Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Lord Morrow

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, today, the Day of Reflection, was proposed many years ago by Healing Through Remembering. It is a very symbolic day, as noble Lords have noted, for families of victims, and we tonight, as they remember the dead and support the injured, are debating a Bill which takes away the rights they have under the law. They do not want the Bill; it is important to say that.

I thank the Minister for the amendments he has tabled that reflect my earlier comments during the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be here today, I thank him for the meetings he held with the noble Lord and with me.

It may seem desirable—admirable, indeed—that the Minister has introduced a requirement in government Amendment 2 that the principal objective of the ICRIR in exercising its functions is to promote reconciliation. However, it seems to me that there may be a contradiction between the promotion of reconciliation and the conduct of an investigation. How does one conduct an independent, impartial investigation with the principal objective of promoting reconciliation? Does that objective detract from the duty to investigate fearlessly, regardless of what the outcome of an investigation may be, so that people can be assured that the Government act in accordance with their obligations under the rule of law?

Investigation can lead to the exposure of matters that were hitherto unknown or unconfirmed but which may demonstrate, for example, that a named individual or individuals were responsible for a particular atrocity, and that can cause massive concern, particularly in circumstances in which terrorist perpetrators regard their activities as justified by circumstances, or where state actors did not take action to prevent a planned murder of which they were aware. It may certainly lead to hostility and distrust, rather than promoting reconciliation. I do not know what the answer to this is, but I think there is a conflict there, or a dissonance.

I welcome the two government Amendments 85 and 86, which provide for victim statements and the publication of those statements. The Government have yet to provide, as the NIHRC has stated, that victims or family members are informed when an individual has applied for immunity. Victims or family members are not currently expressly required to be informed of the outcome of the immunity request. There is no express requirement for the independent commission to provide reasons why it is or is not granting immunity, and there is no proposed option for an individual requesting immunity, or an interested person, to appeal a decision on immunity made by the ICRIR. In short, the Bill still does not comply, in this context, with the requirements of the victims’ rights directive in its provision for victims.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, the Minister was at pains to point out that Amendment 2 is all about reconciliation, yet no matter how much you search through the Bill, there is no definition of reconciliation in it. I am having difficulty, as are my colleagues, in being reconciled to the Bill and to have reconciliation with it, but I hope the Minister will—and I am sure he will—when he is winding up on Clause 2, give his definition of reconciliation. It seems to me that reconciliation means different things to different people. I am sure he will have observed that all the victims groups that have spoken about the Bill have not spoken in favour of it; therefore, I think he has a job to do. However, as my noble friend Lord Weir has said, we will not be dividing the House on this, but I earnestly ask the Minister why there is no definition of reconciliation in the Bill.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Lord Morrow

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I again commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill, as I have done throughout its passage through this House. I thank the Minister for the work that has been undertaken thus far. However, as the tragic events in Clapham so shockingly remind us, speed is of the essence when it comes to changing the attitude of men and boys towards women and girls in our society.

The Minister has been keen to point out that the Government’s own pornography research does not prove causation—how could it? It does demonstrate a clear association between pornography consumption and male aggression and sexual violence, as does other research in the field. In this context, addressing the impact of pornography consumption on male aggression towards women must form part of a credible legislative approach to violence against women and a credible response to the outpouring of stories that we have all been moved by this week.

In recent debates, much has been said about how Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act protects children from pornographic websites through age verification. That is certainly very important because, if Part 3 was in place now, children today would be less likely to be exposed to pornographic websites. It would therefore be less likely that they would move into adulthood with the expectation that violence is a natural part of sexual relationships, with all that this means for behaviour.

However, after the events of last week, it is also important to stress that another feature of Part 3—namely, the regulator’s power to take robust action against websites showing illegal extreme pornography, regardless of age verification—is important, because it will help foster an environment that challenges the normalisation of violence against women. It is a vital change that women and children could benefit from right now, that could have brought huge benefits from last year and, crucially, that could bring huge benefits very quickly, for reasons I will explain, if the Government implement Part 3.

The latest letter on this from the Minister comes with an estimated timetable of between 22 and 27 months for implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, with a new regulator. This is perhaps the finest example of a cannot-do, rather than a can-do, attitude to emerge from Whitehall since Sir Humphrey Appleby took his retirement. It is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, it clearly draws out the process to the greatest possible extent, making it as long as possible. Secondly, it rests upon a strategy that hopes that none of us will be cute enough to spot the elephant in the room.

The truth is that, if the Government were prepared to redesignate the BBFC as the regulator for Part 3 during the interim period, while the online harms Bill is being developed, then women and children would benefit within a matter of months from the very important protections that this House has already sanctioned in relation to pornographic websites. The taxpayer would also see a return on the £2.2 million investment in the steps taken in preparing for implementing Part 3.

The question the Government must answer is this: is bowing to their preference that Ofcom be the regulator, rather than the BBFC, so important that they are prepared to demand that the price for it is that women and children should be denied the protections that this House has sanctioned for them for a period of years? We can argue about how long it might take for the online harms framework to reach the point of implementation, but if we use the Digital Economy Act as a model, we can assume that the time from the arrival of the primary legislation in Parliament to the point at which it and the attendant secondary legislation and guidance are passed will be about three years. Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the women and children of the United Kingdom that his preference for Ofcom over the BBFC is so great that women and children should be denied these important protections from pornographic websites for some years, even though he can still have Ofcom when the online harms regime comes into play? Is he prepared to ignore Women’s Aid? Are the Government saying that, because they cannot consent to this, we should cease support for this amendment and all those who want implementation now?

I trust that the Prime Minister still has his political wits about him. I trust that he will think better of taking a different position from all these bodies and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whom the people of this country hold in such high regard. Redesignation would take 40 days, as per Section 17 of the 2017 Act, where it was agreed that we should give the websites three months to get ready.

By my reckoning, if the Government show a fraction of the determination that we saw at the vigil in Clapham on Saturday night, Part 3, with all its protections for women and children, could be in force before this House rises for the Summer Recess. It is my great hope that the Government will do the right thing today and tell the Minister before she gets to her feet that she can announce that the Government will now implement Part 3, so that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whose leadership on this issue demands our great respect, can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak today in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I am grateful too for the powerful briefings and extensive correspondence on this amendment that I have received from several organisations and individuals.

Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have seen the Government’s letter of 8 March. I found it unconvincing and I am concerned that there is a danger of completely missing the point of the amendment. As we saw over the weekend, the country is very concerned about attacks on women. I think, too, that we are all concerned about the level of violence against children, and indeed against men, in our society. It is clear that the consumption of pornography is associated with aggression and violence against women, men and children. This is an issue on which we can act today.

Had the Government implemented Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as planned, we would have had a functioning regulator today. He or she would have been able to take a series of robust actions against any pornographic website showing illegal extreme pornography. We would have seen the introduction of age verification on pornographic websites.

Today, 14 women’s organisations, including Women’s Aid, have written to the Prime Minister asking him to instruct his Ministers to respond to the debate by making a commitment to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure to protect women and children, treating them with dignity between now and when the online harms regime will be ready, probably in three years.

The suggestion in the Government’s letter that

“commencing Part 3 of the 2017 Act as an interim measure would … create a confusing and fragmented regulatory landscape”

is unconvincing; it is also regrettable.

The online harms Bill is not yet before Parliament; it will take time to pass through Parliament and, even if it is passed as suggested and the Government commence implementation immediately, the interim arrangements proposed today would be in place and working for two or three years before it would be realistically possible for any benefit to be experienced through such an Act. That would be years of additional protection before any further legislation was operative.

If providing a greater measure of protection for women and children is a critical issue, as the Government have said, they cannot continue to argue that the legislation that we have passed should not be implemented now, even as work proceeds on developing even better legislation for the future. With child-on-child sexual abuse, we know that between 2012 and 2016 there was a 78% rise in England and Wales. Research from 2017 on preventing harmful sexual behaviour involved interviews with young sexual offenders, asking them what might have stopped them. Their answers included “help in management of pornography”. Implementing Part 3 would do this; it would help to save and protect until new legislation is enacted.

I urge the Government to respond positively to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this amendment and the many women’s groups that have written to the Prime Minister today, and I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, if she divides the House on this amendment.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Lord Morrow

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, this is a strange Bill, and it seems to get stranger as we go along. Clause 9, we were told, was not workable. As the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, the Government indicated repeatedly that they were going to bring amendments which would remedy the defects in Clause 9. What we have now, I am afraid, is equally lacking in clarity, although it contains more subsections.

I will say at the beginning that this is not a Bill in a situation of grave emergency. There are no human rights judgments that require action by the Government in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly—and even if there were, there would be no obligation on us to act. We do not always act in accordance with the Supreme Court. I do not know how many of your Lordships have sat and read the CEDAW recommendations in this report. They are interesting, in part, because proposed new subsection (2) states that we will repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, but it does not seem to deal with all the consequences of that. I will come back to that later. I look forward to hearing why there is no government amendment that would really put it right.

I will ask the Minister some questions about proposed new subsection (1) in Clause 9. Recommendation 85 requires the repeal of the Offences Against the Person Act. They require some form of legislation to enable abortion, and a moratorium on the application of criminal laws concerning abortion. What does this mean? Does anybody know what it means? It is obviously separate from the Offences Against the Person Act. What is the difference, and to which criminal laws does it refer? I wonder whether it refers to the Criminal Justice Act 1945, of which noble Lords will be aware, which prevents infanticide. Will the Minister tell me exactly what we are doing as we legislate to give effect to recommendation 85(c) on this moratorium on the application of criminal law.

There are many other issues in recommendations 85 and 86 which we are adopting wholesale. I am not sure whether all noble Lords are familiar with them. Some of them are a bit odd. One says that there must be access to contraception freely. In Northern Ireland we have something which possibly does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. We have free prescriptions for everyone. No mother, no matter her personal circumstances, is precluded from getting free any contraception that she requires.

I do not want to hold back your Lordships too much. Proposed new subsection (2) seeks to abolish the Offences Against the Person Act. Have noble Lords considered what this means and what they will vote for? It means the removal of all restrictions—as I understand it—on any abortion for any reason at any time up to 28 weeks. The most recent medical information which I have been able to find tells me that babies born at about 22 weeks of gestation had a 50% survival rate in 2008. Medical science has advanced considerably since then, so that even smaller babies are surviving. Will we have a situation in Northern Ireland, even for a few months, where abortion on any grounds, in any place, for any reason, without any protections is available? I suggest that that is not safe and I will come to the reasons why later.

It is not the law here, where abortion is available only up to 24 weeks. We know that about 30 babies a year aborted in that situation are born alive—presumably because some doctor failed to make sure that it did not happen—and they are left to die. I am not sure that Northern Ireland wants that situation, even for a matter of months. What will the regulations that give effect to proposed new subsection (2) actually do? We do not know. They may be very much wider than the laws which apply here. Is this what your Lordships want? The laws which apply here are now regarded by many as unsatisfactory because of the advances in medical science and the care of children.

There is no limitation at all on the scope of the regulations in Amendment 12. Although we do not know what the regulations will do, or how they will do it, we know that for months there will be no requirement for abortions to be performed in a safe place, and no legal protection for the freedom of conscience of practitioners—a huge issue for them.

I will not articulate all the defects, but perhaps I will give one more. In the situation which will result from Amendment 12, Northern Ireland will become a rather more perilous place, particularly for pregnant young women whose husbands or families want them to have an abortion for whatever reason when they do not have the time, space or capacity to say no.

Parliament is currently considering domestic violence legislation. Abortion is one of the major issues in the world today. It is a major issue here in the United Kingdom. Article 39 of the Istanbul convention—the convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—requires us to have a criminal provision to prevent forced abortion and to deal with it as a criminal offence. The Offences Against the Person Act is used in that connection. For example, a man who wanted his wife to abort the baby that she was carrying was convicted under that Act of putting abortion pills into her drink to ensure that she would abort.

I am trying to say that I accept that noble Lords are well intentioned, but there are huge gaps in Amendment 12, which are dangerous for women in some ways. We have had 16 hours to look at the amendment; it should have taken much longer and we should have allowed proper consideration of these matters, in the normal manner. Even if your Lordships are still minded to ignore the Sewel convention and all the other issues relating to devolution, legislating for lacunae, as Amendment 12 does, is possibly irresponsible.

Brett Lockhart QC is a leading member of the Bar in Northern Ireland. He said that the absence of regulations between October and January would be legally chaotic and would have significant implications for quality assurance, et cetera. Moreover, the extent to which the current guidelines would have any impact on the new legal situation remains entirely unclear. Can the Minister assure us that there will not be legal chaos in Northern Ireland for months—and possibly longer if things go badly wrong in the process of trying to get this together? I ask noble Lords not to rush into legislating in this way. It cannot be said to be fit for purpose.

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, in speaking to the suite of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and her co-signatories, I want to engage with two points. The first relates to due process and how we must understand these amendments in terms of the broader approach adopted by Westminster to the Bill. The second relates to the impact of the amendments themselves. In approaching the amendments, we must remember that the Bill has become distorted as a result of our dispensing with constitutional due process. That was seen in the dispensing of scope and the insertion into a Bill of matters that should have been the subject of Bills in their own right—a Bill that was subjected to fast-tracking and without regard to the recent vote of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The issue of scope is raised in the amendments but, to understand its significance, we need some context. It is noticeable that, in the other place, two amendments were laid that sought to change the law on abortion. Proposed new Clause 5 sought to create a new regulation-making power for the Minister with respect to changing abortion law in Northern Ireland. Proposed new Clause 10 required the Secretary of State to use powers already invested in her through Section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make regulations on abortion with special regard to our international obligations. The clerks ruled that both amendments were outside the scope of the Bill and should not be selected because they sought to change the law on abortion. The Speaker, however, caused great shock by dispensing with this advice and selecting proposed new Clause 10, although he did not select proposed new Clause 5. Although proposed new Clause 10 was not in scope, proposed new Clause 5 was more seriously out of scope in that it would have created a new, independent, free-standing regulation-making power with respect to abortion.

Proposed new Clause 10—now Clause 9—is actually more out of scope than it need be on account of its flawed drafting. Properly drafted, it should require the Secretary of State to make orders rather than regulations. Those orders could have been used to address problems that the Member for Walthamstow articulated when making her speech; for example, regarding prosecutions. Subject to the identification of suitable powers, orders could require a much more restrictive approach to prosecutions or police involvement and, on the same basis, the making of subordinate legislation to give colour and detail to such matters as information, detailing the circumstances in which the termination of a pregnancy can occur. Amending Clause 9 to bring it within the scope of the Bill would also have the benefit of giving the Bill more integrity because it would sit much better with the abortion requirements in Clause 3(8), which require that a review of abortion law in Northern Ireland be conducted and that proposals for changes in the law be considered. This is entirely incongruous with any attempt to read Clause 9 as introducing a radical change in the law.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Lord Morrow

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Coming in at No. 20 behind a list of eminent speakers, I think that much that I would have referred to has perhaps been said, but noble Lords will forgive me if there is some repetition in my comments.

In a 30-year reflection on any event, there is sometimes a tendency to look at matters through rose-tinted glasses, although I suspect that, on close examination, we could all be guilty of that. Two hundred million pounds is a large sum of money by anyone’s standards. Were this House to have such a colossal sum at its disposal, what an appreciable difference we could make to the lives of all the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, in an economic climate such as this, this £200-million Saville inquiry—perhaps the most expensive foregone conclusion in history—borders on the obscene. It is a misappropriation of taxpayers’ money that, to be truthful, has changed very little in Northern Ireland’s society. It is the epitome of excess—the ultimate example of profligacy. And to what end? For this is the fundamental problem: a vast sum, a huge report and an astonishing 12 years later, nothing much—perhaps a few millionaire barristers aside—has changed. It is staggeringly ironic that, £200 million further on down the road, Martin McGuinness is on record as saying that an apology would have been sufficient.

The outcome was doomed from the start, as I shall explain. It was ever apparent that, no matter the result, at best one section of the community would be sceptical over the findings, feeling disfranchised and alienated and regarding it as a sop; at worst, some would have resorted to more violence on the streets, had they not got the result that they wanted.

The sad truth is that, yet again, the Protestant community was resigned from the start to the inevitability of the outcome going against its views of the events. Such resignation stems from past experience of government policy over at least two generations, which has been to appease those who shout the loudest and to acquiesce in the views of those who could prove the bigger threat. The harsh reality is that the predictability of the findings is further proof of the extent to which successive Governments and the establishment at every level have incessantly pandered to those who are contemptuous of the rule of law in the UK. They behave thus in a vain attempt to keep the seemingly acceptable face of republicanism on the supposed straight and narrow political path. However, your Lordships need no aide-memoire on the futility of feeding the proverbial crocodile. This inquiry was part of the deal, which has its roots in the Belfast agreement, to entice republicans away from terrorism and into the political process.

Evidence was heard from none other than Martin McGuinness, who admitted to being the IRA’s second in command in the area on the day in question. That is the same Martin McGuinness who now sits as Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister and who would probably be recognised as a statesman. In June, one national newspaper said of Saville that,

“nobody, but nobody, would order an inquiry into him”—

Martin McGuinness. It went on:

“This is one-directional justice. Each individual will have to work out for themselves whether this constitutes the mature behaviour of a democracy at its very best, or a wasteful exercise in appeasing a political sympathy that has been appeased for too many years”.

Mr McGuinness, as we are all aware, suffers from selective amnesia. Over the summer, we learnt that he forgot that he had spoken to a priest named Father Chesney, who was the prime suspect in the Claudy massacre. Claudy is not that far from Londonderry. Initially, Mr McGuinness vehemently denied even knowing this man; indeed, he could not remember talking to Father Chesney on his deathbed, which one would suspect would be an emotional, evocative and unforgettable experience. Paradoxically, he can clearly remember incidents from 30 years ago on Bloody Sunday, in which, he claims, he was not involved. However, as he cannot appropriately account for his whereabouts over some 25 minutes that day, it appears rather convenient that his memory of that in which he was involved, as events unfolded, is apparently not so sharp. We are told in the report:

“We consider it likely that Martin McGuinness was armed with a Thompson submachine-gun on Bloody Sunday and we cannot eliminate the possibility that he fired this weapon”.

There can be no doubt that the IRA was represented in the Bogside that fateful day and that Martin McGuinness was a member at that time.

To put the events in context, 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment was on site as tensions were running high following the slaughter of two RUC officers three days before. The civil rights march, as we have been reminded, was not a legal march. Gunfire broke out against the Army, which returned fire—Lord Widgery described it as being done “recklessly” and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, describes the actions as “unjustified”. The outcome of both inquiries is fundamentally the same. Saville, of course, was much more expensive.

As I have previously told this House, we had no need for a £200-million inquiry to establish that there was no premeditated plan to shoot civilians on that day. We did not need an inquiry of this length to inform us that, as a consequence of IRA actions prior to that day, parts of Londonderry “lay in ruins”, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. Therein is an injustice itself.

Many murders, bombings, shootings and hijackings were perpetrated against innocent people in those 30 years of Northern Ireland’s tragic history—all without a public inquiry. It should be remembered that no one has ever been charged, let alone convicted, of the murders of the two RUC men that effectively sparked the events of Bloody Sunday. Moreover, the RUC lost more than 300 of its officers during the Troubles and, for more than 200 of those murders, no one has ever been tried, convicted or put before a court. Of course, for those officers of the law there will be no public inquiries. There will be no inquiry into the Remembrance Day massacre at Enniskillen; the massacre of the innocent at the La Mon House Hotel; Bloody Friday, when a series of bombs were planted strategically across Belfast leaving few routes of escape; Teebane, where workers were slaughtered in their van as they returned home; Kingsmill, when the IRA separated the Protestants from the Roman Catholics and gunned them down in cold blood; the Ballygawley Road/Omagh Road massacre of soldiers; Narrow Water, when 18 paras were massacred; and Darkley, when a small Pentecostal church was invaded by the IRA and people were murdered as they worshipped. There was the murder of Lord Mountbatten and the bombings at Hyde Park, Warrington, Brighton and Canary Wharf. I could go on. The list is seemingly endless.

It has been said in this House that there is but one inquiry that needs to be dealt with. I think that I have demonstrated quite clearly that there is more than one. It strikes me that there are 101. So why was there a Saville inquiry? The answer is abundantly clear. Political expediency was the order of the day, although that is no reflection on those who carried out the inquiry. This had absolutely nothing to do with truth and justice. Purely and simply, this was an attempt to appease the unappeasable—to soften the iron will of those who had terrorised Northern Ireland in a systematic campaign of annihilation and who were increasingly demonstrating their capacity for destruction and mayhem on the mainland.

The report has pilloried the Army for its actions on that day. The truth is that the soldiers had a job to do in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It should be remembered that, but for their presence in Northern Ireland, many more lives would have been lost. I want to get that on record. I want to pay tribute to every soldier who served in Northern Ireland during those dark 30 years of misery and for the sacrifices that many were called on to make, including the laying down of their lives.

When the Saville report is stripped of its glossy cover, millionaire lawyers and high-profile status, what remains? Certainly, in the wake of this 12-year inquiry, there are lessons to be learnt. So many ineffectual reports from numerous commissions have been produced; this has been the second run at a report covering the events that are now known in common parlance as Bloody Sunday. But for how much longer and how many more times will we be forced backwards to trawl through the ashes of the evil deeds that have gone 30 years before? I suspect that some would be content to carry on with such fruitless endeavours until the past is completely rewritten to suit them and their purposes.

The people of Northern Ireland want to move on. They have severe economic challenges to face and consider that money could be better spent on delivering services to enhance the standard of their lives. Let me be clear: the people of Northern Ireland are done with money pits that deliver very little. They have no appetite for further public inquiries or the nonsense of a proposed truth commission.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with some apparent authority about the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not know on what he rests his authority, but I am aware from my seven years working with the victims of the Troubles across the whole community that there are many such people. Is he not aware that there are many people who would like the answers to what happened to their loved ones?

[Lord Morrow]

I have heard what the noble Baroness has said. I have been an elected representative for some 35 years, during which time I have presented myself continually to the electorate and have been returned at every election, so that may be some authority. In relation to people wanting answers, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, is quite right. People want answers, but I am not sure that they want to be trawled through more endless inquiries. There has to be a better way. Quite frankly, we have made a new start in Northern Ireland. Let us give it a chance and try to move forward. Are we are going to continually go down the road of selective inquiries? Bloody Sunday was a real tragedy and people lost their lives, and I do not minimise it in any way, but are we going to go down the road of setting a hierarchy of victims? Is that what we want to achieve? I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, takes that point.