Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 24th May 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
18:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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—
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.
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.
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—
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?
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.
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 29th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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
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—
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.
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.
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.
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.
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—
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateMonday 4th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern 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)
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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 23rd November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern 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)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 23rd November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 July 2022 - (4 Jul 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 24th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lord Caine
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Amendment to the Motion
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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 24th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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?
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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 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 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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 29th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (27 Mar 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (10 May 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 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 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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 21st June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37—R—I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (20 Jun 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 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.
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).
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 (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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateMonday 26th June 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)).
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.
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.
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).
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment of Clause 36 in Lord Caine’s name.
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 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).
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 4th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 153-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (3 Jul 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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).
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).
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 18th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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.
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.
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—
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 Caine
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 119A.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 6th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 169-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (11 Sep 2023)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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.