Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Caine (Con)]

The noble Lord is always welcome.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Sorry, I missed that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.