Supreme Court Dillon Judgment

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend—I do not think I am meant to say “my noble friend”, but I am going to anyway. His advice and support while we are undertaking this is key, and while we may not be able to agree on every point in the legislation as it comes forward, I am very grateful for the time that he gives me.

The noble Lord asked specific questions about Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. We have always been firmly committed to Article 2 and to the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity it protects, as set out in the Good Friday agreement. On the specifics that he is asking for, I hope he will indulge me and let me write to him about the detail, but he raised a very important point about the Irish Government. The Government have done a joint framework agreement, which includes unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government. I am aware of the scepticism from certain parties about what the next steps will be. Although the interstate case is a matter for the Irish Government, the Secretary of State will raise it directly with the Minister for Foreign Affairs this week to discuss how it should be going.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords will forgive me as we start again down this road of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. I feel again the trauma of the bomb which took my unborn baby’s life, and I find it very difficult. We have to think very carefully here. I would like to say that I accept and value the contribution made by the military and all the other security forces in Northern Ireland. My own family served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. But given the fact that 25,000 to 30,000 paramilitaries were convicted, as opposed to three members of the military who were convicted during the Troubles, and given the fact that one person from the military has been convicted in the 28 years since the Good Friday agreement, is it perhaps time to refocus?

I hear constantly about the veterans, and I know how important it is, but is it not important not to make the victims the afterthought—the last reference in every case? Is it also not important that we look at the things that will enable them to have confidence in the new legacy commission? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the findings of the May report, which referred to the very significant structural weaknesses as a consequence of the Troubles Act 2023. I hope that the Minister will ensure that those structural weaknesses are removed in the new Troubles Bill. Although she told one noble Lord that the remedial order will be introduced but she cannot say when, can she write to us and tell us when it will happen, and can she tell us when the Troubles Bill will come back to the Commons? These things need to be dealt with.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness demonstrates, as she has previously, the heartbreak and the personal cost that too many Members of your Lordships’ House have faced, and that there is a face behind every one of the statistics and the stories that we read out. There is nothing I can do to fix some of that hurt; I wish there was, but this is our final attempt to do what we can, so that people can access the information and the answers they have waited for, in some cases for over 50 years.

On the specifics that the noble Baroness asked for, she raises an important point. Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself part of the military family—although on the periphery, unlike some of my noble friends, who are at the heart of it—and I also have the privilege of being allowed to wear a uniform, so the veterans’ provisions are incredibly important to me personally. But there is an issue here about the victims; we need to make sure that we are moving forward for them and that they are able to access what we put in as protections—as many protections as we can reasonably do for veterans.

The noble Baroness raised a very interesting point about the number of prosecutions and the number of people previously charged. As regards the current prosecutions that are under way, there are currently 10 live proceedings, six of which are about republican and paramilitary activity, two about loyalist paramilitary activity, one RUC and one military. When you look at those numbers, it is still quite clear that, although some of the narrative is elsewhere, the focus is still on the actions of the paramilitaries, as it should be. That does not mean we should not put the protections in place.

In terms of the specifics, I am not a business manager of this place or the other place, but noble Lords will have heard that the gracious Speech, which we are still discussing, referenced the Troubles Bill, and we will be discussing that in your Lordships’ House in due course.