Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

The noble Baroness talks about the number of complications being reduced in telemedical abortions, but the NHS statistics have shown a rise in the number of complications following the use of telemedical abortions, such that 12,000 people presented to hospital last year. Is the noble Baroness also aware that there is no collection of any statistics in Northern Ireland other than statistics delivered in accordance with the law? There are statistics on medical abortions and on surgical abortions, and that is it. There are no other statistics. I do not see where she is getting the evidence to support what she is saying in reference to abortion being decriminalised in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

On the noble Baroness’s first point, as I said, I acknowledge that the number of complications has gone up, but we have actually seen that the rate has gone down, because the number of abortions has increased. Even though that number has gone up, the actual rate has dropped by 25%. I am very happy to share the figures.

On the Northern Ireland statistics, that comes from the Northern Ireland medical association that provides the abortions. I completely agree that the more statistics and information we can have on this the better, so we are able to make fully informed decisions. Again, I am very happy to share that with the noble Baroness.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

The statistics in Northern Ireland are collected from the health trusts that deliver the abortions; they are not collected from anyone else.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

Yes, from the people who provide the abortions. As I say, I am very happy to share that information with the noble Baroness.

Telemedicine is a choice—

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord. I wonder whether he will give way; I thank him. The situations which he describes are all provided for in the Abortion Act.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for her point, because I appreciate that she is giving me a brief rest during a very emotional speech in my case. I apologise for it being an emotional speech, but when you have dealt with such patients frequently for many years, you forget exactly how serious this can be.

I have seen many women requesting terminations at all stages of their pregnancies, even very early and sometimes after in vitro fertilisation to get them pregnant. That is an extraordinary issue and you would not expect it to happen, but actually it happens throughout pregnancy. The women have such serious problems which may not show up as the kind of psychological problem that has been described.

I do not believe that any woman goes through a termination of pregnancy lightly. She certainly does not want to damage herself and do her own abortion. That is an extremely rare situation. The risk here is that we are trying to make law which is just impractical, in the real sense of the word, when we have such a range of syndromes and a population in which we cannot in fact diagnose pregnancy all the time, and never will be able to in people, for example, who are very poor or otherwise live in very serious circumstances and are damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, but, of course, the wrong question was asked. Let us be very clear, I personally do not want to see anybody criminalised, and I doubt that people want to see women who have gone through a very distressing situation be criminalised. But they would probably want to see a law, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, across the way, that dealt with the balance much better. Currently, that was the wrong question to answer.

I tabled the amendment because I am very worried about the real-world consequences for young women in vulnerable situations where, when they are being coerced, their abusers would know that no investigation is even possible. No matter where you stand on the question of abortion, surely noble Lords can see that the most vulnerable young women should be protected by us in law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, talked about women who had suffered from rape gangs. They are exactly the kind of women I think would have benefited from some kind of investigation. As it stands, Clause 191 will prevent that happening.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 461 and in support of the Clause 191 stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton. I have put my name to that stand part notice, too.

As other noble Lords have observed, Clause 191 was passed in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact. In moving the amendment, the Member for Gower noted that it was about ensuring only that

“vulnerable women … have the right help and support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 306.]

I am sure that we all support the provision of appropriate and timely support for a woman considering an abortion. However, it drastically understates the effect of Clause 191, regardless of the intent of its mover.

We must confront the radical legal reality that this clause removes all deterrence against a woman performing her own abortion up to the very moment of birth. How does that ensure that women have the right help and support? The clause will decriminalise actions by a woman at any stage of her pregnancy, including actions which are criminal at present under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.

In 1929, they knew that a child who has been in the womb for 28 weeks was capable of being born alive. Now, we know of children who are born alive at 22 weeks and live. In 2020 and 2021, 261 babies were born alive at 22 and 23 weeks, before the abortion limit, who survived to be discharged from hospital. Why is abortion so distressing? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, it is because, by 23 weeks, the unborn baby has all its organs, muscles, limbs, bones and sex organs, it may hear, and it makes facial expressions, responds to loud noises, is getting into a pattern of sleeping and waking, practices breathing and it definitely feels pain. After that, they just keep growing.

Proponents of Clause 191 have been at pain to say that the Abortion Act is not changed and that the time limits remain the same, but that is not the reality of the clause. Clause 191 may not repeal the Abortion Act but it renders its protections largely symbolic in practice. At present, the Act operates as a tightly drawn exception to criminal offences that otherwise prohibit ending a pregnancy. Its force comes from the fact that abortion outside its conditions is unlawful. Once associated consequences are removed, the framework ceases to be a deterrent or a boundary for conduct and becomes, in effect, merely a regulatory code for providers, albeit with criminal consequences for clinicians who are left untouched for now. It is a profound shift. Time limits, certification requirements and clinical safeguards would no longer operate as meaningful legal limits on a woman’s actions.

Clause 191 is not an outworking of modernised enforcement; it is a hollowing out of the underlying settlement, which nullifies the protective structure built into the 1967 Act, particularly its recognition that abortion law is not a matter of personal autonomy but one of safety, safeguarding and the status of the viable unborn child. Both lives matter. The issue is not whether the Abortion Act still exists on the statute book; it is whether it still performs the function that Parliament intended. Clause 191 leaves the text intact while removing the mechanism that makes its limits real. I strongly urge noble Lords to support the removal of Clause 191 from the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I wish to finish my sentence.

The woman may be unable to deliver it. It may get stuck in the birth canal. If it survives the attempt to terminate its life, it may be born alive, as babies still are. What then? What of the mother? When one gives birth, one is monitored by doctors to ensure no crises occur, if possible. Those crises can include haemorrhage, damage to the womb and bladder, and, in the worst cases, death.

If the Bill is passed and a mother chooses to terminate her baby other than as provided for in the Abortion Act, she will not be prosecuted. She may have been coerced into it, as we have heard at length, for a variety of reasons, but, despite being decriminalised, she may die or face life-changing injuries.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

The noble Baroness paints a very vivid picture of how traumatic it is for a woman to go through this once late-term. I am sure all of us would agree that nobody would do this lightly. Does that not reinforce why it is so important that the woman should not be in a position where she thought she could be investigated by the police at this point and why she should go and seek medical advice, safe in the knowledge that she was not potentially going to end up in prison?

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

There are situations in which the woman in that case, under the Abortion Act, can seek help. I would expect that she would, but there are situations in which she may not. I simply ask the Government how they expect it to happen. Doctors administer these drugs. Doctors look after us in childbirth. We do not do it ourselves.

I move to Amendment 461. A considerable danger associated with Clause 191 is the activities of abusers and exploiters. The shield, which would be reimposed if telemedicine were stopped, is a requirement for all women considering abortion. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman’s privacy and that she is not being coerced, or to verify that the person seeking the medication is the person who will actually take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking. It is important that the medication is not taken by a woman whose pregnancy exceeds 10 weeks. The NHS reported in July 2025 that, since 2020, 54,000 women have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from birth pills. Last year alone, there were 12,000.

In removing the criminal status of abortion, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, we perversely incentivise abusers to pressure vulnerable women into dangerous, isolated and self-administered late-term abortions. My Amendment 461 is a safeguard against that, which I hope noble Lords will be minded to support. It would create a provision analogous to that found in Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961—a special offence of encouraging or assisting an abortion which is unlawful under the terms of the Abortion Act.

The amendment would not chill medical advice or online information. It requires intent, which is a distinct threshold. Ordinary clinical counselling or neutral provision of information would not meet the test. The amendment does not engage with or change what is lawful under the Abortion Act. It concerns only unlawful terminations and intentional encouragement or assistance. If an abortion is lawful, the offence does not arise. Perhaps most importantly, its desired effect is safeguarding vulnerable women.

Under the current wording of Clause 191, there is a risk, if self-administering an abortion is no longer a crime, that the woman can be pressurised. By legislating expressly where safeguarding is paramount and creating a clear specific offence, we would send a strong protective signal for women. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and to talk to clinicians, et cetera. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary response. I urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise with a certain level of trepidation and fear to convey a contribution during this debate, as I am not a mother. I have never enjoyed motherhood; therefore, I do not have the experiences of many women right across this Chamber. But I rise to support Amendment 460, to which I am pleased to be a signatory and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has already spoken, and the clause stand part notice on Clause 191 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.

I support Amendment 460 because the health risks of obtaining abortion pills without adequate prior in-person checks are now well documented. I feel that if they are to be available—if that is the way you support—you need an ultrasound and a full investigation.

I simply add one further example to those which have already been cited. The Irish Medical Journal published an article in March 2024 explaining how a woman in Ireland nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy after taking abortion pills. The article reported that the case

“could have been prevented by an ultrasound”.

If women once again had mandatory in-person scans, it would protect them, allowing ectopic pregnancies and other possible health risks to be picked up more reliably.

However, as has been noted, the woman is not our only consideration. I agree that there is a need to protect the woman but also the unborn child. By allowing Clause 191 to stand, we would remove the legal safeguards that exist to protect an unborn baby after the point of viability, when a baby could survive outside the womb. I contend that this is a radical and unpopular proposal. Indeed, this is an issue that should unite those of us who are pro-life and those of us who are pro-choice. In an article for the Times entitled “I’ve always been pro-choice but this is too far”, the well-known pro-choice commentator Janice Turner wrote

“I find it discomforting that a woman could abort a full-term baby and face no sanctions”.

She is not alone. Polling in 2024 found that only 1% of women support abortion up to birth, while just 16% of the public support removing a legal deterrent after the 24-week limit. In fact, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in our abortion time limits, not permitting women to induce their own abortions up to birth, as would de facto become the case under Clause 191.

As a Northern Irish Peer, I echo the earlier comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, regarding Northern Ireland. I was concerned to hear suggestions in the other place, during the truncated Report debate on this clause, that there are considerations about whether to introduce pills by post in Northern Ireland. I am deeply worried about this possibility. If supporters of Clause 191 really wish to bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, as they claim, I make a simple suggestion that they ought to support Amendment 460 and reintroduce the in-person appointments that we rightly continue to have in Northern Ireland.

I finish by quoting the Times leading article, published two days after Clause 191 passed in the other place:

“Even the most ardent advocate of a woman’s right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. While women considering ultra-late termination must”—


I support them in this—“be regarded” and supported

“with the greatest understanding and sympathy”,

as well as with compassion and humanity,

“the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly”.

I know there are different views on that issue right across the Chamber, but I hold my view, and I respect the views of others who take a different viewpoint. There has been no great public clamour, I believe, for this change. I very much hope that Clause 191 will not remain part of the Bill, and I also support Amendment 460 to which I am a signatory.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am very grateful to our security services for keeping many Members of your Lordships’ House safe and saving their lives, including the noble Lord. Let us be very clear what we are talking about here: the Provisional IRA were responsible for over 1,700 murders, and we need to make sure that that is reflected in these conversations.

On the noble Lord’s comments on the Irish Government, I have been clear that there is a new framework and agreement. This is historic, and the first time we have been able to achieve such. I look forward to working with the Irish Government to make sure that they, as we will, bring forward new legislation.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I served on the steering group for Operation Kenova.

The Secretary of State said yesterday of the NCND policy that

“in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/25; col. 172.]

MI5 knew about Stakeknife’s recruitment from the outset. It knew his identity, his role within the IRA and about his involvement in abduction, interrogation and murder. It knew that murders could have been prevented had his activities been terminated earlier and action taken by the state. Families know that their loved ones were murdered by a man who was allowed to carry on murdering by agents of the state. He is now dead. His identity is known worldwide; it is running in newspapers across the world today. Does the Minister agree that this situation constitutes “particular reasons” and that regardless of any judgments yet to come, Stakeknife should be named now?

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

First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done with Kenova; it is a truly sobering piece of work and an incredibly important addition.

When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, it calls into question the whole premise of the Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy, which is vital for national security. On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, the Northern Ireland Secretary has set out in a letter to Sir Iain Livingstone, which is available in the Library, that the Government will issue a substantive and final response to that request after the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the Thompson case, which is relevant to NCND policy.

I want to make it clear that the alleged behaviour revealed in this report is deeply disturbing, and such activities would simply not be tolerated today.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

One of the most important things about the additional powers we are giving to the legacy commission is the new governance structures, which I hope will give a level of confidence about its independence. That is not to say the Secretary of State will be completely isolated; we are talking about some issues relating to national security and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation. However, we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what when, and so that people can have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary.

On a victims-centred process, let us remember why we are doing this: it is about victims, their families and people. Candidly, it is not about most of us in your Lordships’ House—though there are notable exceptions to that. This is about making sure that everyone has the answers they need. Every family I have talked to needs a different set of answers and is looking for different things from the commission; we need to ensure that what they want and need is at the heart of it.

Of course we will continue engagement. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us. All political parties will be engaged, both inside and outside the Chamber. We will continue to actively engage with all victims’ groups.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a victim of IRA terrorism. As I stand yet again to speak on legacy matters, I feel that trauma rising in me; I feel my heart beating and the distress, and for those who have suffered both outside and inside this House, it is always traumatic when we get to these things. However, I welcome the Government’s proposed legislation, though I have not had time to consider it in detail. I want to make two points.

Having had members of my family serve in the military in Northern Ireland, I understand the position with regard to veterans. However, it will be profoundly important—and I hope the Minister can assure me—that veterans, former members of the PSNI and any serving members of the PSNI from that era and ordinary people in Northern Ireland will all receive the same treatment under the rule of law and that there will be no special treatment for veterans.

For example, many people who suffered in the trauma of the Troubles left Northern Ireland. They presumably will be afforded the same right to give evidence and be interviewed at a distance as those veterans who are in Northern Ireland. It is profoundly important that happens because there was no trust in the Northern Ireland Troubles legacy Act and it is vital we get this right to allow people to have trust in it.

Secondly, despite £250 million being allocated, it is going to be vital that there is not just support for the PSNI in this. Our public prosecution and court services are broken; cases take far too long to get to court and there does not seem to be the lawyers to operate and move things along smoothly. There needs to be real thought about how we underpin the processes we are going to set under way. I therefore ask the Minister for assurances that there will be wider consideration there.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She reminds all of us of the personal cost that many people in your Lordships’ House and across Parliament have paid. She also reminds me of why I am so passionate about what we are trying to achieve: making sure that she and others get answers, but also making sure that this is the final generation that has to carry this burden. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year, I met with a group of people who called themselves the “peace babies”. It is incredibly important that we hold on to the peace babies and that they do not have to carry the burden of this trauma.

With regard to the specifics, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Veterans Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said in July that this is not a call for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That should apply to everybody; everyone should receive the same treatment under the law. Protections will apply to all victims. I want to be very clear to noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with a view to what was specifically impacting veterans; while other people will benefit from it, we did start with that process.

On the court system, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. My hope and expectation is that most people will seek to use the legacy commission. That is why we are strengthening the commission, its governance and hopefully giving more people confidence in it, so that it will not overburden the courts. I will revert on the other points that she made.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, what is really important, now that the independent commission is operational as of last Wednesday, is that we give it the time and space to carry out investigations and do its work in delivering answers for victims and survivors. I must point out that I read the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Irish News last week, and what was clear, once I managed to decipher the complete muddle in that interview, was that the party opposite has no coherent plan for dealing with legacy matters whatever, other than taking us back to square one.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the legacies of the Troubles is the high level of trauma and PTSD suffered by victims? The answers to the questions on the legacy Act did not include the Minister informing the House that major provisions of that Act have now been held by the High Court in Belfast to be in breach of national and international law. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to provide support to those who have been further traumatised by the passing of this Act and the consequential termination of normal processes, such as inquests, many of which could not proceed because of the refusal of the Northern Ireland Office and MI5 to grant disclosure of materials, even in the form of gists prepared by the PSNI? What support will be available to families who have attended up to 40 hearings trying to get that information and whose inquests are now closed?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.

Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

The fundamental conundrum is that Brexit meant a stark choice for English Conservatives and unionists. The harder the Brexit—and both the Tories and the DUP chose a very hard Brexit—the harder the trade border in the Irish Sea and the greater the discomfort for unionists and those Conservatives who trumpet their support for the union but—notably like Boris Johnson and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, did with their Brexit deal—in fact often betray it. None of us knows how all this will play out over the next decade or so, but we can be sure that Brexit will continue to poison the shallow well of peace and stability on the island of Ireland, and that is a cause of continuing concern.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in relation to the wind-down of the inquests as a consequence of the legacy Act. What is happening in Northern Ireland is outrageous at the moment and causes huge distress to victims.

These instruments derive from the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union, which was stated to be the product of detailed discussions with the Democratic Unionist Party. Paragraph 2 of the paper refers to these discussions being conducted alongside

“engagement with other Northern Ireland political parties and the business community”.

Could the Minister tell the House with whom that engagement took place, since other parties were apparently not sighted of the content of this Command Paper? Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House why the agreed processes of the Good Friday agreement, which are intended to ensure inclusivity and all-party engagement in order to make change or develop matters, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which was passed to make provision for the Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of implementing the agreement reached at the multi-party talks in Northern Ireland, did not operate in this case?

It may have been predicated on enabling the DUP to return to government in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and I am glad to see the Assembly back and running. However, exclusion of all but one party at this critical time, and the failure to follow the principles established in the Northern Ireland Act in the creation of government policy affecting Northern Ireland, are unlikely to generate trust among the political parties or in the UK Government.

In the multiparty document recommending the Good Friday agreement to the people of Northern Ireland, the signatories said:

“We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations … we will endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed arrangements … we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement. It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements—an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland—are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on … the other”.


In that context, there is a regrettable tone to parts of the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union. The agreements made seem to have been totally ignored, as the Government state in paragraph 14 of the executive summary of the Command Paper:

“Overall, this package of measures reflects the outcome of the negotiations with the Democratic Unionist Party; builds upon the progress secured by the Windsor Framework while securing further changes to its operation; looks forward with a broad range of significant further protections for the UK internal market, including in statute; and establishes the structures that will preserve these protections for the long-term”.


The Government say that there needs

“to be ongoing reflection … The Government is fully committed to that ongoing engagement and work, so that all agreed arrangements operate fully consistently with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and its internal market, now and in the future”.

Much of what is of substance and contained in the Command Paper is not new; it derives from work done more than a year ago with the EU. Notwithstanding that, given the importance of trust to the functioning of the Northern Ireland Assembly, can the Minister assure the House that future reflection, negotiation and legislative activity will be the product of discussion with all the parties and that there will be no further situation in which the Government negotiate and then legislate on the basis of a document agreed with one party only?

Regulation 2(3) of the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations prohibits the UK ratifying a Northern Ireland-related agreement with the EU that would give rise to a “regulatory border”. Apart from the fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, that provision lacks clarity and could result, given the significant economic consequences involved in future EU-NI agreements, in complex and lengthy litigation between parties seeking to assert that a particular measure does or does not involve a regulatory border.

Much good work has been done between the EU and the UK, and there are now vastly simplified procedures applicable in a range of areas such as medicines, customs, the transportation of goods, agri-food, the movement of pets and the entry of plants, shrubs, trees and seeds to Northern Ireland. All that indicates good and constructive work between the UK and the EU, but it is most important that this constructive working relationship is not damaged by unilateral action on the part of the UK.

Many issues remain to be agreed between the EU and the UK. For example, while UK public health standards will apply to goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, EU requirements for animal health and plant health remain fully in place to prevent any risk of transmissible diseases on the island of Ireland and such diseases spreading to other parts of the EU single market. There is also a significant outstanding problem with veterinary medicines, which requires urgent action to prevent significant problems for the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland.

Complex new arrangements have been introduced through the Command Paper for internal market assessments, which will require consideration of whether a new regulation may result in increased red tape or barriers for trade between the constituent parts of the UK and within our internal market. The Government have committed themselves in the Command Paper and the SI to

“an enforceable means for the economic rights of Northern Ireland to be upheld in accordance with the Windsor Framework”.

The amendment of Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to provide a new transparency obligation, is to be welcomed. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, in the absence of a definition of the term “significant adverse effect”, it is not clear how that provision will be interpreted and to what extent it will be effective. Can the Minister provide any more information than that provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that this will be a matter for government departments to assess?

The second SI seeks to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the UK internal market—that is to be welcomed. Some very burdensome processes resulted from the Northern Ireland protocol. The evidence received by the Northern Ireland protocol committee—now the Windsor Framework committee, on which I serve—was extensive and indicative of significant additional costs being imposed on businesses seeking to import goods from GB, which might pass through that part of the EU internal market in goods that exists in Northern Ireland to EU states such as the Republic of Ireland. It articulates a number of provisions for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to issue guidance to assist business and authorities operating in what can be a complex environment. However, the Command Paper refers to the fact that two separate regulatory systems will continue to apply in Northern Ireland: that of the UK and that of the EU in so far as goods are affected.

Today’s disclosure that the financial settlement that accompanied the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be accompanied by conditions to be detailed “in due course” does not encourage hope. Northern Ireland is the lowest-earning region of the UK. It has 130,000 long-term sick people and has economic inactivity rates of 26.8%, including those who care for the long-term sick and injured, many of whom suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the Troubles. If the whole of the UK suffered from those levels of long-term sickness, some 4.5 million people would be long-term sick, rather than the current 1.1 million. Can the Minister assure the House that the conditions to be imposed will not make life even harder for the Northern Ireland population, in effect stealth taxing them further and thus reducing the existing very low incomes of so many people in Northern Ireland?

These instruments will be passed by your Lordships today. What is important is that future government legislative activity is the product of consultation and discussion with all the parties in Northern Ireland, so that trust in the Government develops, and that it takes into account the knowledge and experience of those who do business in and with Northern Ireland, so as to ensure maximum future prosperity in the whole United Kingdom.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and to take part in the debate. There are two aspects to the package that the Government have brought forward. One is the Command Paper itself, which contains much in the way of the presentation, justification, pledges and promises of new bodies and so on. I hope that there will be an opportunity, at some time in the near future, to debate in full the Command Paper, because what we are also dealing with tonight is the second aspect of the package: the legal instruments and provision. They are what really matter, because it is only legal change—by legislation—that can alter the current arrangements under the protocol/Windsor Framework.

What do these statutory instruments actually do? In essence, the critical question for many unionists in Northern Ireland, from various parties and none, is: do they remove the Irish Sea border and its cause—the subjection of Northern Ireland to foreign jurisdiction regarding the production of goods and agri-food, a large part of our economy?

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir. Noble Lords have been consistent across the House in their opposition to the contents of this Bill, which I believe are deeply iniquitous. For me, they represent a denial of basic human rights—access to justice and truth, the very things that victims and survivors have yearned for over many years.

I am deeply disappointed that the Commons, on a majority vote, rejected our reasonable amendment, which was supported across this House last week. None the less, I do not think that the issue will be resolved by this Bill. I believe that Sir Declan and his commissioners will meet many legal challenges; in fact, he invited them in his Irish News interview on Monday 28 August, which suggests that he might have doubts about this process.

Notwithstanding that, this House has stood solidly and steadfastly with the victims and survivors. I was disappointed again when I heard the Secretary of State in an interview a few days ago, as he did not seem to reflect on, think about, empathise with or sympathise with the views of victims. He simply dismissed them. This was another denial of their right to justice and human rights. Always remember that victims of the Troubles have suffered immeasurably in many ways, whether physically or mentally, over a long period, through the loss of loved ones.

So, we still disagree with this Bill. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State has indicated that a future Labour Government will repeal the Act. I look forward to that day, because I know where I stand: it is with the victims and survivors, right across the board.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in opposition to the Government’s removal of the opportunity for family members of those who died in the Troubles to play a role in the decision as to whether immunity should be granted under the Bill. Accepting your Lordships’ amendment would have given victims the opportunity, at least, to have a role in the decision as to whether to grant murderers immunity for the murder of their loved one.

Today is a terrible day for the people of the United Kingdom and for the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It is a day of shame. It is the day on which Parliament is legislating to remove from people across the UK who were victims of the Troubles access, in accordance with the rule of law and our international legal obligations, to criminal prosecutions, civil actions for damages for loss and injury caused, and to inquests. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government are forcing through not only these restrictions but their immunity clause, despite the fact that, as the Secretary of State said most recently,

“There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/23; col. 439.]


at all.

How do your Lordships think the people of Northern Ireland and the other victims of the Troubles across Great Britain felt on hearing those words? At least the current system had been gradually providing verifiable and accurate information for victims, despite the best efforts of those who sought to limit access to information. The Secretary of State said yesterday that, despite the widespread opposition to the legacy Bill from politicians and victims, he has not been presented with an alternative option. This is untrue. The Government have been presented with alternatives during the passage of the Bill which included a fully empowered independent commission that would have investigated in compliance with all our legal obligations. Those alternatives have all been rejected by the Government, who have used their parliamentary majority to force through this iniquitous Bill against the wishes of every political party, community group, victims’ group, human rights organisation, et cetera. Nobody in Northern Ireland and nobody among the GB victims’ groups wants this law.

On this day, His Majesty’s Government are using their parliamentary majority to force through a Bill that is already subject to challenge in the courts. There is now tremendous pressure on the party in opposition to live up to its commitment to repeal the Bill if it wins the next election. Even more, there is huge international pressure on the Irish Government to institute legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the UK’s failure to comply with its legal obligations under the treaty. I very much hope that they will bring those proceedings.

A country which does not respect the rule of law and its international legal obligations loses its legitimacy in the wider world. In passing this Bill, the United Kingdom is not, as His Majesty’s Government have claimed, seeking to provide truth and reconciliation for the people of Northern Ireland and for all the victims of the Troubles across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a very pertinent question, and I hope the Minister will reply to it. The effect of this Bill is to restrict access to legal remedies, which are enjoyed by everybody else in the United Kingdom, for that small and unfortunate group of victims, several thousand in number, who suffered so terribly during the Troubles. I cannot support this amendment.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, in my years of service to this House I cannot think of an occasion when sadness, disillusionment and indeed anger pressed upon me to the extent they do today. Over the months we have worked to try to improve this Bill, I have listened to many highly technical speeches based on great parliamentary experience. But to that I have to add one other element today which it has been my sad duty to bring to the attention of this House over that period.

It is to tell noble Lords that the word “victimhood” has become so used that we have lost sight of what or who a victim is. A victim exists with a picture on the mantelpiece. A victim exists with frequent visits to a hospital for treatment. A victim exists in the grandmother trying to explain to grandchildren what happened to members of that family. A victim is one who believed at one stage that the mother of Parliaments would understand their dilemma.

I have paid tribute on several occasions to the Minister for his patience in dealing with this issue, but I have to say this afternoon that he has not gone far enough. The feeling of sadness which overwhelms me is based on my many years of service to victims—to the men, women and children who were the real sufferers of our Troubles. I cannot get them out of my mind at this moment: the funerals, the addresses at funerals, the comfort in the hospital ward or beside a bedside. That is the whole background: the human side of “victim”. The human side is an ageing population who have been through the Troubles, and who now, by the passage of time, have looked with some hope to what we were going to pass in Parliament.

Way back, all those years ago, when Denis Bradley and I were asked to make the first attempt at dealing with the combined reconciliation and legacy issue, we set out on a journey which ends at this moment, in your Lordships’ House, so my feelings run very deep. Irrespective of the Opposition’s assurance that they will repeal this legislation one day if they are in power, and irrespective of the politics of it all, I speak of the broken hearts, the broken bodies and the irreconcilable issues that face ordinary decent people. I think of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the civilians, caught up in this. I think of the work in hospital wards by dedicated doctors and nurses, and I can still hear in my mind the drumbeat of the procession to the grave. I say to the Government: surely, they have brought us not to a crossroads but to the edge of a cliff, and Northern Ireland is tottering at the edge.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

It is for that reason that I favour very much a statute of limitations, and I am prepared to call it an amnesty. That is what we recommended when I was at the Foreign Office for many countries that had been through periods of civil discord, and that is what I think is the proper way forward. However, I know full well that that is not a majority view, either in this House or in the Province, or indeed in Ireland itself. That being so, I favour the position adopted by the Government rather than that advocated by the noble Lord, much as I respect him.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 13, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 18.

The Bill removes fundamental legal rights from victims of the Troubles throughout the United Kingdom. The aim of the Bill is clear. The Minister referred to the purpose of the Bill in his introductory remarks, but actually the Long Title says that its purpose is to limit criminal investigations, civil legal proceedings and inquests, despite the fact that by May 2024, there will be some 15 outstanding legacy inquests to be heard. It is also to prevent police complaints investigations—all this into matters arising between 1966 and 1998. All these ancient and balanced legal procedures are being removed under the Bill, as well, it has to be said, as all the protections and powers that the courts have in the conduct of criminal, civil and inquest proceedings.

The Minister’s amendments do not address the deficiencies identified in the Bill by so many across the world—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to them—and the other place’s responses to the amendments made in your Lordships’ House do not address the deficiencies identified either.

It is important to remember that the Council of Europe, its Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN special rapporteurs, national human rights organisations, our own parliamentary committees, civil society organisations, all political parties in the UK, with the exception of the Conservative Party, political parties in Ireland and the US, victims groups and community groups have all declared the Bill to be unacceptable because of its manifest deficiencies, and because of the breach of our international legal obligations.

I remind noble Lords of the fact that, under the Bill, the ICRIR does not even have powers to demand information as of right but must justify each request as reasonable. That does not happen in normal criminal investigations. Yet untrammelled access to information is fundamental to the conduct of criminal investigations, and it has frequently only been the determination of judges, coroners, lawyers and litigants which has resulted in the disclosure of relevant and important information which should have been disclosed as a matter of course. Even in that situation, the police and the MoD have frequently said that they cannot produce the material because they do not have the resources to do so.

The answer to this situation cannot be to close down the justice system; rather, as Patten recommended, policing must be delivered in the context of a coherent and co-operative justice system. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. For example, the Kenova investigation submitted some 33 files from 2019 onwards, but no decisions have been made by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland because it does not have access to the lawyers it needs.

The Secretary of State and the Minister keep reiterating that resources must be found within the Northern Ireland budget, yet what happened in Northern Ireland over the years of the Troubles was not the responsibility of paramilitaries alone. Agents of the state also played their part. In my 2007 report on the case of the murder of Raymond McCord Junior and associated matters, I said:

“it has emerged that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF. There was no effective strategic management of these informants, and as a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF particularly, in North Belfast and Newtownabbey, was consolidated and strengthened … information was withheld … Instructions were given that matters should not be recorded. The general absence of records has prevented senior officers, who clearly have significant responsibility for the failings, from being held to account. It is abundantly clear that this was not an oversight, but was a deliberate strategy and had the effect of avoiding proper accountability”.

That was accepted by the chief constable at the time and by the Secretary of State. In many other cases, there were similar findings. It is these situations, for which the state had responsibility, which demonstrate what happened and show the responsibility of the state for some of it. That is why I would argue that the Government have, at the very least, a moral duty to support those engaged in the pursuit of justice and truth and not to impede their search for it through passing this Bill—for that is what this Bill in its final form will do.

Your Lordships have discussed at length the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of investigation and pondered the Government’s commitments under the Good Friday agreement. The Minister’s Motion A does not make the Bill compliant with the ECHR or the Good Friday agreement. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would at least impose an obligation for any regulations made by the Secretary of State in this context to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and be subject, as he so articulately said, to the affirmative procedure.

The conditional immunity scheme, despite the Government’s amendments and others tabled by noble Lords, remains in breach of the Government’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement to provide people with access to the courts and remedies for breaches of the convention. That fact is profoundly important.

Victims’ groups such as the Truth and Justice Movement regard this Bill as destroying their democratic and human right to truth and justice. Nobody, not even the Government, thinks that this Bill will provide truth and justice, let alone reconciliation. The Secretary of State has repeatedly acknowledged the problems with the Bill, most recently stating:

“This Government believes that the conditional immunity provisions will be key in helping to generate the greatest volume of information, in the quickest possible time”.


There is no evidence to demonstrate that immunity will have this effect and it is well known that former paramilitaries involved in murder really have no incentive to tell all. All they have to do is sit out the five years within which cases may be brought for review. Even when information is provided, it is rarely the whole truth. On some occasions, information that has been provided has been demonstrated to be untrue.

The conditional immunity scheme which the Minister is again promoting, and which we are debating, would result in impunity for serious human rights violations and the unilateral shutting down of avenues to justice for victims and would give rise to questions about the ability of the independent commission for information recovery to deliver outcomes that would meet human rights standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks by his amendment to provide the victims of the Troubles and the close family members of those who died with the right to be asked for their consent to a grant of immunity. It states that the chief commissioner must be satisfied

“the close family member has given consent for the granting of immunity and no objections have been raised by any other close family member within three months of the consent being given”.

Alternatively,

“if no consent has been given by that close family member within three months or an objection has been raised by any other close family member”

within three months, the chief commissioner can decide that

“it is nevertheless in the public interest to proceed with the granting of immunity”,

regardless of the views of the family. This modest amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks to put victims at the centre of the process of granting immunity. It is qualified by an overriding right of the ICRIR chief commissioner to determine that, even when victims do not want immunity granted to a perpetrator, the views of the victims can be overridden in the public interest.

One of the problems of the current system is that judicial review has repeatedly been necessary to challenge decisions made by public authorities involved in dealing with legacy. Judicial reviews cost a lot of money. They take a long time to be resolved in our underresourced legal system, and they cause immense further distress to victims. If approved, the Secretary of State’s amendment will simply lead to more judicial reviews. Rather than solve the problem, it will add to it.

Your Lordships were right to remove Clause 18 from the Bill. The other place has—as it is entitled to do—overridden your Lordships. This amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will at least qualify the operation of Clause 18 by inserting some recognition of the fact that any process which ignores the views of victims simply has the capacity to cause them even more suffering, rather than to promote reconciliation.

As the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, said, the Bill is fatally flawed. It deprives people across the United Kingdom who suffered so grievously during the Troubles of their fundamental rights under the Good Friday agreement, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. If and when it is passed, it will lead to lengthy and complex litigation—something welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Declan Morgan. This is not the way to promote reconciliation in a divided society. In the event of a Division, I will support the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, I once more find myself speaking as earnestly as I can in support of the sentiments of two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland—two men who undertook those tasks at times of division, suffering and what I can only term injustice for so many people in Northern Ireland. Given the fact that two men who had that experience have voiced sentiments in your Lordships’ House this afternoon and spoken in terms of their experience, I cannot understand why His Majesty’s Government do not understand that there are those outside this Chamber and this Mother of Parliaments who cannot understand why their voices are being ignored.

Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s amendments and I will confine my remarks to them. First, I observe that this shows how quickly the Government can move when they decide to legislate in respect of Northern Ireland to remedy an obvious injustice. Therefore, I hope that, on future occasions when we raise issues of concern that have support in Northern Ireland, the Government will be loath to use the argument that parliamentary time does not permit.

Secondly, people from right across all communities and all parties in Northern Ireland—except Sinn Féin, of course—will breathe a sigh of relief at the prospect that the godfather of terrorism over many decades, Gerry Adams, will not, on a technicality, be able to benefit from the largesse of the British taxpayer, when so many widows and the thousands of families that he and his organisation caused such suffering to, have struggled with very little compensation or recompense for many years. That injustice will be put right in this House and this Parliament. That will be warmly welcomed by those who really believe in true justice.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, Clause 42, to which this amendment applies, deprives those who suffered loss or damage as a consequence of the Troubles of the ability to bring or continue any civil action after 17 May 2022—some 14 months ago. A relatively small group of UK citizens from every part of these islands is to be deprived of their rights not only to bring a civil action but to inquests and to full human rights-compliant criminal investigations by virtue of the restrictions still placed on the investigative powers of the ICRIR by this Bill.

The long title of the Bill is amended by one of the amendments. It describes the purposes of the Bill as being to

“promote reconciliation by establishing an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints”.

The purpose of the Bill is clearly stated, but at no stage has the Minister explained how it is expected that limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and the investigation of police complaints will promote reconciliation. I am unaware of anyone who thinks it will.

The real purpose of the Bill is to protect the Government from having to pay damages for those occasions on which investigation reveals that the state acted in breach of its duties to protect life. At its simplest, if somebody was murdered, and the state had prior knowledge and did not intervene or prevented proper investigation—and we know that these things happened right across our communities—a cause of action is disclosed. Now, in addition to the provisions of these amendments, there will be no right of action for bereaved and grieving families. That is the first purpose: to stop civil actions. The second purpose is to control access to information so that some people will never be able to prove what happened in cases involving state actors. The third purpose is to protect those veterans—they are few—both police and military, who may have committed the greatest crime, that of murder, from being subjected to due process. This Bill, as everyone has said, has been roundly and consistently condemned in the UK, by the Council of Europe, by the European High Commissioner for Human Rights, by the UN and by many others. It is a terrible breach of our international legal obligations.

Internment without trial was introduced on 9 August 1971 and continued until 5 December 1975. About 340 people were detained initially, often just scooped up by the Army because of their age and where they lived. About 100 were released within 48 hours; 17 people died in the rioting which followed and an estimated 7,000 Catholics had to flee their homes when they were attacked by loyalists. Initially, internment was carried out under regulations made under the special powers Act. All those detained were from the Catholic community. The interpretation of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—introduced that November—by the Supreme Court is the subject of today’s government amendment. Overall, 1,981 people were detained without trial, 1,874 from the Catholic/nationalist/republican community and 107 from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community. That began in 1973. It is generally accepted that internment without trial was a major recruiting agent for the IRA, and the Government said decades ago that they would never introduce it again.

It is also generally accepted in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that Gerry Adams was in the IRA and that he served on the IRA army council. As one who, as a young woman, lost my baby when I was caught in an IRA bomb explosion, I fully understand the revulsion at the idea that he and others who were involved in violence might now be able to recover even more money as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in this case. A briefing on the Supreme Court judgment by Richard Ekins KC and Sir Stephen Laws is helpful in defining the justification for and the parameters of the amendment. Ekins and Laws describe how the process worked. Detention began with the making of an interim custody order, which was an exercise of a power conferred by the 1972 order on the Secretary of State. The order specified that only the Secretary of State, a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State could sign an interim custody order.

They went on to say that

“detention under the 1972 Order only began with the making of an interim custody order. Detention was only able to continue for more than 28 days when the Chief Constable had referred the matter to the Commissioner (a former judge or senior lawyer) who would consider the matter afresh. If the Commissioner was satisfied that the person in question was involved in terrorism, the Commissioner would make a detention order. When Mr Adams escaped from custody, his continuing detention, beyond the period of the interim custody order, had been authorised by a Commissioner who had made a fresh decision”.

This amendment seeks only to address the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is not about the merits of detention without trial. It is about whether the Carltona principles should have applied to prevent the Secretary of State having to consider each application personally. It is also about stopping the significant number of civil actions lodged after the Supreme Court judgment.

Internment without trial should never have happened, but this amendment is not about that. For that reason, while I will not oppose these amendments, I look forward to the Minister giving the assurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the extent of the exercise of powers anticipated to make secondary legislation under the powers conferred by the Bill.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I broadly welcome these government amendments. This is a complex matter, as the interventions this afternoon have illustrated, but I am glad that the Minister has managed to find a solution that is, broadly speaking, acceptable to all, subject to the comments made for the record by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

I have only one question for the Minister regarding these Third Reading amendments. I assume that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice was also consulted and that it is happy with these proposals. Could the Minister perhaps confirm that that is the case?

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 26th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness O'Loan]

110: Clause 40, leave out Clause 40
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would delete the Clause that prohibits all existing and future inquests, investigations and inquiries into the deaths resulting directly from The Troubles.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment would delete the prohibition on inquests, which are an ancient part of our legal history. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

With deep respect and sympathy for colleagues from Northern Ireland, I would say that we ought not to equate terrorism with one set of values, very commonly the nationalist set of values. We should seek a democratic political solution, as we have in Wales and, with certain difficulties that we are all aware of, in Scotland. In my view, it would be truer to the aspirations of the one-time leader of Sinn Féin, Arthur Griffith, if one conducted affairs in that peaceful, tolerant and open-minded way.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, this part of the Bill, providing for history and memorialisation, is about creating as true and honest an account as is possible of what happened during our tortured, troubled past, an account which must have integrity.

It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation-of Troubles-related offences. Yet every day as I drive around Northern Ireland at this time of year, I see the flags erected—the flags which tell me that, as a Catholic, I am not welcome. In today’s Irish News we have an article about one of the Shankill butchers, a gang which went around killing Catholics simply because they were Catholics. This man served life. He is pictured erecting UVF flags commemorating the activities of the organisation to which he belonged.

Terrorism occurred right across our community. It occurred and was perpetrated by members of illegal organisations such as the UVF, the UDA, the IRA et cetera. However, there were also members of the security forces—both the police and the Army—who engaged with those groups. We cannot deny this; it has been proved. Most police officers served with honour. Most acted to protect us, as they acted to protect my family one night, when we were under attack, but that was not always the case. There were those who did such terribly wrong things. I think about the Glenanne gang, who for years terrorised south Armagh, killing some 127 Catholics. This is the subject of the present Operation Denton review.

Just a mile down the road from where I live was a young Catholic man who ran a little shop. One night, at two o’clock in the morning, two men came to the door, knocked, and said, “We have a sick child: we need medicine”. The shopkeeper, William Strathearn, got up. His wife and children were sleeping upstairs. He went down, opened the door, and was murdered. The two people who were convicted of his murder were serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

So it ran from the earliest days of the Troubles, and ran right through after the Good Friday agreement. I think of my own work investigating the UVF in north Belfast. The UVF murdered Catholics until 1994 and then, once the IRA declared a ceasefire, went on to murder indiscriminately both Catholics and Protestants.

Regrettably, we still see, at regular intervals, events from different sections of the community which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions which cause immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Those events cause great pain. They reignite the terrors and agonies of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.

The fact remains that, apart from all those who died and were maimed in the Troubles, so many families lived in terror and fear. I remember watching my husband driving out every day with our five sons in the car, and every day I prayed that there would not be a bomb under our car. He was a serving member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party—the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—and for years we lived with terror because of that, and because of my role as police ombudsman. I have no difficulty in supporting any measure which can prevent the glorification of terrorism.

I find myself unable to support Amendment 118A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It requires that within three and a half years, a definitive public history of the Troubles, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, should be completed. I have a number of difficulties with this proposal. Until the work of the ICRIR is completed, it will be a work in progress in establishing, as far as possible, what happened during the Troubles. Therefore, to attempt to write any history of the Troubles would be premature. To attempt to write an official history of the Troubles while the representatives and organs of government are conducting reviews would definitely be premature. In addition to this, and as Sir Joe Pilling’s April 2009 report on the official history programme indicates, there would be minimum government requirements relating to access to papers and clearance of the draft report.

Our history has been the cause of so much division. For the state to commission a history of the Troubles would immediately arouse suspicion in some parts of the community. People have watched over the years as those with control over materials relating to the Troubles have done all they can to ensure that, in respect of so many critical incidents, the truth has not emerged because of the refusal to disclose the relevant documents, until case after case has been the subject of judicial review and judges’ and coroners’ orders. This has happened from the Bloody Sunday Widgery report in 1971 right through to, most recently, the findings of the inquest in relation to the Ballymurphy shootings. No matter how noble and well-intentioned any historian designated to do this work might be, in Northern Ireland there would be suspicions and assumptions that such a history would not be free from bias. It would be most unlikely to secure public confidence.

One of the things I learned when I investigated police collusion with the UVF was that the loyalist and Protestant community felt very betrayed by the activities of those members of the security forces who colluded with loyalist paramilitary organisations. To impose a duty on the Secretary of State to commission such a history would be to introduce further cause for concern, suspicion and dissension in the communities in Northern Ireland. It would be better that history, in so far as it can be established, should be established by derivation from the findings of inquests, civil actions and criminal prosecutions.

As Maya Angelou said:

“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again”.


That is why this Bill is so misconceived: normal processes under the rule of law are to be abandoned, despite the objections of all the political parties, victims and the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s power is woven throughout the new procedures in a way which means that, notwithstanding the integrity of any individual involved, all that will happen if there is an attempt to commission such a history is that it will divide, rather than create reconciliation. We cannot afford further community tensions, such as would emerge in attempts to write an official history of the Troubles.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, I have frequently felt moved to speak in this House about the suffering that has been endured across Northern Ireland and which is obviously the centre of the approach of this legislation. However, we have also had occasions to be reminded that so little of our society finds, in this proposed legislation, anything that they can have confidence in.

On one occasion in Committee, I centred on the use of the word “reconciliation” in the title of the Bill. The speeches we have heard tonight come from the heart of people who have intimate knowledge of what they are talking about—people who have carried, and through their families have carried, scars over the years. For myself, there are numerous occasions upon which I have tried to bring comfort and reconciliation, in ordinary terms, to people. In the rawness of what we have heard tonight, this is really taking us now to the centre. We are not dealing with the niceties of this legislation. We are being reminded that the rawness of the suffering of ordinary people has brought us to this point.

I have no hesitation in saying that I have total dismay when I look at this legislation. So much could have been achieved. So much was expected, when we were told it was coming, and so little has been achieved, in what we have listened to and discussed. Now we are talking about how future generations will be told about our Troubles. We are told of the need to have an official history. My heavens, do we understand the first fact of what we are talking about when we refer to an “official history” of the Troubles? I venture to suggest it is an impossibility. The history of the Troubles is the photograph on the mantelpiece; the insertion on an anniversary; the plaque on a wall of the church, or a memorial window. The history of the Troubles is when a mother says, “Please, let me know the truth, before I die, of what happened”. And we turn around and produce ways of limiting inquiries, investigations, and questioning—not in the purely legal sense, but in the sense in which normal suffering people are crying out for answers. We have fallen so far short in this legislation of doing that.