s amendment would run directly counter to this objective.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting this intervention and I thank him for his generous remarks earlier. The point that he has not so far made, and which I hope he will acknowledge, is that the amendment says that it would be by affirmative resolution. In other words, it will require proper consideration by both Houses. My concern in the amendment, as I will explain, is that this Bill can be further improved over time in the light of experience and the views of victims’ groups.
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, although I think my point stands. Throughout the passage of the Bill—in response to criticisms, when it was brought from the other place, that the Secretary of State had too many powers vested in him—we have sought to divest powers and to strengthen the independence of the commission. Whichever procedure is used in this House, this amendment seems to me to be running in the opposite direction. I also remind the House that the Bill already contains a provision in Clause 35 requiring the Secretary of State to review the performance of the new commission by the end of its third year of operation.
I turn next to the issue of conditional immunity, which I readily accept is the most difficult and challenging element of this legislation, but which, in the view of this Government, is essential if the new processes which the legislation establishes are to have a chance of working. I am grateful as always to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his alternative proposal, instead of insisting on the wholesale removal of conditional immunity. Having been passed in your Lordships House by 12 votes, this was decisively overturned in the elected House by 92 votes—far more that the Government’s actual majority in the other place. As I have said, conditional immunity is, in this Government’s view, an important mechanism to help the independent commission to fulfil its functions.
I briefly remind the House that the aim of the Bill is simple and straightforward: to provide more information to more people in a shorter timeframe than is possible under current mechanisms, to establish the facts of what happened to the families who wish for that, and to help society both to remember the past and to look forward to a more genuinely shared future.
I understand that the aim of Amendment 44E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, is to give family members a role in whether immunity should be granted. In the Government’s considered view, that would critically undermine the effectiveness of these provisions in their principal aim: the recovery of information for families. For example, the “public interest” consideration element in condition D would lead to uncertainty as to the circumstances in which immunity will be granted, undermining the clear and transparent approach that we have sought to develop.
To ensure that the commission can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward and provide that information. The possibility that eligible individuals who co-operate fully with the commission could be prevented from obtaining immunity is highly likely to act as a significant disincentive for individuals to disclose information.
As the House is well aware from our numerous debates over many months, the commission will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We have developed a more robust test for immunity in which that account must be tested against any information that the commission holds or can access. The commission must, as a result of amendments in your Lordship’s House, take reasonable steps to secure additional information needed to test the truthfulness of an account.
If an individual does not provide a truthful account of their actions that could be passed to families or does not participate in the immunity process at all, immunity will not be granted and that individual will remain liable for prosecution, should the evidence exist. Where prosecution takes place, should a conviction be secured, an individual will not be eligible for the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—again, as a result of amendments in this House.
“(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review, whether or not a criminal investigation forms part of the review,”
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the standards to which the Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that reviews by the ICRIR are carried out.
(6B) Standards prescribed under subsection (6A) may include (but need not necessarily include)—
(a) whether reviews should be carried out to criminal justice standards,
(b) what measures should be used to ensure that reviews comply sufficiently with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights,
(c) whether as much information as possible should be gathered by reviews in relation to the death or harmful conduct, and
(d) whether all evidential opportunities should be explored by reviews.
(6C) The Secretary of State may prescribe standards under subsection (6A)—
(a) following representations from victims’ families or representations on their behalf, or
(b) if the Secretary of State considers standards should be set or changed in the light of experience of the reviews.
(6D) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative procedure.”
“(2B) If particular questions were included in the request for a review (see section 11(1)), the final report must include—
(a) the ICRIR’s response to those questions, if and to the extent that it has been practicable to respond to them in carrying out the review in accordance with section 13;
(b) for each question to which it has not been practicable to respond, a statement of that outcome.””
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his generosity. It is true that, having clearly been uncomfortable with the Bill from the outset—a Bill imposed from elsewhere in the government machine—he has sought to come at least some way towards the deep concerns and criticisms of it that have been expressed on a cross-party basis. Yes, he has made some concessions, but, frankly, they have not gone anything like far enough to satisfy victims’ groups especially. The Bill remains toxic for almost all victims’ groups in Northern Ireland and has not been supported, even in its amended form, by any political party in Northern Ireland, so far as I am aware.
My amendments would ensure that there was an opportunity to improve over time—by affirmative resolution, not executive fiat—what will soon be an Act, thereby creating a measure of consent for it where currently there is absolutely none in Northern Ireland, amended or not. As this sorry Bill slithers towards Royal Assent, one thing is clear: despite the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to engage and listen—he has regularly gone out of his way to do so to me, for which I thank him—and despite the amendments that he has tabled that have marginally improved a truly terrible Bill, the Government have monumentally failed to persuade Northern Ireland’s victims and survivors that what is being done in the name of reconciliation is even remotely in their best interests. Instead, the Government turn their back on them, saying, “Take it or leave it. We are done with you”.
Even when the Bill leaves here, with all its worst excesses, and goes to the other place, that will emphatically not be the end of the story, hence the need for my Motion. There remain serious doubts as to the legal basis upon which the Bill is founded. When Sir Declan Morgan, an outstanding jurist of unimpeachable integrity and the immediate past Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, who has been appointed interim chief commissioner of the ICRIR, was asked whether he believed that the legislation was European Court of Human Rights-compliant, he said:
“I am not going to express a view”.
But the Secretary of State at the time that the Bill was published did express a view that it is and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, will express that same view. What else could he do?
Just last week, Sir Declan said that he welcomed victims challenging the legislation in the courts. I repeat: he welcomed them challenging it in the courts. What on earth are we doing to victims? Will they welcome being forced to go to court to fight for their basic right to be treated fairly, with respect and dignity and within the law? For that is what the Government are doing to them.
There is no doubt that the Bill’s immunity provisions will be challenged and, very possibly, the review/investigations mechanism as well. In my amendments in lieu, I set out a mechanism whereby the commissioner can move towards a Kenova-type operating model, endorsed by this House but rejected by the Commons, that is demonstrably European Court of Human Rights-compliant, and evolve the Bill in the light of experience and the views of victims’ groups, or indeed if the courts rule against what is proposed, as many think is likely. It is a modest amendment but if it is adopted change can evolve by affirmative resolution rather than ministerial fiat or going through further lengthy years of consultation and fresh primary legislation on this perhaps most thorny and difficult of the issues in Northern Ireland’s great list of difficult issues. I tried to address it with the Eames-Bradley report; the Minister has grappled with this issue for years. We who are former Secretaries of State have all tried to address it but it is very difficult.
If the Bill does not have the support of those whom it is designed to address, surely it should be allowed to evolve in the light of representations. That was what my amendments provide for, rather than going through years of further grief and consultation, and fresh primary legislation. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept my Motion and, by doing so, achieve a measure of support for a Bill that currently has none. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the complicated amendments in the Motion in my name on the Marshalled List. Like the Minister, I wish to pay tribute to his civil servants, who have worked very hard on this Bill during a very long 13 months. I also thank the Minister himself for the courtesy and diligence with which he has taken this dreadful Bill through this House.
I do not believe for one second that the Government were wrong in trying to address the issue. Of course, it has to be addressed. It is a difficult one: Governments and the people of Northern Ireland have tried for a quarter of a century to deal with it. Generally speaking, they have failed, so there is no difficulty in accepting that the Government should try to deal with it. However, I believe that in this instance, particularly because of the most central and controversial part of the Bill—the issue of immunity—they have not succeeded in acquiring the support that would be deserved under normal circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Some months ago, your Lordships agreed the amendment I tabled to delete entirely Clause 18—the central clause dealing with immunity and therefore the central and most controversial issue of the Bill. It was defeated in the House of Commons and has now come back, but, because the clause was defeated here, two important amendments that would have been debated on that occasion—one tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain and one tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—were not given the opportunity to be considered by your Lordships. My amendment is an amalgamation of both of them, dealing with licence conditions and family consent.
I point out again to the House that those amendments were originally moved by a former Secretary of State and a former Church of Ireland Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh—so they were serious amendments about serious issues. I believe that the Government have tried to remedy some of the worst injustices of the Bill, and I thank them for it, but they have not gone far enough. They have not addressed the real issues that have been expressed over the course of the last 13 months when the Bill has been going through.
My noble friend Lord Hain referred to the comments of the commissioner-designate, Sir Declan Morgan, and I share his view that he is of course a considerable and significant jurist. He said that the issue of compliance and compatibility with the ECHR would now be a “matter for the courts” and international law. Only last week, we heard that the Irish Government are contemplating taking serious legal advice about going to court. That cannot be right for a Bill as significant as this.
Sir Declan went on to say that the Bill has virtually “no support” in Northern Ireland—that is one of the most major understatements I have heard for a very long time. Every Church in Northern Ireland is opposed to the Bill—and Northern Ireland is a very churchgoing place. If all Churches are against it, that should be taken seriously into account. Every single political party is opposed to it, whether they be nationalist, republican, unionist or none of these. Every victims group, and the victims’ commissioner, is opposed to the Bill. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and commissioner are opposed to it, as are all human rights bodies in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government do not like it, the Council of Europe has disagreed with it, the United States Government are dubious about it and the United Nations is against it. With all that opposition, why on earth are the Government insisting on proceeding with this?
My amendment would not solve the whole difficulty with this bad Bill, but it would mean the involvement of victims’ families and the ability to impose conditions on immunity, including the right to revoke it altogether. This would improve it, but we have heard that the Minister will not accept it.
But the best solution is for the Bill to be put on hold and frozen until such time as we have a properly governing Executive and Assembly back in Northern Ireland. Those are the people who should decide how these matters should be dealt with. Once again—finally, I suspect—I appeal to the Government to do such a thing. The Minister knows that imposition on the people of Northern Ireland never works, and nor should it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, although the House is faced with two undesirable options, I very much prefer the position advanced by the Government to that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. If accepted, his amendment would preclude immunities from being granted, in the most part. The Government’s position allows for the possibility of immunities, albeit surrounded by provisos and caveats.
I personally take what I know to be a minority view: that the proper way forward is for a statute of limitations to preclude all prosecutions for all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement. This would apply both to security personnel and to alleged terrorists; I do not think it is possible to make a distinction between the two.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 13, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 18.
The Bill removes fundamental legal rights from victims of the Troubles throughout the United Kingdom. The aim of the Bill is clear. The Minister referred to the purpose of the Bill in his introductory remarks, but actually the Long Title says that its purpose is to limit criminal investigations, civil legal proceedings and inquests, despite the fact that by May 2024, there will be some 15 outstanding legacy inquests to be heard. It is also to prevent police complaints investigations—all this into matters arising between 1966 and 1998. All these ancient and balanced legal procedures are being removed under the Bill, as well, it has to be said, as all the protections and powers that the courts have in the conduct of criminal, civil and inquest proceedings.
The Minister’s amendments do not address the deficiencies identified in the Bill by so many across the world—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to them—and the other place’s responses to the amendments made in your Lordships’ House do not address the deficiencies identified either.
It is important to remember that the Council of Europe, its Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN special rapporteurs, national human rights organisations, our own parliamentary committees, civil society organisations, all political parties in the UK, with the exception of the Conservative Party, political parties in Ireland and the US, victims groups and community groups have all declared the Bill to be unacceptable because of its manifest deficiencies, and because of the breach of our international legal obligations.
I remind noble Lords of the fact that, under the Bill, the ICRIR does not even have powers to demand information as of right but must justify each request as reasonable. That does not happen in normal criminal investigations. Yet untrammelled access to information is fundamental to the conduct of criminal investigations, and it has frequently only been the determination of judges, coroners, lawyers and litigants which has resulted in the disclosure of relevant and important information which should have been disclosed as a matter of course. Even in that situation, the police and the MoD have frequently said that they cannot produce the material because they do not have the resources to do so.
The answer to this situation cannot be to close down the justice system; rather, as Patten recommended, policing must be delivered in the context of a coherent and co-operative justice system. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. For example, the Kenova investigation submitted some 33 files from 2019 onwards, but no decisions have been made by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland because it does not have access to the lawyers it needs.
The Secretary of State and the Minister keep reiterating that resources must be found within the Northern Ireland budget, yet what happened in Northern Ireland over the years of the Troubles was not the responsibility of paramilitaries alone. Agents of the state also played their part. In my 2007 report on the case of the murder of Raymond McCord Junior and associated matters, I said:
“it has emerged that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF. There was no effective strategic management of these informants, and as a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF particularly, in North Belfast and Newtownabbey, was consolidated and strengthened … information was withheld … Instructions were given that matters should not be recorded. The general absence of records has prevented senior officers, who clearly have significant responsibility for the failings, from being held to account. It is abundantly clear that this was not an oversight, but was a deliberate strategy and had the effect of avoiding proper accountability”.
That was accepted by the chief constable at the time and by the Secretary of State. In many other cases, there were similar findings. It is these situations, for which the state had responsibility, which demonstrate what happened and show the responsibility of the state for some of it. That is why I would argue that the Government have, at the very least, a moral duty to support those engaged in the pursuit of justice and truth and not to impede their search for it through passing this Bill—for that is what this Bill in its final form will do.
Your Lordships have discussed at length the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of investigation and pondered the Government’s commitments under the Good Friday agreement. The Minister’s Motion A does not make the Bill compliant with the ECHR or the Good Friday agreement. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would at least impose an obligation for any regulations made by the Secretary of State in this context to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and be subject, as he so articulately said, to the affirmative procedure.
The conditional immunity scheme, despite the Government’s amendments and others tabled by noble Lords, remains in breach of the Government’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement to provide people with access to the courts and remedies for breaches of the convention. That fact is profoundly important.
Victims’ groups such as the Truth and Justice Movement regard this Bill as destroying their democratic and human right to truth and justice. Nobody, not even the Government, thinks that this Bill will provide truth and justice, let alone reconciliation. The Secretary of State has repeatedly acknowledged the problems with the Bill, most recently stating:
“This Government believes that the conditional immunity provisions will be key in helping to generate the greatest volume of information, in the quickest possible time”.
There is no evidence to demonstrate that immunity will have this effect and it is well known that former paramilitaries involved in murder really have no incentive to tell all. All they have to do is sit out the five years within which cases may be brought for review. Even when information is provided, it is rarely the whole truth. On some occasions, information that has been provided has been demonstrated to be untrue.
The conditional immunity scheme which the Minister is again promoting, and which we are debating, would result in impunity for serious human rights violations and the unilateral shutting down of avenues to justice for victims and would give rise to questions about the ability of the independent commission for information recovery to deliver outcomes that would meet human rights standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks by his amendment to provide the victims of the Troubles and the close family members of those who died with the right to be asked for their consent to a grant of immunity. It states that the chief commissioner must be satisfied
“the close family member has given consent for the granting of immunity and no objections have been raised by any other close family member within three months of the consent being given”.
Alternatively,
“if no consent has been given by that close family member within three months or an objection has been raised by any other close family member”
within three months, the chief commissioner can decide that
“it is nevertheless in the public interest to proceed with the granting of immunity”,
regardless of the views of the family. This modest amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks to put victims at the centre of the process of granting immunity. It is qualified by an overriding right of the ICRIR chief commissioner to determine that, even when victims do not want immunity granted to a perpetrator, the views of the victims can be overridden in the public interest.
One of the problems of the current system is that judicial review has repeatedly been necessary to challenge decisions made by public authorities involved in dealing with legacy. Judicial reviews cost a lot of money. They take a long time to be resolved in our underresourced legal system, and they cause immense further distress to victims. If approved, the Secretary of State’s amendment will simply lead to more judicial reviews. Rather than solve the problem, it will add to it.
Your Lordships were right to remove Clause 18 from the Bill. The other place has—as it is entitled to do—overridden your Lordships. This amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will at least qualify the operation of Clause 18 by inserting some recognition of the fact that any process which ignores the views of victims simply has the capacity to cause them even more suffering, rather than to promote reconciliation.
As the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, said, the Bill is fatally flawed. It deprives people across the United Kingdom who suffered so grievously during the Troubles of their fundamental rights under the Good Friday agreement, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. If and when it is passed, it will lead to lengthy and complex litigation—something welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Declan Morgan. This is not the way to promote reconciliation in a divided society. In the event of a Division, I will support the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I once more find myself speaking as earnestly as I can in support of the sentiments of two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland—two men who undertook those tasks at times of division, suffering and what I can only term injustice for so many people in Northern Ireland. Given the fact that two men who had that experience have voiced sentiments in your Lordships’ House this afternoon and spoken in terms of their experience, I cannot understand why His Majesty’s Government do not understand that there are those outside this Chamber and this Mother of Parliaments who cannot understand why their voices are being ignored.
Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on this very difficult and vexatious issue that impacts most families not only in Northern Ireland and Ireland but across the wider UK. Many people have been impacted by the untimely and summary death of a family member as a result of the Troubles. Therefore, very clearly, the victims should be central to the Bill—as this House has said; it was articulated by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. However, I am sorry to say that the victims are not central to the Bill. This is probably an issue of expedience on the part of the Government to deal with this issue—and that is totally unacceptable. I will support both amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, if they choose to put them to Divisions.
It is interesting to note that we are joined today in the Public Gallery by some of the representatives of victims from Northern Ireland, including Raymond McCord, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred, and his colleagues. They have direct experience. They have told the Government, the Irish Government, the European Union and political parties in Northern Ireland, this House and the other place, that the Bill will not meet the needs of victims and that victims will be undermined.
On Monday of last week, 28 August, Sir Declan Morgan gave an interview to the Irish News, to which my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy already referred. When I bought my copy of the Irish News last Monday morning, I was immediately struck by heading, “Legacy Body Chair Welcomes Any Legal Challenges”. I would like to tell him that there will be legal challenges; they will come not only from the victims’ groups but, probably, from the Irish Government and other bodies in the European Union. The European Commissioner has already highlighted the issues around immunity. There is no doubt that the Bill, as it exists, will impede justice and truth; it will relegate victims, not to the second division but to the eighth or ninth division.
I implore the Government at this late hour to support the amendments in the names of my noble colleagues. If that is not possible, I beg them to stop the Bill and to stop further hurt in an already divided society that has seen so much over the last number of weeks in relation to policing, to victims and to the Bill and legacy. Those were two thorny issues that came out of the Good Friday agreement which required resolution. We thought that the policing issue was resolved but now it appears that a greater investment in the structures is required to ensure that there is proper retention, proper recruitment and a return to 50:50 recruitment, and that police officers and civilian staff are properly protected. However, victims also need to be protected.
In his wind-up, will the Minister demonstrate to this House how the Bill will be human rights compliant? I note that Sir Declan Morgan has said that he is committed to ensuring that the commission is human rights compliant. From his interview, I would deduce that Sir Declan is probably now querying whether the Bill, if enacted, will be human rights compliant, and whether it will comply with the ECHR. I know where I stand. I stand with the victims of the Troubles on all sides; whether their loved ones were executed by paramilitaries or by state forces, victims come first in all of this.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we return to this issue of legacy, almost certainly for the last time in this House as far as the Bill is concerned but certainly not for the last time in this or the other place—and possibly sooner than expected.
I have no difficulty in supporting the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, which represent an improvement on what is currently before the House. We all know and acknowledge, and it has been said across all sides of the House, that all the amendments, including the ones brought forward by the Government during the passage of the Bill, do not and cannot rectify the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill, which is that it provides immunity from prosecution to terrorists. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said so passionately and eloquently, what will future generations think of this mother of Parliaments, which was prepared to do such a thing to innocent families?
Nevertheless, some important work has been done to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of this wretched piece of legislation, although I regret that, despite our best efforts, the glorification of terrorism has still not been adequately addressed in the Government’s amendments. Again, week after week, in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, we see Sinn Féin, and the person who wants to be the First Minister of Northern Ireland, supporting and glorifying the bloodshed and terrorism that the IRA committed. They were not the only ones to engage in terrorism but they are the ones that are most to the fore in glorifying it, much to the trauma, pain and hurt of their victims.
The Government have brought forward a number of amendments, some of which had been originally tabled in the other place by my party colleagues, especially Gavin Robinson. I think of the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which the Minister referred to, as well as the increase in fines. It is also beneficial to the Bill that there is now the ability to revoke immunity should it be obtained through deception or lies. Again, that was tabled in the other place by my party colleagues. The Government committed in the other place to delivering that change in this House, and it is good that that was done.
I am glad that in these amendments, both in the other place and here, a lot of heavy lifting has been done by colleagues over many hours—in opposition parties, as well as by colleagues on our Benches—in an attempt to improve what is fundamentally flawed during long, what appeared sometimes to be interminable, debates, often with few outside those who were really interested present.
It has been argued by some that because of previous betrayals of victims and the previous setting aside over many years of the principle of justice in various ways, we should now somehow not be too hard on this Bill. People have referred to the on-the-runs legislation, to letters of comfort handed out to terrorists, to republicans, via Sinn Féin, and indeed to many other things that happened to the hurt of victims under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
But, my Lords, that is not something that victims say to us today. I am glad that our party in and outside Parliament, and many others, stood with innocent victims and opposed those previous obnoxious steps which were taken to appease terrorists and their supporters at that time. We opposed them then, just as we oppose this legislation, not out of any idea of populism but as a matter of principle. We have been consistent in that.
Indeed, we opposed one of the greatest betrayals of victims, when those guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, including mass murder, were given early release in 1998—something that to this day traumatises many victims, as they will tell you if you speak to them, and which was cheered on by those who should have known better, and indeed did know better at the time.
It is right as we finish these debates in this House to call out some of those people who purport to stand on the side of victims. We hear about all the political parties which are opposed to this legislation, and that is right, but Sinn Féin purports to talk about victims, victims’ rights and justice, and it is the greatest perpetrator of murder, which still to this day glorifies and defends it. It cannot speak for victims, and its cynicism and opportunism should be called out. Nor can the Irish Government, for that matter, who for many decades harboured terrorist fugitives from Northern Ireland and refused to extradite them there for justice. Whatever about the issues in the Bill—and we are opposed to it—it ill becomes the Irish Government in particular to complain. Even to this day, they refuse to co-operate properly in regard to allegations of collusion between the Garda Siochana and IRA terrorists in relation to a number of incidents in the Irish Republic and refuse to instigate a public inquiry in relation to the Omagh atrocity.
All along, we have believed, as other noble Lords and Baronesses have said, that the victims should be listened to. It is their crying that should be taken account of. If the evidence justifies it, terrorists should not be able to hide or escape justice by having the ability to invoke some kind of immunity or amnesty—conditional or otherwise.
In closing, I want to pay tribute to those innocent victims. I think of the delegation which came to Westminster in late January of this year. Among them was Pam Morrison from County Fermanagh, who will be known to many from Northern Ireland, whose three brothers, the Graham brothers, were all brutally murdered by the IRA one by one between 1981 and 1985. She also lost her sister, serving with the UDR: four brothers and sisters. Pam pleaded with the Government to listen. They have refused, but I have no doubt that we will hear her voice again, and we will all return to this subject soon.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, these amendments are really an attempt to respond, in a way, to the way in which the Minister has engaged with this Bill. Before I speak to them, let me say that I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Suttie, who has been very engaged on this Bill but is unable to be here today. I know that she was appreciative of the engagement from the Minister; indeed, I have sat in on one or two of those meetings as well as these debates.
Many of these arguments have been rehearsed many times. We do not need to say them over and over again. I want to say only two or three brief things.
The heart of this Bill is an attempt to provide immunity, yet it was driven by a minority in the Conservative Party who really wanted to give immunity to one side only. It is not possible to do that without giving immunity to the other side. That is why nobody can support this Bill—because nobody can feel satisfied that they can secure justice in that environment.
A question has been raised about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, the possibility of tests in the court. I have had the honour of serving as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Most of the democratic members of the Council of Europe—all of them are democratic, in fact, which is why Russia is no longer there—recognised that the point of the convention and the existence of the court was to try to avoid matters going to court while recognising that the court was there for when failures had taken place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I therefore find it extraordinary that the Government and their representative in this context are saying, “Let’s test it in the courts”.
The question I have for the Minister, then, is this: if a case is taken to the ECHR and the court determines that this Bill is in contravention of the convention— all that will take time, of course; no doubt the measures that the Bill provides for will have been implemented and followed through by then—what will the impact be? Will it mean all the decisions taken under this legislation being invalidated? In the meantime, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, many inquests that are currently nearing progression, at least to a point where they could continue, will have been abandoned. I suggest that this Government or their successor would find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult situation, which would also be difficult to remedy because so much damage would have been done.
All of us in this House, apart from on the Conservative Benches, are quite clear that this Bill should not go ahead. However, the Minister should acknowledge, as we have in turn acknowledged of him, that there has been genuine engagement to try to move the Bill to the least damaging place, if you like—even though we all agree that it should not be here at all. These amendments are designed to be helpful and in that spirit. Frankly, it would do the Government a lot of good if they were prepared to accept them because it would show that the good will goes in both directions. I certainly make it clear that, if a Division is called on either of these amendments, we on these Benches will support it.
I hope that he will forgive me for saying so but the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, made what was a short intervention for him. However, it was so passionate in terms of his dismay and hurt, as he put it. I think many of us know how uncomfortable the Minister must be when almost anybody and everybody who has been involved in this matter in Northern Ireland says, “This is wrong. This should not be happening”. I do not think that the Bill will stand the test of time as anything other than a dishonourable and disreputable course of action by a British Government.
At this stage, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. The Bill is supposed to provide reconciliation. As has been said on many occasions, it does not do that, but the noble Lord’s speech demonstrated that it not only does not provide reconciliation but aggravates grievance, which is the exact opposite of its intention and that is extremely disappointing.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, are constructive and helpful. In particular, the point about the Kenova process has been well respected by everybody. Given the necessary resources, it could have led to progress; the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is commendable for that reason. The right of victims to be consulted properly, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks, is also essential. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the victims are at the heart of the problem, yet they are the people who have been most ignored by this legislation.
In that context, I hope that the House will be prepared to support these amendments, which means that we will of course be back here debating them again in the not-too-distant future.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who seems to be attempting to turn the ICRIR and its reviews into the sum of all the existing legacy reinvestigations that have already happened, by the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and by Operation Kenova under Jon Boutcher. His amendment is complicated but would effectively mean that the new arrangements would be no different from what went before, and that the time required and the funding involved would be limitless, as I have said in the past. Given that to date we have already spent some £2 billion on Troubles reinvestigations, for little resultant value, if we are honest, this is not an attractive prospect.
The amendment also attempts to bind the ICRIR to the international standards required by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I thought that the Government had already dealt with that aspect in a very late amendment by invoking the Human Rights Act. That Act has a domestic UK effect which is exactly appropriate for the ICRIR, rather than it having to respond to the political machinations of the court’s enforcing body—the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
In the earlier stages of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others, presented the Kenova process as a model for the ICRIR. That option seems to have disappeared from today’s amendment. I am not quite sure why the name has been removed. However, it is important to look a little at the background and history. The noble Lord knows that he played a very important role in an earlier stage of legacy policy, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland between 2005 and 2007. In July 2005, seven years after the Belfast agreement, the IRA, in its words, “dumped arms”. A few months later, the Government responded with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This proposed an alternative justice system, outside the existing institutions, to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.
Government Ministers have not mentioned this precedent for their current Bill, but they could well have cited this attempt to further the process, conducted by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell on behalf of the Government, and by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Féin and the IRA. The political situation in 2005-6 was not unlike that prevailing during the course of this Bill. The then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was opposed by all local parties except Sinn Féin. However, Clause 1 of the 2005 Bill referred to offences
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.
This meant that the amnesty provisions—and it was an amnesty, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was very honest about in his speech—could extend to the security forces. Immediately, in the other place in December 2005, Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP, asserted that the Bloody Sunday soldiers, still being inquired into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, could benefit from the Bill. Sinn Féin immediately withdrew its support for the Bill and, in January 200,6 the noble Lord, Lord Hain, dropped the Bill. However, it is important to remember that the Republicans—the IRA/Sinn Féin—did not lose out. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had been working on the on-the-runs scheme, which would soon move into its Operation Rapid phase, with comfort letters being issued to several hundred IRA men, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said.
Now, 20 years on, this Bill with its many imperfections sets out what the Government believe is a new model for addressing the legacy of the Troubles, something that—everyone is now being honest—was not considered back in 1998, and which the local political parties have not been able to agree on since. I therefore oppose this amendment, as it brings us back to where we started and is not moving us forward in any way, no matter what we think of the Bill.
I want to mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am pleased that I was signature to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his amendment, which did not get put to the vote. This amendment, picked up by Labour’s Front Bench, is beginning again to put the victim at the centre of the whole issue. I feel that, if the person who is the victim has gone through the whole process of listening to someone who has come forward and given what they say is the truth, and everyone has listened and a great deal of time has been invested, and in the end the victim—the person who has really suffered—is prepared to accept that that person can have immunity, we can live that. I am disappointed that the Government have not moved a little bit on that, because some sensible suggestions were made in Committee, particularly by the noble and right reverend Lord. I hope that today perhaps they will come back and look at that.
Overall, this legacy Bill is—and I hate to use this expression—a dog’s breakfast. It has been cobbled together in a way that tries to please everyone and is ending up pleasing absolutely nobody. The Government are determined to put it through, which is why I have, in the past, supported certain amendments that would make it slightly better. I think that is all we can do at this stage, but I certainly do not think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is moving us forward in any way.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to deal particularly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and support, in as far as it goes, the good intentions of his amendment. I say “as far as it goes”, because I think the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit the limitations that can be brought forward at this stage of any amendment. There have been, throughout this process, as my noble friend Lord Dodds highlighted, from all sides of this Chamber, attempts to mitigate and ameliorate this Bill. I am glad that at least some of those have been successful, and I think we should acknowledge where improvements have been made. It is undoubtedly the case that, despite of all that, we are left with a Bill that is unsalvageable and insupportable and which perverts the course of justice to the detriment of victims.
Nevertheless, as a House, I think we are left with no alternative but to seize, where possible, any opportunity to make any improvements that we can, however small. I support in particular the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because it seeks to put the rights of victims much closer to the heart of this Bill, irrespective of what community those victims come from, irrespective of whether they come from Northern Ireland or are external to Northern Ireland, and irrespective of what organisation has been responsible for making them victims. It is right that the ultimate focus should be on victims.
When dealing with Northern Ireland, there are two glib but dangerous lies that are often told. First, it is said that collectively there is guilt for what has happened —that we are, in some shape or form, all perpetrators. That is fundamentally wrong. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community, were never involved in nor supported violence. They got on with their day-to-day lives. If there is acceptance of the idea that, in some way, there is a collective guilt, it gives credence to the notion that there was no alternative to violence. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland pursued that alternative—the democratic alternative—and the violence was imposed by tiny minorities on both sides, and victims suffered as a result of it.
The second lie that is often told in Northern Ireland is that somehow collectively in our society we are all victims. There are many—indeed, there are some in this House—who have suffered that victimhood at first hand, and there are far too many victims in Northern Ireland, but we are not all victims. For my part, I was fortunate enough to grow up in as relative normality as I could. I was not a victim. I cannot and do not claim victimhood, which is one of the reasons why I am particularly disturbed by this legislation, because it seeks to impose on others a system that denies them their opportunities.
The principal reason why I was not a victim in Northern Ireland was because of the brave work of the men and women of our security forces in keeping us safe. I particularly want to highlight the brave women of the security forces, because they are sometimes forgotten. In particular, this month represents the 50th anniversary of the formation and first enlistment of the UDR Greenfinches. I think they were the first units in the British Army to serve alongside men on the front line. Four of the Greenfinches—Eva Martin, Jean Leggett, Ann Hearst and Heather Kerrigan—paid the ultimate sacrifice for protecting ordinary citizens like me against terrorism. That is a very good reason why we cannot throw justice out of the window.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly on a very sad day. There is no Minister in His Majesty’s Government who has a better command and understanding of his brief than my noble friend Lord Caine. He is rightly respected and admired in Northern Ireland and, I think, in all parts of your Lordships’ House. He was clearly extremely unhappy about the Bill in its original form. He has clearly tried very hard indeed to improve it, and to some small degree it has been improved. But the speech that really should dominate this debate when it comes to be talked about in the future is the extremely powerful and moving speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames.
In my time as the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, I got to know and love Northern Ireland, and I came to respect a number of people, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, but none more than the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who was rightly held in fond affection throughout Northern Ireland, was looked up to, and did so much, particularly with the commission that he and Denis Bradley chaired. What he said today was an eloquent endorsement of the point made from the Opposition Front Bench by a much-respected former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He effectively said that this Bill is unimprovable.
I missed some of the debates on the Bill for domestic reasons, which many Members of your Lordships’ House are aware of, but I did speak at the beginning on a number of occasions. Although it has been before your Lordships’ House for over a year, it is still, frankly, an unacceptable Bill, because it does not command any support outside the Government, and quite a number of us on the Conservative Benches in both Houses are very unhappy about it.
There was a degree of impeccable logic in the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is a case for a statute of limitations; it is a clear, unambiguous answer. It is equally clear—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, recognised this in his speech—that that would not command support either at the moment.
It is incumbent upon the Government, in view of the widespread concern, anxiety and deep unhappiness, to pause this Bill. We have a new Session of Parliament opening on 7 November, just a little over two months ahead. We have a fairly frenetic week this week and next week, and a few days after, and then we break for the so-called Conference Recess. We come back for about 10 days. There will be no further opportunity for detailed examination of this Bill, and we cannot play indefinite ping-pong. I am one of those who is frequently on record as saying that of course the will of the other place, as the elected House, must prevail in the end.
It would be doing a service, to the people of Northern Ireland in particular, to pause on this. However, one service deserves another, and I revert to a point I made during Questions earlier this afternoon. It is incumbent upon political leaders in Northern Ireland to come together and have an Assembly and an Executive, because the ultimate verdict on the Bill should be given in Northern Ireland itself after a close re-examination of all the alternatives, including a statute of limitations. This is not a Bill that should go on to the statute book in the fag end of this Session. With every possible tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I genuinely mean what I said, I beg him to have urgent conversations with the Secretary of State and to press the pause button.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am, as ever, extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. I will attempt to be very brief. I had not planned to make a long wind-up speech. I will reply to just one or two points, if I may.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to the long history of attempts to deal with legacy issues. In 1998, it was, of course, put into the “too difficult” drawer. There have been subsequent attempts, none of which have come to a successful resolution. I refer to the valiant efforts of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his work with Denis Bradley. As noble Lords know, I was involved in the 2014 Stormont House agreement which, despite all of our best efforts, never managed to make it on to the statute book, and the level of consensus that we thought we had achieved at the time very quickly evaporated. There have been many attempts and many failures around legacy over the years.
This legislation, as I made clear in my opening remarks, sets out a different approach. The overall objective is very straightforward. It is to try to get for victims and survivors of the Troubles more information about what happened to loved ones in a far shorter time than is possible under existing mechanisms in a context in which, unfortunately for many, the prospect of prosecutions and convictions is going to be vanishingly rare.
I acknowledged as far back as Second Reading that I totally understand and acknowledge the feelings of many victims and survivors. I have met so many over the years, especially over the course of the past year, and for many the emotion, grief and anguish are as raw today as they were whenever the particular incident that caused their loved ones to be lost actually occurred. I referred in my Second Reading speech last November to my friend Ian Gow. Only last week, I dug out the letter that Ian sent to me on 4 June 1990, looking forward to lunch in the Strangers’ Dining Room on 11 June, just a matter of weeks before he was brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA—so I am acutely aware of the victims of terrorism.
However, I say to noble Lords that, if we are to pause this Bill or to refer it to the Assembly, all we are really doing is setting ourselves up for a further significant delay in providing answers to victims and survivors of the Troubles. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and my noble friend Lord Cormack—I am very grateful for and touched by my noble friend’s generous words towards me—talked about referring this back to the Assembly. I think I said in the past that it was always the assumption, going back to the Haass/O’Sullivan talks in 2013, that these matters would be dealt with in the Assembly after the Stormont House agreement, which largely covered devolved issues. Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson, then Deputy First Minister and First Minister respectively, came to the then Secretary of State and said, “Secretary of State, these issues are all far too difficult for us to deal with in the Assembly. Please could you take all the legislation through Westminster?” That is when we ended up unsuccessfully trying to convert the Stormont House agreement into legislation through this House. So I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord that the answer is to refer this back to the Assembly.
I dealt in my opening remarks with the Government’s objections to the two amendments; I do not intend to add to those remarks. The subsequent debate has to some extent taken on the nature of another Second Reading debate, in that a number of issues have been raised that have been debated extensively throughout the past year. So, once again, with the greatest respect to the House, I do not intend to go over all those points again; we have debated them exhaustively.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. In that same article in the Irish News there was a subheading which indicated that the staff to assist Sir Declan would come from the Northern Ireland Office. Can the Minister confirm that this is correct and, if so, how will it address the issue of independence of the commission?
Lord Caine (Con)
There are officials from the Northern Ireland Office assisting with the establishment of the body, but the staffing of the body will be entirely for the commission itself; it is not a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. The legislation is not yet passed, so the commission will not formally come into being until next year. All that is happening is that officials from my department are helping with the establishment during that transition phase.
As I said, this has taken on something of a Second Reading debate. We have heard many points rehearsed extensively. Therefore, I conclude by asking noble Lords not to insist on Motions A1 and B1 but instead to agree with the Commons amendments in lieu under Motions A, B and C, and pass this Bill; that is the clear will of the elected House of Commons. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I want to thank especially the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, for their fulsome support for my amendment. In the circumstances, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 44A, 44B and 44C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 44.
(b) any other law that might or would prevent a prosecution of P for an offence from being begun or continued (for example abuse of process—but see paragraph 3 of Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances)).”
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 44D, 44E, 44F and 44G as additional amendments to the words so restored to the Bill and Amendments 44H and 44J as consequential amendments—
“(6A) Condition D: in relation to immunity for offences causing death, consent of a close family member of the deceased has been sought, and the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that—
(a) the close family member has given consent for the granting of immunity and no objections have been raised by any other close family member within three months of the consent being given, or
(b) if no consent has been given by that close family member within three months or an objection has been raised by any other close family member, it is nevertheless in the public interest to proceed with the granting of immunity.
(6B) Condition E: the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that P—
(a) has complied with any conditions imposed by the ICRIR following the request for immunity under subsection (2), and
(b) is likely to comply with any licence conditions imposed as part of the granting of immunity.
(6C) For the purposes of subsection (6B), conditions imposed by the ICRIR, whether before or after the granting of immunity, may include—
(a) attendance at a specified place,
(b) provision of fingerprints and non-intimate samples,
(c) restrictions on P’s ability to approach or otherwise communicate with—
(i) a victim, in the case of injury, or
(ii) a victim’s family, in relation to a death,
without the consent of the victim or victim’s family (as the case may be), and
(d) restrictions on activity which might allow P to gain financially from the offences for which immunity is sought or granted.
(6D) The ICRIR may revoke P’s immunity from prosecution if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that P has breached one or more licence conditions imposed by the ICRIR.
(6E) A revocation of immunity under subsection (6D)—
(a) has immediate effect, and
(b) does not prevent a person making a further request for immunity under subsection (2).
(6F) For the purposes of this section, a person (F) is a close family member of the deceased (D) if F—
(a) was the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of D on the day of D’s death (and for the meaning of “co-habitee”, see paragraph 2 of Schedule 3),
(b) is a child of D,
(c) is a parent of D,
(d) is a brother or sister of D,
(e) is a step-child of D (see paragraph 3 of Schedule 3),
(f) was a step-parent of D on the day of D’s death or is a step-parent of D on the day on which consent is sought (see paragraph 4 of Schedule 3),
(g) is a half-brother or half-sister of D, or
(h) is a step-brother or step-sister of D (see paragraph 5 of Schedule 3).”
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Caine
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 119A.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Wednesday 6th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 6 September 2023 - (6 Sep 2023)
13:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.
Let me begin by reminding the House that the Government have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can best deliver for families more than a quarter of a century after the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement, nearly 30 years since the first ceasefires, and well over 50 years since the troubles began. The backdrop is that current mechanisms for addressing legacy matters work for only a very small number of people, rather than the overwhelming majority, and established criminal justice processes are increasingly unlikely to deliver outcomes that people desire, especially in respect of prosecutions.
We have only one issue left to debate today: conditional immunity. The purpose of this legislation is to give people more information in a shorter timeframe than is possible with the current mechanisms. We do that by creating an effective information recovery process that relies on a conditional immunity model. I attended a decent chunk of the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, and although I am sympathetic to the intent behind Lords amendment 44E, which is to give family members a role in deciding whether immunity should or should not be granted, immunity risks undermining the effectiveness of these provisions and the principal aim of information recovery. For example, the “public interest” consideration element in condition D would lead to uncertainty about the circumstances in which immunity will be granted, undermining the clear and transparent approach that we have developed over time. If we are to ensure that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward to provide that information.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I appreciate that the Secretary of State—whom, by the way, I greatly respect—has come here to try to deliver the Bill as it is, but may I make this point to him? A great many people out there have lost loved ones over the years—we all know who they are—and on every occasion, they seek justice. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), even if there is only a candle of light of a possibility that someday, those who had murdered someone’s loved one would be held accountable for it, that is what we need. Let me say, with respect, that today the Government are extinguishing that light for all those who have lost loved ones. There are many people in the Chamber today, and in the Public Gallery, who have lost loved ones. On behalf of all those families, I implore the Secretary of State and the Government to think very carefully about the direction that they are taking, because the families’ right to justice is being extinguished, and that cannot bode well for the future.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, for the way he has raised it, and indeed for the numerous conversations we have had on these matters outside this place and within it. He knows the answer that I am going to give him. I will never, and can never, put myself in the shoes of the people who have lost someone. I just cannot. However, I can see a process that has worked for only a very few people, considering the quantum of people who were affected by the troubles and who lost people. Indeed, the chances of getting justice for them are dwindling all the time.
The Government have come to the conclusion that this is the right way forward because we hope that we can, in good time, at least get some information recovered for those families that ask for it, and also through other elements of the Bill that are not the subject of this package of amendments. If someone misleads the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, there are criminal processes involving perjury and a whole host of criminal investigations that can take place. A whole host of things have changed that I hope will allow lots of information to be recovered in quick time for families.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State says he cannot put himself in the shoes of the victims, but he could listen to them. Can he tell us how many or what percentage of the victims he has met have shown support for this piece of legislation?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Very few have shown support for this legislation, but I have met many, as has my Lords Minister, Lord Caine. In fact, part of the process of changing the Bill has come from those conversations. I understand that lots of families do not want this Bill, but the question then is: if not this Bill, then what? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) says “Stormont House”, but he knows that Stormont House did not have cross-party agreement at the time and that the Ulster Unionist party did not agree to it—
Claire Hanna
Would the Minister acknowledge that it did have cross-party support—the Ulster Unionists deferred on one small matter—and that it was recommitted to by his Government and the Irish Government as recently as January 2020?
Chris Heaton-Harris
And it did not move forward because of the different political issues that came about.
Colum Eastwood
The Minister made this very point at an event that I was at at the weekend, but it was Chatham House rules so I am not allowed to talk about it. He puts forward the argument that the parties just could not agree, but I was involved in many of those discussions and I can tell him that the British Government dragged their feet month after month around the issue of onward disclosure. That is what happened, and it is important to put that on the record. The vast majority of political parties and victims’ groups in Northern Ireland supported Stormont House but the British Government just did not want to do it. That is why it did not get delivered.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am afraid I do not quite believe that that is the case. However, the British Government have committed to full disclosure to the ICRIR, which allows for a huge amount of information to be put forward in those circumstances and the possibility of ensuring that the commissioner can obtain as much information as possible from families.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister said that if families were to have a say on whether immunity should be granted, it would undermine the whole thrust of the Bill, but the point of the Bill is to ensure that people and families who have been hurt, traumatised and damaged by what happened as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland over 30 years have their say. Surely the best way of giving them justice, after they have heard what the circumstances of the case were, what the attitude of the individual is and what can be disclosed, is to at least let them have the final say on whether they feel that the individual concerned should be granted immunity.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. The many amendments to this Bill throughout the last year have included measures on how families should be engaged with and how their views should be heard throughout the process. To ensure that the commission can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward and provide that information. The possibility that eligible individuals who co-operate fully with the commission could then be prevented from obtaining immunity from prosecution is highly likely to act as a significant disincentive for individuals to disclose that information.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
This was never going to be an easy issue, or an easy Bill. If it was easy, it would have been done many years ago. What the Government are proposing may be right, or it may be part right and part wrong. I certainly think that giving those survivors and their families a right to veto would be the wrong step to take, so the Government are right on that. However, I think the House will find comfort in the fact that the Secretary of State will keep the progress of the enactment under review, and if there is abuse or things that are wrong, we can revisit it, tidy it up and make it work better. This cannot be seen as a closed chapter, job done. Rather, it is the start of a new process—quite experimental in some ways—of learning from other people’s experiences. If we have that comfort that this is amendable and reviewable, it might help to assuage some, if not all, the concerns.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his point. He will know that other amendments I have tabled have tried to make this body as independent as it can possibly be. I am sure he will have taken great heart from the appointment of the chief commissioner designate, Sir Declan Morgan, and from the comments he has been making about how he intends to go about his business. He is engaging widely, even at this point, and will do so even further when the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act. Just in the practice of Sir Declan in putting the flesh on the framework that we are building here for the commission, I think my hon. Friend will see that there are lots of opportunities for it to do exactly what he wishes it to do.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
This is understandably an emotional and difficult topic, and it is one that means a lot to me, having served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis), and also having loved ones who lived through the troubles on either side of the border. The discussions were difficult and I want to give my support to the Secretary of State on this. If there is a threat of prosecution down the line, it will be the families of British soldiers and the families particularly in Unionist communities who will not get the answers they rightly deserve. It will disincentivise people from coming forward and presenting evidence.
Even though justice might not be served in a court, there will at least be answers to the questions that family members have been asking for a long time. It will offer some small hope of reconciliation for those families if they can finally get the truth about what happened and who was involved, in order to allow Northern Ireland to heal and move on. I have engaged regularly with members of the Northern Irish community, and they want to talk about education and about creating more high-skilled, high-wage jobs. They are desperate to see prosperity for their great country, and those are the things that that nation wants to move on to look forward to, rather than continuously looking backwards.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his committed work in my Department. I was not there at the time, but I know of it. I understand the point that he makes. Over the past year, we have endeavoured through amendments to make the Bill very much focused on all victims of the troubles, so that all victims can, if they choose to do so, contact the commission and start a process that will hopefully get them some information in relatively quick time.
Sammy Wilson
We have recently had an example of a Roman Catholic priest who was involved in IRA activities. When talking about his role, he said that his only regret was that his efforts were not more effective in killing people. If that kind of evidence is elicited—if people come forward and show no remorse and no regret, and offer no comfort to victims—does the Secretary of State really think victims will feel any better? Would not giving them the opportunity to say, “In the light of that man’s attitude, I do not believe he should be granted immunity,” be a better way of ensuring that justice is at least seen to be done for those people?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Unbelievably evil things were done in the course of the troubles. Unbelievably hideous acts were committed, and none of us can change that. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, it has not been possible to give justice to a huge number of those families even today, even after the passage of all that time and even after numerous investigations in some cases. This Bill tries to get some information to families who contact the commission to request it, so they can better understand the situation. It will not change anything that happened in the past—it simply cannot.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. The premise of his argument and some of the arguments we have heard from Members on those Benches, which are sometimes extremely condescending to victims who have been going through this for many decades, is that people will come forward with the truth if we grant immunity. Well, there is one glaring example that proves that is totally wrong. During the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the soldiers were granted immunity within the context of the inquiry. One after another, they lied through their teeth, and that has been proven by an international public inquiry. With the disappeared, again, IRA people were provided immunity within the context of the organisation that was looking to find those bodies, and we still have bodies out there that have not been found because those people did not come forward and tell the truth even when they were granted immunity.
The lie that is being used to sell this Bill is just that: a lie. It is patently untrue and it will not do anything to give people the truth and justice they desire.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The hon. Gentleman characterises it completely incorrectly. There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward but, as I tried to outline, very little new information has come to light that has led to new cases. Very few people have been able to receive justice. He mentions the point that, in the past, some people might have misled a judge-led inquiry. Well, that is perjury, and perjury is now part of this Bill. The Bill has changed a huge amount over the past year, and it is worthy of support.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
This may well be our last chance to discuss the Bill in this Chamber. May I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the fact that virtually every independent human rights expert including, most notably, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has statutory functions, does not believe that the Bill is human rights compliant? Even Sir Declan Morgan, who has been appointed to head up the ICRIR, could not give a categorical answer to that question in a recent newspaper interview. Indeed, it is anticipated that a whole series of cases will need to be brought forward to clear up the issues around human rights compliance.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I understand that point and, again, that is the purpose of all the amendments we have made. The hon. Gentleman will know that I was not comfortable with the Bill that I inherited because, as there would be a gap in investigations, I did not believe it could be article 2 compliant. Amendments have been introduced that completely change that and I believe that the Bill is now compliant, but that will undoubtedly be tested. Only when it is tested and the results come forward can anybody actually say that the Bill is article 2 compliant, as Government lawyers truly believe it is.
Claire Hanna
The Secretary of State was unhappy with the Bill he inherited, which is the context of the amendments and changes that have been made to this Bill. Has he consulted with the chief commissioner-designate on the Lords amendments he is rejecting today? If the chief commissioner-designate was consulted, did he agree to reject the amendments?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I determined not to speak to the chief commissioner-designate, so that I could maintain his independence when the Bill is enacted.
Jim Shannon
In several of the Secretary of State’s answers to questions from Opposition Members, he has said, “If there is extra evidence”. Has he or the British Government had the opportunity to speak to the Irish Republic Government about their role? I believe the Irish Republic Government, through the Garda Síochána, have an evidence base on the murders that were carried out by the IRA along the border. I am very conscious of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan in 1989, Lexie Cummings in 1982 and Ian Sproule in 1991. The people who did that escaped across the border, and the Garda Síochána has indicated—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very conscious of time. You are down to speak, and you have made your speech already. Other people need to get in. This is a very important issue, and I want to make sure that people can make their speeches.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Forgive me, Mr Speaker; I was trying to take as many interventions as possible.
Mr Speaker
I know. We all know that Mr Shannon is very good, but it is the amount of time. Interventions have to be short and punchy, not speeches. He is going to make a speech later.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I have been speaking to the Irish Government about elements of what he mentioned.
The commission will grant immunity from prosecution only if an individual provides an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We have developed a robust test for immunity, in which their account must be tested against any information that the commission holds. If an individual does not provide a truthful account of their actions that could be passed to families, or if they do not participate in the immunity process at all, immunity will not be granted and they would remain liable to prosecution should evidence exist. Where a prosecution takes place, and should a conviction be secured, an individual will not be eligible for the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Again, that is a result of amendments made in this House.
Similarly, although I acknowledge the sentiment behind introducing licence conditions under Lords amendment 44E, I respectfully suggest that the Government have sought to address these issues through amendments that were adopted on Report in the other place. These amendments send a clear message that, once immunity is granted, individuals who are convicted of offences that could impede reconciliation will lose that immunity. In the Government’s view, this approach strikes the right balance between providing sufficient certainty as to the effect of a grant of immunity necessary to encourage participation and ensuring that there are appropriate consequences for those whose behaviour after being granted immunity is not compatible with the fundamental aims of the Bill.
The alternative proposed by the Opposition would not support an effective information recovery process, and I therefore ask that the House joins me in disagreeing to amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) to the Front-Bench team, and to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for all the service she gave during her time as part of the shadow Northern Ireland team?
As the House will be aware, we do not support this Bill, but I do not understand why the Secretary of State is seeking to overturn the amendments tabled by Lord Murphy and passed in the other place yesterday. I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State, but I do not think they stand up, because the Lords amendments would not take away the commission’s ability to issue immunity to an individual who comes forward and gives truthful evidence about what happened. Lords amendment 44E is not a veto, but it would allow the families of those who were killed or seriously injured in the troubles to have some voice in the process—I understand that relatives of those who were murdered are with us in the Gallery, and they are still seeking justice.
Let me turn to the other provisions, relating to licence conditions that would apply to the person seeking immunity. I acknowledge what the Secretary of State just said about other changes having been made to the Bill, but these provisions seem very sensible and reasonable to me. I include in that the requirement that the individual in question should not approach or otherwise communicate with a victim, in the case of an injury, or with a victim’s family, in the case of a death, unless they consent. So we will vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendments today.
The Secretary of State has talked quite a bit about a disincentive to people coming forward, but I say to him that it is not entirely clear that immunity will achieve the purpose that the Government have for it. Given that every other means of justice is to be closed down, and given that the commission appears to have a lifespan of only five years, those who have committed dreadful crimes only need to sit it out. I say to the Secretary of State that if that were to happen and after the five years are over those individuals start to talk about, boast about or write books about what they have done, how will he explain to the families of those they murdered why the Government allowed that situation to arise? That would be the consequence of taking away from people, as this Bill does, the means of justice, however hard, however long, however uncertain. I acknowledge the point that the Secretary of State made about that.
This is the last occasion on which we will debate this highly controversial legislation, which concerns how we come to terms with the terrible legacy of violence and brutality during the troubles in a way that enables those most affected—the families—finally to know what happened to the person they loved and to ensure that justice is done; to hold those responsible to account. This is the first time I have talked about this, given that I was appointed only on Monday, but I recognise how hard this is and I acknowledge the changes that the Secretary of State has made to the Bill during its passage, including his comment that when he inherited it he was not happy with it. However, he must accept that this legislation does not command the confidence of the people to whom he is trying to offer reassurance and comfort.
The most important word in the title of this Bill is “reconciliation”. We all want that to happen, but the Bill has self-evidently not achieved its aim, because all the communities in Northern Ireland are clearly not reconciled to its contents. It is so striking to see the extent to which the Government have failed to win support for their approach. The list of people and organisations opposed to this Bill is frankly astonishing: all of the political parties in Northern Ireland; the Churches in Northern Ireland; victims’ groups; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; the former Victims’ Commissioner; the Irish Government; the Council of Europe; and the United Nations. Most extraordinary of all, it is reported that the person who has been appointed as the commissioner-designate, the highly respected Sir Declan Morgan, said recently that he would expect legal action by the families of victims of the troubles to try to challenge the Bill on whether it is compliant with the European convention on human rights.
That is the scale of the coalition that the Government have managed to range against themselves, but instead of reflecting on that, their approach has been to put their head down and plough on regardless. That is why, for all the Government’s good intentions, they have failed to win public confidence, even though the Government said in 2018:
“In order to build consensus on workable proposals that have widespread support we must listen to the concerns of victims, survivors and other interested parties.”
Doing the wrong thing is not a justification for this Bill, and if there is one lesson we must by now have learned about how to make progress in Northern Ireland, it is that it can only be achieved patiently, slowly and carefully, so as to build a consensus. I am sorry to say that the Bill does not do that and it will not achieve the purpose Ministers claim for it. That is why we are committed, as the Opposition, to repeal it, if we get the opportunity.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I am well aware that time is limited; you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that so too is my capacity for repeating arguments that I have made many times previously. My party believes that this Bill is wrong in principle and that in practice it will not achieve the aims that the Secretary of State believes, no doubt with great sincerity, that it will. We will therefore be joining the official Opposition in voting to support the Lords amendments.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful for the contributions made by Opposition Members thus far. A number of comments have been made this afternoon that relate more to Second Reading than to the stage we are at. It should come as no surprise to those in the Chamber to hear that to us this is an irredeemable piece of legislation. Even though we were highlighting in this Chamber on Second Reading and so on the areas where significant flaws were ultimately going to prove fatal to support for this Bill, the Government entrenched themselves. On a number of discrete issues, they committed in this democratically elected Chamber, where they ignored our requests, that they would proceed with such amendments in the Lords. I find that unsatisfactory, although I recognise that my colleagues in the Lords continue to push on those issues. With Lords Dodds principally among them, they have ensured that some of the commitments given have been honoured. However, that does not change the fact that this is a fundamental assault on justice, with the erosion of hope for victims and of the opportunity to get the answers they seek and the outcome they desire. Those things have been snuffed out by a Government who have entrenched themselves, and I greatly regret that.
This afternoon we have an opportunity, with discrete and sensible amendments before us, as the shadow Secretary of State has said. They were tabled by the Labour party in the House of Lords, and were advocated and supported by Members across the other place yesterday afternoon. This is an opportunity for the Government to salvage at least some appropriate involvement for victims, whereby they can have their say and a sense of the outcome that they seek.
A contribution was made yesterday by Lord Eames, and it is worth repeating. He said:
“Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 343.]
Those words were worth repeating this afternoon because Lord Eames is somebody who has led the Church of Ireland but is in this Parliament as a peacemaker, and who went through an ill-fated attempt to reconcile issues of legacy in the past, in a consultative report with Denis Bradley in 2009. Within this Parliament and within our society, he is somebody who probably buried more people in Northern Ireland during the troubles than anyone else. When he exhorts in such clear terms that there is an opportunity finally for the Government, at this last gasp, to show some recognition of the pain, trauma, harm and pursuit of justice that victims show, the fact that this Government would not accept it is a great shame.
The list of organisations has been given—it was given by a former Secretary of State, Lord Murphy, yesterday in the House of Lords and by the shadow Secretary of State here today—showing the lack of support for the legislation. We will go through the Lobby this afternoon to register yet again our disappointment at a failed opportunity by this Government, who are more focused on what they can get out of this Bill as they campaign for the forthcoming election than on solving the intractable issues that have plagued our society for so long.
Stephen Farry
To start with the specific amendments before us, the Government’s approach, right to this eleventh hour—five minutes to midnight in terms of the Bill—reinforces the premise behind the Bill. Immunity is the central foundation stone on which this flawed Bill has been designed and taken forward, and the immunity clause goes to the heart of why there is no confidence in the legislation and why it has been rejected by so many stakeholders, most notably victims groups. That opposition spans the entire political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
Reference has been made to the history around this issue. I do not want to dwell on that overly, but there is a notion that the Stormont House agreement was not agreed to and was in some way flawed, and that we needed an alternative. Stormont House was agreed by virtually every political party and there were efforts made to implement it, but beyond the political parties it had the confidence of victims groups and the approval of independent human rights experts, so it was the basis of moving forward.
As has been said, as recently as “New Decade, New Approach”, Stormont House has explicitly been the policy of this Government. Within three months from the launch of “New Decade, New Approach”, we had, in effect, a handbrake turn, with a written ministerial statement by one of the Secretary of State’s predecessors, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). It was very clear that the immunity concept, alongside the Conservative party manifesto, was driving that, so the whole premise of the Bill is driven by the politics of the Conversative party, not the needs of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental reason why the Bill will never be seen as legitimate in any sense in Northern Ireland. Further, I do not understand the logic of a Secretary of State saying that Stormont House does not have full support, so we cannot proceed on that basis, and then, by extension, introducing a Bill that has no support from any political party or victims group in Northern Ireland. That seems utterly nonsensical to me.
I will not reiterate the point I made about human rights compliance, but I acknowledge that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) echoed and reinforced the point that we will see legal challenges to the legislation.
Finally, I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said about the repeal of the legislation. If we see a change of Government after the next election, I hope that will be a priority for the incoming Government.
Colum Eastwood
There are a lot of things that get me angry in this job, but this has got me more angry than anything I have ever had to deal with. The people sitting on the Benches occupied by Members representing Northern Ireland’s constituencies have had to deal with, get to know and work with the victims of our terrible past for decades. Frankly, I am embarrassed today, as I do not know what I am going to say to them when I speak to them after the debate, because as a whole—as a body politic—we have failed them.
We have a peace process, we have peace and lots of us have been able to move on, but we have left a very significant cohort of people behind, and we are rubber stamping that today. Some people will walk through the Lobby coldly, without having the names of the victims ringing in their heads. I have their names going around my head right now—I have put many of them on record in this Chamber during the passage of the Bill. I am deeply ashamed that we are doing this today.
There is a pretence in the proposal for the Bill that somehow the British Government were not an actor at all in the conflict in Northern Ireland. That is patently untrue. They say that local political parties in Northern Ireland are just squabbling, cannot come up with any answers or deal with the problem. That is patently untrue. We came up with the answer, which was Stormont House. The reason it was not delivered is that the British Government dragged their feet and changed their policy after “New Decade, New Approach”. That is a fact.
I really hope that the Irish Government listen to the calls by some of us to take this UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because the Bill is an affront to human rights and article 2. Every single expert I have spoken to agrees with me on that, and every single victim agrees with me on that as well.
The Secretary of State used the phrase “effective information recovery process” a lot of times. “Effective information recovery process”? I can take him to families today whose children—14 and 15 years old— were shot in the troubles and their cases have been closed by this Government until 2064 and 2065. Those people tell us they want an “effective information recovery process”, but the Government are denying victims “effective information recovery”, so that tells me that the Bill is based on a lie. It is an attempt by this Government and dark forces within the security apparatus of this Government to close down access to truth and justice.
We all understand that justice will be hard to get for many families, but most of those families have not even had any truth. The process of investigation gets them truths. I can take Members to loads of families today who never once even met a police officer, even though a loved one was murdered. Does anybody here believe that the IRA are going to come forward and tell us who bombed a particular pub or who shot a particular person? It is utter nonsense.
This is an attempt to close down access to the truth and it is an affront to democracy. Immunity? It is impunity, giving people a licence to murder people on the streets of Derry, Belfast, Newry and across Northern Ireland, and also on the streets of London. I do not understand how any politician can stand and look at the faces of crying victims and tell them that this is the right thing to do. I am ashamed that this is happening today.
Let me say one thing to end: I know these people. They have had to struggle for decade after decade. This will not be the end for them and we will be with them in support, right to the end.
Jim Shannon
I wish to add a few words. I will not be labouring too long in the Chamber, but it is important to make some comments in relation to where we are, as I again find myself in a position where I cannot support what the Government have put forward. While some Members on the Government Benches try to apologise and condition their support for the Bill, Members on these Benches, including those from my party and our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as well as Members representing other parties, including the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), have put forward their comments very clearly.
I have many concerns over the processes in place for victims and the fact that there are not enough answers. There will be ongoing investigations, but will any of those investigations be into collusion over the border? In my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier I referred to discussions that the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government may have had with the Republic of Ireland in relation to collusion in investigations, which in some cases involved some members of the Garda Síochána, and to the fact that the Republic of Ireland gave sanctuary to IRA murderers who escaped across the borders. Those are issues that some of my constituents wish to know about.
In his reply, the Secretary of State said that he has had discussions with the Republic of Ireland in relation to those matters, but has the Republic of Ireland responded, given evidence or investigated in the way it should have done?
Sammy Wilson
The Government of the Irish Republic, again interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, have threatened to go to the European court on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree with me, given how tarnished they are in regard to legacy, that whether we agree or disagree with the legislation that is being brought forward, this is an internal UK matter and should be dealt with internally, through the processes within the UK, not by an interfering Irish Government?
Jim Shannon
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has put on record very clearly his point of view, and it is one to which many of us here subscribe.
Let me return to the points that I was trying to make about the Secretary of State’s reply. Have those discussions taken place? Has the evidential base been gathered? Have the accusations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the IRA been considered? There was the murder of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan in a car bomb on the border in 1989. The information that we have been made aware of indicates that details were passed to the IRA on what time they would be crossing the border. That is collusion. That is an evidential base for what happened. That information should be brought forward by the Republic of Ireland Government and conveyed to the Secretary of State and the Government here. There are many other such cases. For example, the murderers of Lexie Cummings in 1982 escaped across the border. The murderers of Ian Sproule in 1981 escaped across the border, and, again, the murderers of my own cousin, Kenneth Smyth, escaped across the border.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As this was raised in an earlier intervention, it would be interesting to say to the House that someone came forward and volunteered information, saying that they had been involved in the IRA campaign, and yet they have never served one day either in court or in prison for that. They were questioned in 1988 and denied the allegation, but as recently as 2019 they made a full admission of their involvement in IRA activities. The case of the Hyde Park bomb, which saw 11 people killed and 51 injured, was never brought to court in relation to that. That was somebody who came forward recently and made that admission.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. He has clearly outlined an evidential base, which has to be part of this process. Unfortunately, though, with this Bill that process does not continue in the way that we hoped it would.
I wish very quickly to speak to the Lords amendments. They have established minimum criminal justice standards for a “review” along the lines of Operation Kenova. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the standards to which reviews by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery are carried out, including what measures should be used to ensure that reviews comply sufficiently with the obligations under the European convention on human rights. The shadow Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place, referred to that specifically in his contribution. I was very encouraged by his comments here today—I think we all were—and look forward to constructive engagement with him as we move forward. What is also covered is whether as much information as possible should be gathered by reviews in relation to death or harmful conduct, and whether all evidential opportunities should be explored by reviews. Victims must be consulted, and regulations can be changed if reviews are conducted in a way not envisaged.
That is what the Lords amendments were hoping to achieve. It is disappointing to me personally and to all of us who represent Northern Ireland that that has not been fully considered by the Government. It is regrettable that the Government have resisted efforts to embed minimum criminal justice standards at the heart of how the ICRIR conducts reviews. They seem intent not only on narrowing the legal routes, but weakening investigative standards in those aspects that remain. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the distinction made between “review” and “investigation” in the context of the Bill is more about drawing a line under the past with minimal fuss in the shortest timeframe possible, than about actually securing the answers and information that the victims and their families deserve and crave.
In conclusion, it grieves me to stand against the Government on these issues, but, on behalf of the victims, I wish to say very clearly that those in the Public Gallery today expect to see all those who perpetrated and carried out crimes to be held accountable. That is not happening. The unfortunate thing for all of us here—those in the Public Gallery who have lost loved ones, we in this Chamber who have lost loved ones and for all of us who represent Northern Ireland—is that this is a retrograde step. It extinguishes very clearly the hope for justice that we all want for those people who lost their lives to the troubles.
Chris Heaton-Harris
With the leave of the House, I will answer a couple of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions in the debate today. I know that the time that I have is relatively short, so I shall try to keep to it.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was just speaking I was reminded of a question that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) in the second but last Northern Ireland Office questions. She was approached by a constituent who was after information about what had happened to one of their loved ones. So there are people out there who will try to find, and do find, information about their loved one if it can possibly be done. The fact is that if people do not co-operate, they will not be granted immunity and therefore they will remain liable to prosecution, and that will mean using all the police powers at the new body’s disposal. The Government’s position is that we still feel that the prospect of successful prosecutions is increasingly unlikely, but, none the less, that prospect remains.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is outlining the difficulty surrounding this entire process. Given the convoluted, protracted nature of this for such a long time and given what inevitably will happen when this passes as it will, it will end up in the High Court. Does he understand that this will be an entirely convoluted, academic process that will end up nowhere?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am afraid that I do not.
I was saying that a number of valiant attempts have been made to address this issue since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I have reminded the House in the past, in one debate that I attended with some of the women who were behind the Good Friday agreement, one was asked what was her biggest regret about the time. The regret was that nothing was done for victims.
A number of these attempts were undertaken when the right hon. Member for Leeds Central was a Minister in Government. Indeed, I slightly worry about his brilliant academic mind and his recall for any of our future exchanges, but I know that he will remember all too well the difficulties and complexities involved in these issues. None the less, it is incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible.
That comes—it really does—with finely balanced political and moral choices, including a conditional immunity process, which I acknowledge is difficult for very many, but we must be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. That is why the Government are unable to support the Opposition and will be disagreeing to Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.
I will close my comments by recognising that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has come to this debate with a fresh pair of eyes. Quite understandably, he has not had much more than 48 hours to go through what is a very detailed piece of legislation, but I know that he has followed these debates in great detail from the Back Benches. I know that in due course he will look at this and reach his own conclusions. I encourage him when doing so to reflect on the immense difficulty of this task, and to consider how the Government have genuinely sought to strengthen the legislation with encouragement from his party. He may also want to consider the toughest of all questions: if not this Bill, then what? I hope that upon Royal Assent the Opposition will engage constructively with the chief commissioner to help to ensure that the new commission can deliver the better outcomes for all those affected by the troubles that everyone across this House would like to achieve.
Question put.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 169-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (11 Sep 2023)
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44K.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, last week your Lordships sent this legislation back to the other place after agreeing an opposition amendment with a majority of 11 votes. This was overturned the following day by the elected House by a majority of 83. It followed the rejection of an earlier amendment passed by this House with a majority of 92. I fully accept that this House has exercised its legitimate constitutional role by asking the other place to reconsider. It has done so and very decisively answered on both occasions with overwhelming majorities. I therefore respectfully hope that your Lordships now agree to this Bill being passed, over one year and two months since I introduced it.
The legacy Bill introduced to the other place at the start of the Session last year took on a very different form to the Bill before us today. The changes brought about by the Government and extensively influenced by your Lordships over the course of the Bill’s passage mean that the Bill that I hope will receive Royal Assent is a more robust piece of legislation, designed to deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles. The current mechanisms for addressing legacy matters work for only a very small number of people rather than the overwhelming majority and where established criminal justice processes are increasingly unlikely to deliver the outcomes that people desire, particularly in respect of prosecutions. This legislation will provide more information to more people in a shorter timeframe than is possible under current mechanisms.
Should this Bill become law, which I hope it will, it is for the commission that it establishes to build on the framework that the legislation provides by developing, independently of the UK Government, clear structures, guidance and protocols regarding how it will work in practice. However, the new commission will need time to do this. While I recognise that this has been a difficult process, I encourage everybody to give Sir Declan Morgan KC and his team a fair wind, to demonstrate that the commission can deliver effectively for families. The UK Government will provide whatever support that they can in this endeavour while of course respecting the operational independence of the commission, which has been significantly strengthened by your Lordships’ House. I hope that others can do the same. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
It has been a long time—well over a year, as the Minister said—and I continue to say that I do not blame the Government for one second for trying to resolve what is a hugely difficult issue. Of course they were right to do so, but they do not have the answer.
My right honourable friend the new shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn—I welcome him to his post and, incidentally, pay tribute to Peter Kyle, who did a great job over a couple of years—said in the Commons last week, quite rightly, that the Government have made changes that all of us welcome, including this House, but it simply is not enough.
The Minister mentioned the Divisions we have had in the last few weeks. Twice, this House—the majorities might not have been huge, but they were majorities nevertheless—has asked the House of Commons to look again at the central controversial issue of the Bill, which is conditional immunity. He is right, of course, that ultimately we have to give way to the elected House, but that does not alter the fact that this is a friendless Bill. In effect, it has no support in Northern Ireland at all. All my experience of Northern Ireland over the years is that, where there is no support for a Bill such as this, from all communities in Northern Ireland, it will not work. There should have been consensus.
The Government should put the Bill on hold—put it on ice, if you like. Wait until there is a restored Assembly and Executive. When we debate other issues affecting Northern Ireland on Thursday, we will perhaps hear that there has been progress on the possibility of restoration. The right place for this to be debated and discussed is Belfast, not London, so put it on hold. If that does not happen, a future Labour Government will undoubtedly repeal this legislation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I question the Minister on the wording of the Commons reason, which is very short:
“Giving family members a role in whether immunity should be granted or not would critically undermine the effectiveness of delivering on the principal aim of this legislation”.
Could the Minister explain what the principal aim of this legislation is? Many of us feel that the motivation underlying it is one of the reasons why it has attracted total opposition from all sections of the population and all the political parties in Northern Ireland.
This House was trying to ensure that families and victims have more say in the process. I absolutely concur with the Minister that he has extended his offices, to a very generous degree, with a desire to try to engage people. It is true that the Bill has been substantially improved from what it set out to be, but it does not satisfy anybody any more than it did at the beginning. Serious questions remain as to whether it accords with international human rights. We know that the Government believe it does, but others disagree. Sir Declan himself has said that he would welcome legal challenges. I referred to that the other day, as there is still a concern that the Bill may become an Act and then be subject to legislation or court action that could undermine its effectiveness.
That said, at this stage, we have exercised the debate and stated our view. The Commons has decided to persist and, in these circumstances, we are bound to accept its view.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is very difficult to achieve unanimity in politics in Northern Ireland, yet the Government inadvertently seem to have achieved that through this legislation, in that all political parties, Churches and, as far as I am aware, victims groups in Northern Ireland are opposed to it. We may question the motivation behind some of that opposition, and with good measure, in particular that coming from Sinn Féin, which in its past was the victim maker. For particular selfish reasons, it has a jaundiced view of this and is opposed to it through false motivation. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in Northern Ireland that this is the wrong way to go.
The Bill remains fundamentally rotten. There was a good attempt, by the Opposition which put forward this amendment, at least to flag up the role of victims and give them some direct say. As was said in the previous debate, that, in and of itself, would not have made a bad Bill good, but it would at least have been a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, we are now left with the situation that, despite the voices from all sides of this Chamber, yet again our amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons. It is deeply disappointing that both the Government and a majority of MPs have not listened to what has been said. We are therefore about to pass legislation that, whatever slight improvements have been made to it, fundamentally lets down victims and creates a situation in which justice is corrupted. The reason given for the rejection of this amendment—that it would in some way taint the process and prevent a successful outcome—is a false promise, because we all know that the paramilitary organisations will not simply give up the information. So we are doing all this for no material gain whatever for the victims.
This is a deeply dark day for democracy and for this House. Clearly, we are left with a situation where the Commons remains unconvinced. If the Opposition do not push this to a Division, we will be left with a fait accompli which we will all come to regret.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir. Noble Lords have been consistent across the House in their opposition to the contents of this Bill, which I believe are deeply iniquitous. For me, they represent a denial of basic human rights—access to justice and truth, the very things that victims and survivors have yearned for over many years.
I am deeply disappointed that the Commons, on a majority vote, rejected our reasonable amendment, which was supported across this House last week. None the less, I do not think that the issue will be resolved by this Bill. I believe that Sir Declan and his commissioners will meet many legal challenges; in fact, he invited them in his Irish News interview on Monday 28 August, which suggests that he might have doubts about this process.
Notwithstanding that, this House has stood solidly and steadfastly with the victims and survivors. I was disappointed again when I heard the Secretary of State in an interview a few days ago, as he did not seem to reflect on, think about, empathise with or sympathise with the views of victims. He simply dismissed them. This was another denial of their right to justice and human rights. Always remember that victims of the Troubles have suffered immeasurably in many ways, whether physically or mentally, over a long period, through the loss of loved ones.
So, we still disagree with this Bill. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State has indicated that a future Labour Government will repeal the Act. I look forward to that day, because I know where I stand: it is with the victims and survivors, right across the board.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in opposition to the Government’s removal of the opportunity for family members of those who died in the Troubles to play a role in the decision as to whether immunity should be granted under the Bill. Accepting your Lordships’ amendment would have given victims the opportunity, at least, to have a role in the decision as to whether to grant murderers immunity for the murder of their loved one.
Today is a terrible day for the people of the United Kingdom and for the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It is a day of shame. It is the day on which Parliament is legislating to remove from people across the UK who were victims of the Troubles access, in accordance with the rule of law and our international legal obligations, to criminal prosecutions, civil actions for damages for loss and injury caused, and to inquests. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government are forcing through not only these restrictions but their immunity clause, despite the fact that, as the Secretary of State said most recently,
“There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/23; col. 439.]
at all.
How do your Lordships think the people of Northern Ireland and the other victims of the Troubles across Great Britain felt on hearing those words? At least the current system had been gradually providing verifiable and accurate information for victims, despite the best efforts of those who sought to limit access to information. The Secretary of State said yesterday that, despite the widespread opposition to the legacy Bill from politicians and victims, he has not been presented with an alternative option. This is untrue. The Government have been presented with alternatives during the passage of the Bill which included a fully empowered independent commission that would have investigated in compliance with all our legal obligations. Those alternatives have all been rejected by the Government, who have used their parliamentary majority to force through this iniquitous Bill against the wishes of every political party, community group, victims’ group, human rights organisation, et cetera. Nobody in Northern Ireland and nobody among the GB victims’ groups wants this law.
On this day, His Majesty’s Government are using their parliamentary majority to force through a Bill that is already subject to challenge in the courts. There is now tremendous pressure on the party in opposition to live up to its commitment to repeal the Bill if it wins the next election. Even more, there is huge international pressure on the Irish Government to institute legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the UK’s failure to comply with its legal obligations under the treaty. I very much hope that they will bring those proceedings.
A country which does not respect the rule of law and its international legal obligations loses its legitimacy in the wider world. In passing this Bill, the United Kingdom is not, as His Majesty’s Government have claimed, seeking to provide truth and reconciliation for the people of Northern Ireland and for all the victims of the Troubles across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a very pertinent question, and I hope the Minister will reply to it. The effect of this Bill is to restrict access to legal remedies, which are enjoyed by everybody else in the United Kingdom, for that small and unfortunate group of victims, several thousand in number, who suffered so terribly during the Troubles. I cannot support this amendment.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, in my years of service to this House I cannot think of an occasion when sadness, disillusionment and indeed anger pressed upon me to the extent they do today. Over the months we have worked to try to improve this Bill, I have listened to many highly technical speeches based on great parliamentary experience. But to that I have to add one other element today which it has been my sad duty to bring to the attention of this House over that period.
It is to tell noble Lords that the word “victimhood” has become so used that we have lost sight of what or who a victim is. A victim exists with a picture on the mantelpiece. A victim exists with frequent visits to a hospital for treatment. A victim exists in the grandmother trying to explain to grandchildren what happened to members of that family. A victim is one who believed at one stage that the mother of Parliaments would understand their dilemma.
I have paid tribute on several occasions to the Minister for his patience in dealing with this issue, but I have to say this afternoon that he has not gone far enough. The feeling of sadness which overwhelms me is based on my many years of service to victims—to the men, women and children who were the real sufferers of our Troubles. I cannot get them out of my mind at this moment: the funerals, the addresses at funerals, the comfort in the hospital ward or beside a bedside. That is the whole background: the human side of “victim”. The human side is an ageing population who have been through the Troubles, and who now, by the passage of time, have looked with some hope to what we were going to pass in Parliament.
Way back, all those years ago, when Denis Bradley and I were asked to make the first attempt at dealing with the combined reconciliation and legacy issue, we set out on a journey which ends at this moment, in your Lordships’ House, so my feelings run very deep. Irrespective of the Opposition’s assurance that they will repeal this legislation one day if they are in power, and irrespective of the politics of it all, I speak of the broken hearts, the broken bodies and the irreconcilable issues that face ordinary decent people. I think of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the civilians, caught up in this. I think of the work in hospital wards by dedicated doctors and nurses, and I can still hear in my mind the drumbeat of the procession to the grave. I say to the Government: surely, they have brought us not to a crossroads but to the edge of a cliff, and Northern Ireland is tottering at the edge.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to those who have spoken. I do not intend to follow the current fashion for making yet another Second Reading speech at this stage of the legislation’s proceedings. I will just pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, when he referred to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in all this. He will recall that it was the Northern Ireland Executive, back in 2013, that invited Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan in to try to deal with issues related to past flag parading. Of course, no consensus was forthcoming on that occasion. As I have reminded the House on so many occasions, the reason we ended up dealing with these issues as the UK Government and in Westminster is that after the Stormont House agreement, it was the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister who came to the Secretary of State and said that it was far too difficult for them to do in Stormont and asked us to do it in Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, asked me about the motivation for the legislation and what it is designed to achieve. I touched on this last week and in my comments in moving this Motion. It is primarily to get more information to victims and survivors of the Troubles about what happened to their loved ones, in a far shorter timeframe than we feel is possible under the current legacy mechanisms. It is about information recovery, where people want to access that information. That is the motivation behind the legislation. It is now incumbent on us to pass the Bill and give Sir Declan Morgan and his team the opportunity to make this a reality and to deliver for victims and survivors of the Troubles.
Royal Assent
Monday 18th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Sep 2023)