Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the moving and forensic speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.

I hesitated before putting my name down to speak because I cannot claim the knowledge of Northern Ireland that other noble Lords can. Having had the privilege of being a member of the independent Opsahl commission that considered the future of Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and having visited numerous times subsequently, I took very seriously the passionate opposition to this Bill voiced in a number of quarters. I apologise for any repetition, but I hope it will serve to reinforce the case against the Bill.

I intend to make just two general points, relating to human rights compliance and to the failure to listen to the virtually unanimous opposition to the Bill in Northern Ireland, reflected in my noble friend’s amendment. These two fundamental concerns support the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government should “reconsider its whole approach”. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which I thank for a very useful meeting the other week, argues that the Bill requires

“immediate and thorough reassessment, which should take place through meaningful engagement. The result should be victim-centred and human rights compliant”.

Its view is that

“this is not delivered by the present Bill”,

and nor can it be simply by means of a few amendments. This is a pretty damning conclusion from the official body established to advise on human rights matters in Northern Ireland.

On human rights, the JCHR voices its agreement with stakeholders that the Bill is unlikely to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It expresses serious doubts as to its compatibility with Articles 2 and 3, but also with Articles 6 and 13—the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy—despite the former Secretary of State’s statement that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. One of those stakeholders, Amnesty, describes the Bill as a “flagrant breach” of human rights obligations. The NIHRC expresses grave concern and focuses in particular on what it considers to be the Bill’s incompatibility with Articles 2 and 3, and by extension suggests that the Bill contravenes the Belfast/Good Friday and Stormont agreements. It suggests that there is “little evidence that expert views on human rights compliance were meaningfully considered.” The Minister’s welcome, conciliatory speech offers some hope that they have, to some extent, been so now, but as colleagues have said, we need to see the detail, and it is not just about Article 2 compliance.

A briefing from Freedom from Torture and Survivors Speak OUT warns that the Bill “provides impunity for torture” and in doing so breaches the UK’s obligations under multiple international treaties, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It quotes the Committee against Torture, which has made clear that in order to ensure that perpetrators of torture do not enjoy impunity, state parties must

“ensure the investigation and, where appropriate, the prosecution of those accused of having committed the crime of torture, and ensure that amnesty laws exclude torture from their reach.”

The briefing explains: “We know as torture survivors that seeking justice helps recovery by affirming the unfairness of what we endured, restoring some control”, yet the Bill “silences victims and survivors”. Liberty makes similar criticisms and dismisses the attempt in the ECHR memorandum to the Bill to argue that it is consistent with the UK’s obligations under the convention against torture.

The Constitution Committee echoes concerns raised about the Bill’s implications for the UK’s international obligations and the rule of law, and it quotes criticisms voiced by two UN special rapporteurs and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has urged a fundamental rethink of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie pointed out.

The Constitution Committee also notes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said,

“the strength of opposition to the Bill—particularly by victims—which risks undermining its aim of addressing the past and promoting reconciliation.”

That is such an important point. In his letter to Peers, the Minister stated that “the Secretary of State engaged widely and listened to many different views”, but this is not how those affected see it. To the extent that the then Secretary of State did engage—and that is disputed in relation to the drawing up of the Bill itself—he may have listened, but he certainly did not take on board what he must have heard.

According to the NIHRC,

“the Bill does not reflect the views of 17,000 consultees who engaged with the NIO on the previous legacy bill and is staunchly opposed within NI, including among victims, survivors and their families.”

It suggested that public confidence is lacking due to the Government forging ahead with the Bill without “meaningful consultation”. As far as I can tell, apart from possibly a small group of veterans and the Malone House Group, no organisation or political party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill. I acknowledge that veterans—whose views are reported by the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner—tended to be more equivocal and show what the commissioner terms “begrudging acceptance”. Nevertheless, he also makes clear that veterans

“do not want an amnesty”.

Indeed, an invitation to a meeting with bereaved families of British Army soldiers said that they feel “deeply aggrieved” that the protection of veterans is said to be the justification for the Bill.

The Constitution Committee warns:

“It is constitutionally inappropriate for such a significant measure to pass without consent”,


which is clearly lacking at present, regardless of whether or not the Assembly sits.

Could the Minister explain why the Government are railroading the Bill through despite such widespread and fundamental opposition? This opposition calls for more than the few improvements that the current Secretary of State himself acknowledged are needed when answering Oral Questions a couple of weeks ago, and which the Minister has suggested would lead to amendments being tabled before Committee. Welcome as that acknowledgement is, I am not sure that it reflects an understanding of how fundamental the opposition to the Bill is.

Surely the Government cannot believe that reconciliation can be achieved by imposing it in this form on an unwilling population. Reconciliation requires treading carefully. As the then Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill’s Second Reading in the Commons, it concerns the

“most difficult and sensitive of issues.” —[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 176.]

The Bill may have succeeded in uniting Northern Ireland’s political parties and civil society groups, but unity in opposition to the denial of justice and internationally recognised human rights does not offer a path to genuine reconciliation.

Could the Minister explain why the Government, in drawing up the Bill, have ignored the advice of bodies established to provide advice on human rights issues? In this context, could he respond to the request made by Simon Hoare MP, chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, at the Commons Second Reading that, in order to assure the House that the Bill is Article 2-compliant without “setting a precedent”, the Government give

“active consideration to putting Treasury counsel’s advice on this matter in the Library”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 195.]

The then Minister of State did not respond in his summing up and it seems that we are expected to accept a simple assertion that the Bill is compliant, despite all the advice we have received to the contrary from the JCHR, NIHRC and others. Indeed, he ignored the whole issue of human rights, despite concerns raised by the former Secretary of State, Julian Smith, who I know earned considerable respect in Northern Ireland.

The Minister’s letter to Peers claims that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past through providing better outcomes for victims, survivors and their families, giving veterans the protection they deserve, and helping Northern Ireland’s society to look to the future, which I think was reflected in his speech today. These are admirable aims, but I do not know of anyone outside of the Government who believes that this Bill achieves them.

The JCHR, the NIHRC and the Northern Ireland Victims and Survivors Commissioner have asked the Government to think again. Informed by the view of victims and survivors, the commissioner expresses deep unhappiness and warns that the legislation is

“fundamentally flawed, and is not victim and survivor centred.”

In a letter to me, he explains that

“no-one I have met believes that the Bill is going to help heal or reconcile,”

and in a recent letter to the Daily Telegraph he states:

“A draconian Bill, designed by one party in splendid isolation, is not the way forward, and it is not what our victims and survivors need.”


The JCHR spells out what alternative legislation would need to look like. It would ensure first that

“investigations are independent, effective, timely, involve next of kin, and are subject to public scrutiny; (ii) perpetrators of serious human rights violations are held to account; and (iii) that all possible avenues for the pursuit of justice and the provision of an effective remedy are available to victims and their families.”

Many in Northern Ireland believe that it should reflect the Stormont agreement which, while not perfect, I believe commanded sufficient support to offer a way forward, despite what the Minister said in his speech.

While I welcome the fact that the new Secretary of State and the Minister are engaging in a way that should have happened before the Bill was drafted, I can think only that they will have heard a clear message that it is not fit for purpose. It will not achieve the Government’s aims, but it will create considerable resentment and unhappiness among those it purports to help. It should be withdrawn—or at the very least, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, should be paused—so that the Government can go back to the drawing board and return with a Bill that is human rights compliant and can command support among victims and survivors of the conflict. They deserve no less.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019: Section 3(5)

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think it will come as any surprise to the Minister that I am here to resume our exchanges on the future of the welfare mitigation scheme, which were so rudely interrupted by the general election. Now that is behind us, it is imperative that we have some clarity on the future of the scheme. Following the debate on 28 October, the Minister wrote to me expanding on his response. Grateful as I am for his more detailed explanation of the Government’s position, I am afraid that it only underlines that position’s inadequacies.

I believe there is a consensus that the mitigations package continues to be necessary because of the differential impact on Northern Ireland of a number of key social security restrictions introduced since 2010. The package will be “sunsetted”—to quote the Minister’s letter, but is “sunsetted” really a verb?—at the end of March unless there is an Assembly in place to legislate for its continuation. As much as we all hope that current negotiations will be successful, although I am told the omens are not looking good, it would surely be foolhardy to bank on there being an Assembly in place in time to pass this legislation.

The alternative is what the Minister called

“delivery options for providing top up payments in lieu of the present mitigation scheme”,

which are being looked at by the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. However, these top-up payments turn out to be no more than our old friend discretionary housing payments, which all concerned agree are totally inadequate, not least because, as it says on the tin, they are discretionary. Furthermore, there are various restrictions on DHPs relating to both the amount and the length of time for which they can be paid.

The Government’s own report, required by the law that we are debating today thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spells out the implications of their discretionary status:

“Discretionary Housing Payment provision would not be an extension of the existing welfare mitigation schemes. This is primarily because it requires an application from the claimant and it is a discretionary scheme, which means that a payment cannot be legally guaranteed. This provision would only be available for claimants affected by the Social Sector Size Criteria and the Benefit Cap. In the continued absence of the Assembly, the Department for Communities is now taking the necessary steps to prepare for a possible extension of the existing welfare mitigation schemes should appropriate legislation be made. Simultaneously, the Department is working with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on preparatory work to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme.”


This is crazy. How much Civil Service time is being wasted because the Department for Communities is having to prepare for two possible scenarios, little more than two months away, because of the Government’s refusal to act? How does it make sense to jettison a cost-effective scheme for one that will be much more costly to manage? More importantly, how much anxiety is this causing well over 30,000 low-income citizens of Northern Ireland, many of whom will be living in vulnerable circumstances?

I repeat: 31 March is little more than two months away. We need a clear commitment to action now, in the event of a functioning Assembly not being in place in time, so that both low-income citizens and civil servants can be secure in the knowledge that the mitigations scheme will be extended. I am sure it would be possible to take a one-clause Bill, with a tightly drawn long title so that it cannot be turned into a Christmas tree for wider amendments, through Parliament quickly, but we need a clear commitment to this without further delay.

In conclusion, will the Minister now acknowledge that the only alternative to the mitigations scheme is the wholly unsatisfactory discretionary housing payments? Will he therefore commit to go away and discuss with colleagues what can be done to guarantee now that, one way or another, the mitigations scheme will continue after the end of March? Will he undertake to report back to your Lordships’ House quickly? This, too, is a question of human rights, because the right to social security is a human right.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019: Section 3(5)

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking in the gap to raise an urgent issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I spoke about in the Queen’s Speech debate—to no avail, to the disappointment of members of Northern Ireland’s civil society gathered at the Law Centres’ annual conference last week.

Because of Northern Ireland’s special circumstances, a mitigations package to soften the impact of certain elements of “welfare reforms” was agreed up to March 2020 by the Northern Ireland Executive. A joint report by the Work and Pensions Committee and Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recommended that it be extended beyond next March, stating that,

“the UK Government must act quickly to end the uncertainty”.

It argued that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional as to override questions of devolved competence, with,

“a potentially drastic impact on vulnerable people and no Assembly to extend the legislation”.

The response I received to a Written Question was that the Department for Communities was responsible for the delivery of the mitigation schemes and a decision to extend beyond March 2020,

“would be a matter for an incoming Minister for Communities in a restored Northern Ireland Executive”.

I am sorry, but, as I said last week, that is simply irresponsible given that there is no certainty that the Executive will be restored in time. It is like waiting for Godot.

The Department for Communities has itself made clear that, in the absence of a functioning Assembly,

“it is considered that the only viable option for providing the legal authority for the Department to make mitigation payments beyond 2020 would be for the Westminster Parliament to bring forward appropriate legislation”.

The response that I received in the debate was that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did not have the power to instruct the Northern Ireland Civil Service. But this is so unhelpful. I understand that it is quite within the power of the UK Government to legislate in the absence of a restored Executive, provided that they are willing to amend existing legislation that prevents it.

This is what is being called for—not that the Secretary of State instructs the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As Nigel Mills MP pointed out to the Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Government,

“have legislated for quite a few devolved matters ... it would not be unprecedented to do so for this as well”.

I know that the Minister cares about such issues. I cannot believe that he would wish for around 35,000 low- income households to be made worse off overnight because the UK Government refused to use their powers in this way. According to the Department for Communities, the average estimated weekly loss due to the bedroom tax would be £12.50 and the benefit cap £42. Anxiety among tenants, social security claimants and advice workers is growing. There is a clear civic and political consensus in Northern Ireland that the mitigations must continue beyond March 2020. Following the pressure put on him at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State agreed to reflect. I implore the Minister to add his weight to do what he can to impress on the Secretary of State the importance and urgency of taking legislative action now.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is difficult to see much in the gracious Speech that will address the social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality identified as “abhorrent” in the Conservative manifesto. Even welcome measures, such as those on domestic abuse, discussed so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, just now, will be brought forward only in draft form. That is the more disappointing, as this is an opportunity to put into law the Government’s stated intention in its manifesto that survivors of domestic violence will retain the right to an automatic lifetime tenancy under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As this is not mentioned in the background briefing on the draft Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm this intention on the record tonight. I would also welcome an assurance that there will be no further delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention.

Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I would say that the thought of a third Conservative immigration Bill in as many years does not inspire hope after the last two, particularly as the manifesto appeared to suggest that asylum seekers who manage to make their own way to the UK are not deserving of help. Even when they achieve refugee status, this group is already profoundly disadvantaged through a two-tier system that has developed for refugees, identified by the inquiry into the experience of new refugees conducted by the APPG on Refugees, of which I was a member, and published just before the election. Our report, Refugees Welcome?, observed that while many local communities indeed make refugees welcome, in too many areas we identified barriers to integration and lack of support for refugees that undermine those positive examples and take away from the protection that refugee status should entail.

These barriers are very much of the Government’s making, and they include: the far-too-short 28-day move-on period between the ending of Home Office support and the provision of mainstream social security and housing, which leaves many destitute, and will be even more problematic under universal credit, paid only after six weeks; inadequate support to learn English, other than for resettled Syrians; and restrictive family reunion rules, identified by the UN refugee representative as one of the biggest obstacles to integration. The inquiry also warned that the recent announcement of automatic use of safe return reviews will undermine refugee integration still further.

Acceptance of our recommendations, including for a cross-departmental national refugee integration strategy overseen by a Minister for Refugees, could make a valuable contribution to the wider “new integration strategy” promised in the manifesto. It was proposed under the rubric of,

“A country that comes together”,

and “Integrating divided communities” in the context of immigration, ethnic diversity and extremism. But, as the shameful and tragic Grenfell Tower fire underlined, communities are also divided by social class and socioeconomic inequality.

All the predictions are that, on current government policies, especially the benefits freeze, the socioeconomic divide will worsen markedly during this Parliament, as will homelessness, according to Shelter. Despite the manifesto’s vague aspiration to,

“reduce levels of child poverty”,

independent estimates indicate the opposite is all too likely.

One of the Grenfell Tower residents was quoted as saying, “They don’t care about us. They don’t listen to us”. For too long, people in social housing and people living in poverty have been treated with contempt, their lives and their views counting for nothing. Along with an end to prioritising cutting spending and so- called red tape over safety and housing needs, one of the most fundamental lessons for public authorities has to be that people on benefits and/or in low-paid and insecure work must be treated as citizens of equal worth, with equal voice and equal rights.

I have one final point. Following yesterday’s helpful briefing, can the Minister give an assurance that any Grenfell Tower residents rehoused in larger and/or more expensive accommodation will not be subject to the bedroom tax or benefit cap? The suggestion that they can in any case be protected through discretionary housing payments is not good enough. The clue is in the name—discretionary. Any diminution of the tenants’ social security rights would mean they are not being,

“guaranteed a new home on the same terms as the one they lost”—[Official Report, 22/6/17; col.71]—

as promised by the Prime Minister in last week’s Statement to Parliament. Anything less would surely be too cruel for people who have gone through such trauma.

International Women's Day

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I feel doubly fortunate to be able to make my maiden speech in this debate to mark 100 years of International Women’s Day, first because it was introduced by my mentor, my noble friend Lady Gould, and secondly because I have been proud to call myself a feminist for some 40 of those 100 years. I was also fortunate to have as my supporters two formidable women, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I am grateful to them, to noble Lords from all sides of the House and to all the staff for their warm welcome and helpfulness.

I doubt whether many noble Lords have heard of Burtersett. It is a small village in beautiful Wensleydale where my grandparents lived during my childhood and which, as a keen walker, I still visit regularly. In taking this title, I wanted to acknowledge the county of my birth and my mother’s side of my family.

However, today I also want to remember my father who I know, as a refugee from Nazi Germany, would have been particularly proud to see me here. In remembering him, it saddens and angers me how we as a society often treat many of today’s seekers of asylum. Female asylum seekers are a group of women who are particularly challenged in both a global and a domestic context. The Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that the treatment of asylum seekers often,

“falls below the … common law of humanity and of international human rights”.

The committee also expressed particular concern with regard to pregnant women. The national equality panel, of which I was a member, drew attention last year to,

“significant levels of hardship and even destitution “.

among asylum seekers, revealed by small studies but hidden by larger income surveys.

I want to use the rest of my speech to draw attention to another example of hidden poverty—that of women within families. Although domestically and globally women tend to bear the main brunt of poverty, this is often overlooked in our very proper concern with child poverty. Yet female and child poverty are closely linked, not least because women still typically manage poverty and, in trying to protect their children from its full impact, they act as poverty’s shock-absorbers.

I hope that I will not alarm noble Lords unduly when I say that I was once nearly thrown out of your Lordships’ House when sitting below the Bar. I was working for the Child Poverty Action Group, an organisation that I am now proud to serve as honorary president. The occasion was the consideration of a Social Security Act, and I squealed with joy when it was announced that the Government were withdrawing their proposal to pay family credit through the pay packet. The reason why we campaigned so strongly on that issue, with support from women of all political parties and none, was that the evidence indicated that, if money for children was transferred from the woman’s purse to the man’s wallet, it would be less likely to be spent on the children. Moreover, such a transfer would deprive mothers of an important independent source of income over which they had independent control. Unfortunately, this is a battle that we seem to have to fight periodically, as successive Governments overlook the importance of how income is shared within families. It is an issue that we face yet again with the proposed universal credit, as my noble friend Lady Gould has warned.

A number of research studies show that low-income women are more likely to go without basics than men living in the same households. Just the other week, I helped to launch the publication of a study of black and minority ethnic maternal poverty for Oxfam and the Angelou Centre in Newcastle. The study reveals considerable deprivation and, in a few cases, what the researcher calls “economic violence”, in which the woman has so little access to money that her freedom is severely curtailed. Other research illuminates how the stress created by poverty can undermine mothers’ ability to provide the kind of parenting that they want to. This can get overlooked in policy debates, which sometimes give the impression of blaming poor parents.

I have had the privilege, as both an academic and campaigner, to be able to draw attention to the reality of women’s poverty over the years. A colleague in the department of social sciences at Loughborough University reminded me of our responsibility to speak truth to power. I hope that I will fulfil that responsibility on behalf of women who are in fact better placed to speak that truth—and, with support, are more than able to do so—but who do not have access to power. As one such woman, involved with ATD Fourth World, said:

“We are powerless … not taken seriously, our voice not respected. I want to be heard, respected, my experience valued, not derided. Our voice can raise awareness of poverty and break the barriers down”.