Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there are many parts of the Windsor Framework, and every time I have a conversation or a briefing about it, there is always something new, and a new part of that world. However, puffins was not where I believed today’s debate was going to go. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but I have been in post for three weeks and the power part may still yet be lacking—but I will see what I can do for him, because I would never seek to disappoint.
We have had a truly substantive and insightful debate this afternoon. I begin by thanking my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate and for his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. I also take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lady Ritchie a very happy birthday.
The report we are considering today is very important, not just because of the detailed work clearly undertaken but because the engagement of businesses and civic society with Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements is important at both a constitutional and economic level. Similar themes were also developed by the very thoughtful review of the Windsor Framework conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and I am grateful to hear his further reflections today. There is something so special and addictive about Northern Ireland that means that those of us exposed to it become completely addicted and can never walk away from it. I think that is reflected by the fact that we have two former Secretaries of State participating today.
I have listened with great care to the contributions made from all sides of the House and I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Caine, for reminding us of the stakes at play in Northern Ireland, both economic and cultural. Although noble Lords have different views across the diverse range of issues discussed today, a common thread has been our collective pledge to Northern Ireland’s prosperity, security and economic success, and a shared agreement that businesses, civic society, organisations and public authorities alike should have their voice heard in the very trading arrangements that necessarily underpin that success. Many specific points were raised today, and I will reflect on Hansard to see if I have missed any, but I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised.
I think it will be helpful if we place today’s discussion in context. I should first like to set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Windsor Framework and protecting the UK internal market—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that my speech has not been doctored—while appreciating that there can always be room for improvement. As we have heard today, not least from the noble Lord, those commitments were set out in our manifesto, and we consider them vitally important. They guide our reset with the EU, and they are our guiding approach to securing a vital new agreement with the EU that will smooth trade flows of agri-food goods. Those twin commitments are also important as they reflect the importance of trading arrangements that respect Northern Ireland’s place in the union, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and which work on an agreed basis with the EU.
It is only through this approach that we can give certainty to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on the rules that apply, as they trade uniquely across two markets. That is why it contains important mechanisms to enable participation and facilitate that voice; the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise EU rules; structures for businesses and civic society to engage with the UK and EU on the framework’s implementation; arrangements for the Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together and ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard; and a periodic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on continuing these arrangements. The first such vote, as we heard, triggered a review of the framework that was carefully and thoughtfully conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy with a wide range of stakeholders. The Government are now taking action on all the recommendations set out in that review.
That brings me to the real topic of today’s debate: the one-stop shop. Noble Lords are very aware, it seems, of the announced £16.6 million for an enhanced one-stop shop regulatory support service, designed to navigate the knowledge gap facing small and medium-sized enterprises. This will be operational in the next financial year, which I gently remind noble Lords begins next week. We are working to make sure that this can work. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the one-stop shop will support GB businesses as much as it will support businesses operating in Northern Ireland. I will come on to some of the other points that were raised in relation to that shortly.
Progress has also been made on veterinary medicine—something I will again touch on, in terms of the detail raised today. The UK Government worked extensively with industry in the run-up to the end of the grace period. I am pleased to say that the transition has been without significant disruption—I am not saying there has not been any—and there have been no significant supply issues or other impacts, although we continue to monitor this closely.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Government have also allocated £2.25 million in funding to InterTrade UK over the next three years, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—funding that will allow it to continue its vital work in advising on and promoting trade within the UK. I am sure that the work of InterTrade will assist in continuing to boost the economy of Northern Ireland, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Goudie. I remind noble Lords that Northern Ireland is the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom. I place on record my personal thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work at InterTrade UK.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised an important point about the role of InterTrade UK and the one-stop shop. I hope and would expect that the one-stop shop will work with InterTrade UK and other stakeholders to support trade and that this will be something that works together.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for addressing that issue, but what about InterTradeIreland, which already has a hub and could provide some beneficial information?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Given the nature of InterTradeIreland, that is a matter for InterTradeIreland and is not something I can comment on from the Dispatch Box.
With regard to the specifics of the report, in short, a lot has been done, but there remains more to do, as this report by the committee highlights. Indeed, the Government’s response to the committee’s report following the independent review shows as much. This leads me to our next steps. We are ensuring that the stakeholder engagement landscape captures a broad spectrum of businesses in a new Northern Ireland business stakeholder group—just to add to the wonderful flowchart that we saw earlier today. We are also looking at how the Government and devolved departments can conduct engagement and capture the views of industry, so that this is joined-up and gets the right outcomes earlier on.
The Northern Ireland Executive participate in all structures under the Windsor Framework, yet we acknowledge that there is more to be done between the Government and the Executive to ensure that public authorities link up and address issues with changes to regulatory proposals earlier in the process. We are therefore implementing new processes to address that and facilitate better engagement at all levels, beyond the Cabinet Office executive office working group.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to thank Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for the report they have brought forward. The Kenova report contains very disturbing findings. In view of this, can my noble friend the Minister highlight the Government’s intentions to address those very serious findings, including the fact that MI5 tried to restrict the investigation and conceal the truth of IRA crimes it knew all about?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this report contains a range of recommendations; some are outside its original terms of reference, which were in the interim report published last March. Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions.
I say to my noble friend that the director-general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024. The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and there are the findings of the Helen Ball review, in which she raised a number of points. There is always more to learn, but as I said before, the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.
Wales: Further Devolution
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Labour Party because of our ongoing commitment to try to tackle child poverty. The child poverty strategy will be coming forward in due course. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the devolution settlement, the Northern Ireland Executive already have revenue-raising powers. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what position the Government would adopt if the Northern Ireland Executive were to seek new, additional fiscal powers in order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the areas of health, education and infrastructure?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is very aware that, under the recent spending review, Stormont was awarded £19.2 billion—its largest ever financial settlement. As for additional tax-raising mechanisms, they exist, if Stormont wishes to use them. That is a matter for Stormont. We would support it in whichever endeavours it wants to do to access the powers already available to it.
Northern Ireland Troubles
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. There will be an open process, and the person appointed will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no commitment or expectation that the person will be from the Republic of Ireland, and I would be surprised if they were.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement this evening. I also thank her for the engagement we have had over the last few weeks and for the letter I received today in response to the representations I had made. I totally condemn all that violence and terrorism, and the murder of innocent people over all those long years. For those of us who lived in Northern Ireland and grew up during that period of violence, it was very difficult. I have two questions, one of which has already been referred to.
First, will the new legacy body be independent of the Secretary of State? That was one of the issues that was raised with the previous legacy legislation. Secondly, will the Government ensure that a victim-centred process is pivotal to all of the legislation? I welcome the fact that there is a joint British and Irish Government approach because the problem with the previous legislation was that there had been no consultation with the Irish Government. Therefore, what further consultation will take place on a formal and informal basis with political parties and all the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland?
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.
Casement Park: Spending Review
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises what is at the heart of this: in 2011 the last Government allocated £14.7 million of funding for the redevelopment of Ravenhill rugby stadium, £25.2 million for the redevelopment of Windsor Park, £61.5 million for Casement and £36 million for subregional stadia funds. All the projects have been delivered except Casement; the money was not spent. This is delivering on the promises that were made. We have been very clear that we have put forward £50 million. The current projected cost of the redevelopment is £170 million. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring together partners to deliver the rest of the money.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I convey my sympathies to the people of Maguiresbridge in Fermanagh and to the families of the victims this morning. On behalf of the GAA, and on my own behalf, I thank the Government for the £50 million contribution towards the construction of Casement Park. It is long awaited and I hope it will be built. What discussions have taken place, or what ongoing discussions are taking place, with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Communities Minister, who I understand is preparing a paper on Casement Park to take to the Executive that, I hope, will be productive and positive and result in the full allocation of funding to enable the building of Casement Park for provincial Gaelic games in the province of Ulster?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am very aware of her personal support for the GAA and the sport. To reassure her, there is now an official-level working group between the NIO and the Northern Ireland Executive to try to deliver on Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for the delivery of this project. We are working very closely with Minister Lyons to give him the support that he needs. It is now a matter of bringing together and delivering the project while it still can be delivered.
Fujitsu: Government Contracts
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families has been horrendous. The Government are determined to hold those responsible to account and will continue to seek to make rapid progress on compensation and redress. Fujitsu’s role in Horizon is one of the issues currently being reviewed by Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry. In January 2024, Fujitsu committed to withdraw from bidding for contracts with new government customers until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. It will bid for work with existing government customers only where it already has a contract with them or where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu’s skills and capabilities. The Government are carefully considering volume 1 of the report, published yesterday, which is limited in scope. Once the inquiry has established the full facts, we will review its final report and consider any further action, where appropriate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Given yesterday’s results from the official inquiry into the Post Office scandal, and the human tragedies which unfolded as a result of wrongful convictions of postmasters, what additional due diligence measures have the Government implemented or will the Government implement to ensure that contractors with a history of significant failures or legal issues can demonstrate that they have addressed these concerns before being awarded new contracts? In this, I am mindful of the bid by Fujitsu for the controversial trader support scheme in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes the most important of points, which is about the impact on people, and the victims of the Horizon scandal, a lot of which we heard yet again yesterday. It broke my heart and other people’s hearts.
On my noble friend’s specific question, the Procurement Act, which was passed by Your Lordships’ House in 2023, provides buyers with more scope to exclude suppliers who have performed poorly on previous relevant contracts. Previously, exclusion was possible only if poor performance had led to termination of a contract, damages or comparable sanctions. Due diligence on such failures is also more straightforward as the Act now provides for the sharing of information on poorly performing suppliers. This information is publicly available via notices published on the central digital platform.
With regards to the Trader Support Service contract, HMRC is currently undertaking a competitive procurement process for the renewal of that scheme, and it would therefore be inappropriate of me to comment further.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I believe it is still waiting to be approved by the Executive. But in terms of the block grant, one of the things that we have been able to reassure the Executive on is what their funding is going to be over the next three years, and that gives them a level of confidence to move forward.
I have received another clever bit of paper. Yesterday’s June monitoring round announcement confirmed that the Executive have agreed to give the Northern Ireland Department of Justice first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds in the current financial year, towards the first year of the PSNI workforce recovery business case. That is the £7 million, not the £200 million. But I want to reassure noble Lords before I sit down or give way that this is a devolved matter, and how they are allocating their money is a matter for colleagues in Belfast.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I say that the Minister will appreciate that that sort of commitment from the June monitoring process is not really a commitment because I know personally that these sorts of commitments were made to me as Housing Minister and they never necessarily materialised. I ask whether it is possible for her, as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, to impress upon the Northern Ireland Executive the importance of the definite allocation of funding for policing because the chief constable needs it in order to deal with current policing pressures in advance of dealing with those issues to do with legacy that are pre devolution.
Disorder in Ballymena
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has raised this issue with me several times and, unfortunately, my position cannot change. This is a devolved matter. At the other end of the building today, the Chancellor announced a record £19.3 billion of funding for the Northern Ireland Executive. We were all delighted to see Stormont return, but it is up to the Executive how they allocate that resource. The Barnett formula has a 24% additional consequential to ensure that there is appropriate funding to recognise the special status of Northern Ireland.
However, the noble Baroness raises a genuinely important point. The New Decade, New Approach agreement announced by the Executive promised to increase the number of officers to 7,500. They are short, and efforts need to be made, which is why we have announced additional security funding of £38 million—an increase from the last Government—to ensure that that amount of money can be ring-fenced to reflect the additional security situation in Northern Ireland, so that other resources can be deployed for the rest of the PSNI.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, we are well aware of the political situation in the Northern Ireland Executive. In view of that, can my noble friend talk to her friend the Secretary of State to ensure that ring-fenced funding for the PSNI is considered and that there is an uplift equivalent to that for police forces in England and Wales?
I deplore the thuggery and the racist violence we have seen in Ballymena over the last two days, where there were attacks on the Police Service of Northern Ireland and on ethnic minorities. It was similar to what happened when I was Minister in DSD, back in 2009, when we had to take action to protect people. Will my noble friend join me in urging local political leaders in Ballymena, and further afield in Northern Ireland, to take and show the path of real leadership, and to seek not to explain the context for the violence but to urge the rioters to stop rioting and get off the streets? Will they ensure protection for local communities, including those from ethnic minorities, and for the police service in Ballymena?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question and the work that she and the noble Baroness have done in advocating consistently for funding for the PSNI. I will continue the conversation with the Secretary of State. The Government recognise the difficult financial position that the PSNI faces, which is why we are making sure that funding is available.
On the substantive point of my noble friend’s question, the onus is on all of us, including Members of your Lordships’ House, to remember our tone and the responsibilities that we all have—that includes every single politician in Northern Ireland. I for one was delighted to see a joint statement from the Executive, signed by every political party, calling for quiet and peace and for people to come off the streets. This is not a time for politics; it is a time for peace and security on the streets of Northern Ireland. There is a responsibility on all of us to deliver it.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for the work that he did as part of the expert group. The Government will not be satisfied with the speed of payments until every eligible person has received the compensation that they are due as quickly as we can do it. When the previous Government and the then Opposition worked together to ensure that this could be delivered just before the general election—or just as the general election was called—we were clear that we would work together to make sure that this happened.
The money is there. We have had to create an independent vehicle to make sure that it is given away judiciously and is accessed by the people who need it—these are public funds—because, given the community that we are talking about, which for every reason in the world simply does not trust the state, having a body that is not the state was viewed as incredibly important. This means that we have had to create something from scratch, which takes longer, and we have had to make sure that the people working there have the tools and experience to give the money out. They are doing a job that most of us, when we enter public service, would celebrate. Those whom I have met cannot believe that their job is to try to fix something that was so horribly broken. The agency literally exists to give compensation to people who have experienced something horrendous. The people who work there are doing themselves out of a job, because IBCA will close as soon as people have received their compensation.
There is a long way to go but we want to do this as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with all noble Lords as we progress on this journey.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I would be very happy if my noble friend the Minister could outline when the funding for the support organisations will be provided. Many of them have worked strenuously over many years to ensure that the funding and the compensation go to the people who need them most: the victims of infected blood.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The money was allocated only last week, I think; I will correct the record if I am wrong. We are working with the charities now to see which of them will be allocated the funding. That is a matter for the DHSC, but I will update my noble friend when I have more details.
European Union: Court of Justice
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Government, as we were clear in our manifesto, are committed to pursuing an SPS agreement that could reduce trade friction and bring benefits to both the UK and the EU. The UK and the EU are like-minded partners with similarly high standards. We have been clear that an SPS agreement could boost trade and deliver benefits on both sides. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the discussions on the reset, will my noble friend the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, ensure that discussions take place about reducing the democratic deficit that is felt in Northern Ireland, and that public representatives—namely, MLAs—will be able to have at least observer status on the large number of committees between the UK and the EU as part of the TCA?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. If she is happy to discuss this further, I would be happy to have a meeting with her to discuss how we might make it work.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think it would be helpful for people to appreciate what the Prime Minister actually said yesterday, which is that the legacy Act was
“unfit, not least because it gave immunity to hundreds of terrorists and was not supported by victims in Northern Ireland—nor, I believe, by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Court found it unlawful … We will put in place a better framework. We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 324.]
The objective in Sections 46 and 47 was right, which is why my party supported it in opposition. The method has been found to be unlawful and we are looking at every option for engagement. The noble Lord may be interested to look at the comments of the High Court. Although we did not appeal, the court chose to comment and suggested that we would have failed in our appeal. I have the exact wording which I will send to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister provide your Lordships’ House with an update on the progress of the remedial order and of repealing the legacy legislation, which, as she rightly said, was opposed by political parties in Northern Ireland? Will she indicate that this new process will lead to the end of collusive behaviour on all sides, a root and branch review of ICRIR, and a commitment to the standards of legacy which were agreed by parties and by both Governments at the Stormont House talks in 2015?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. On 4 December, the Secretary of State laid a proposal for a draft remedial order in Parliament. This is the first step in correcting the mistakes of the previous Government’s approach and in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as was in our manifesto. The remedial order must sit in both Houses for two periods of 60 days to allow for proper scrutiny of the draft and for proper representations to be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has a key role in the process. It has already launched a call for evidence, which is due to close on Monday. The Secretary of State’s Statement, which I repeated in this House, also announced plans for primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. This will include provisions to reinstate legacy inquests halted by the Act, and to reform and strengthen the independent commission.
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions and his ongoing engagement, and for the support that he has given me in recent months as I have tried to get to grips with some of these issues. With regard to the Windsor Framework Article 2 appeal, he will know full well that I cannot speculate on what we would or would not do post any judgment, or what that judgment would be likely to do. But as and when—or if and when—that is the case, I will revert to your Lordships’ House, I am sure.
With regard to the victims of the Troubles and the perpetrators of some of the most vicious terror attacks that our country has ever known, there is no hierarchy of victim nor of persecutor. Those people who perpetrated these acts should be held to the same account, regardless of which section of the community they come from. We will do everything that we can to make sure that all partners who have a level of responsibility for next steps forward, as we work towards rebuilding and a genuine legacy process that works for the people of Northern Ireland, take full responsibility and fulfil all the commitments that they have made under a series of pieces of legislation. That includes the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement on legacy from my noble friend, particularly in relation to the removal of the immunity scheme, the reinstatement of civil proceedings and the restoration of halted legacy cases. Undoubtedly, challenges remain so can my noble friend confirm that she will continue to work through the remedial order, the repeal legislation and the reform of ICRIR, already referred to, to ensure that confidence in the rule of law, policing, reconciliation and support for victims and survivors will be the prime objectives to achieve the shared society that we earnestly desire in Northern Ireland and the transformational change that is required in legacy?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her support and for the question. We are clear that the remedial order tabled yesterday is a first step in delivering on our manifesto commitment but, more importantly, our promise to the people of Northern Ireland to deliver a pathway through on legacy related to the Troubles. Our next step will be to reform ICRIR to build confidence, which will require ongoing engagement with everyone in your Lordships’ House.
Last month, I was in Northern Ireland and met a youth group who were aged 18 to 25. They were exploring the Good Friday agreement and, for them, it was history; for them, it was the lived experience of every day in Northern Ireland that they contend with. I am delighted and so privileged to say that so many people in your Lordships’ House worked together to deliver a society where, for them, the Troubles were history. But we now need to make sure that we work with the families who were touched by the Troubles—the thousand cases—so that the next generation is not affected by intergenerational trauma and have answers about what happened to their families.
Northern Ireland
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government believe that Northern Ireland is a core part of the United Kingdom. As regards our commitments and those made in Safeguarding the Union, we are not reneging on any of the Command Paper commitments but remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people of Northern Ireland. I will come back to the noble Lord on the timetable for publication; we are still working.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be decided by the people of the region, as laid out in the 1998 Good Friday agreement negotiated by the British and Irish Governments and the majority of parties? That agreement enshrined reconciliation, parity of esteem and respect for political difference.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend: in accordance with the Good Friday agreement and the principles of consent, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as its people wish it to be. At present there is no clear basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. For our part, the United Kingdom Government are committed to upholding the Good Friday agreement, in letter and in spirit, and in that vein to respecting all constitutional ambitions for Northern Ireland as long as they are pursued by legitimate means.
Northern Ireland City Deals
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the fiscal situation we inherited means that we are not in the position we believed we would be in when we came to government in July. That is the reality. There are many pauses to projects across the United Kingdom while we review to make sure that appropriate value for money is secured for every deal. This Government’s priority is the delivery of growth. The Secretary of State and the NIO are making every representation to the Treasury to make it clear that the Causeway Coast and Glens deal and the Mid South West deal will help us deliver that long-term plan. Like everybody, I will be waiting to see what happens in 20 days from today—fewer than three weeks—in the outcome of the Budget.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her answers on this fairly vexatious issue, which landed on the people of Northern Ireland on Friday 13 September. City deals are a vehicle for regeneration and rehabilitation throughout Northern Ireland. I welcome the announcement about the reinstatement of the money for the Greater Belfast deal—it impacts the area I live in and there are many projects contained in that—and the Derry deal. It is important to address regional imbalances and inequalities in Northern Ireland. Could my noble friend, along with the Secretary of State, champion the outstanding city deals—namely, those for the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West—with the Treasury to ensure that the funding is forthcoming? It is a ready means of addressing good regional development in Northern Ireland and those regional imbalances.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Belfast region deal signed in December 2021 was never subject to any pause. I am delighted that the Secretary of State attended the signing of the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane deal on 18 September 2024. On next steps I say that, even as I sat next to my noble friend Lord Livermore, I was making a case for the two city deals and I will continue to do so. I promise noble Lords that the Secretary of State, who has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in recent days, is making every possible persuasive argument about why these deals should go forward. However, as I said, we will await the decisions in the Budget.
Patrick Finucane Murder
Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I want to put on record my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. His comments demonstrate the level of hurt that we are still touching on every time we discuss the Troubles, and the pain that so many people are still experiencing. There is very little I can say to give reassurance in terms of the specifics of his pain and that of those he touched on, but I reassure him that there is no hierarchy here. This is a unique case that was discussed and agreed in 2001 at Weston Park. We are ensuring that we deliver, as we did on the inquiries for Billy White, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson. The case of Patrick Finucane is the only case in which this long-standing commitment to establish an inquiry had yet to be met, until yesterday. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns and look forward to working with him to ensure that the rest of the legacy programme is fit for purpose and that every person who was touched by the Troubles feels that they have the appropriate access to justice and truth.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, an incident I recall well. I also point out that all murders in Northern Ireland, carried out by paramilitaries or state forces, were totally wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable. I have two questions to ask the Minister. When will there be a repeal of the legacy legislation and a definite move towards inquests, investigations and inquiries to solve the problems and challenges faced by victims and survivors of the Troubles? Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in March this year into the case of Sean Brown, which was also mired in collusion?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her questions. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will repeal and replace the legacy Act, including by reversing the prohibition on bringing new civil proceedings and proposing measures to allow inquests that were previously halted. As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the Government are now in the process of consulting all interested parties about how to give effect to the repeal and replace the commitment in the gracious Speech. We will bring that forward as quickly as possible. The Government are also in the process of addressing the incompatibility findings of the High Court and, when parliamentary time allows, we will lay a draft remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to remove the offending provisions from the statute book.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment here on the specific case mentioned by my noble friend, but I reaffirm the commitment made by the Secretary of State yesterday that the Government will carefully consider each individual case in order to reach a sensible way forward.