Baroness Suttie
Main Page: Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am not normally nervous at the Dispatch Box, but then I never anticipated responding in the presence below the Bar of one of my greatest musical heroes. I will try not to go over too much of the same old ground.
I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place yesterday. I note that, having pledged to repeal and replace the legacy Act, the Government are committed to supporting the new legacy commission, the ICRIR, the establishment of which formed the vast bulk of that Act.
We welcome the decision to appeal the judgment in relation to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The previous Government were clear that the commitment to no diminution of rights was intended to cover those specific to Northern Ireland, as set out in the 1998 Belfast agreement. It was never our intention that the article should apply more broadly than that and enable the courts to disapply primary legislation where they believe it engages provisions of EU law that no longer apply in Northern Ireland. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this is also the current Government’s position?
We also support the decision to appeal the court’s ruling on the Secretary of State’s powers to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information that could prejudice national security. The overriding responsibility for ensuring that no individuals are put at risk and that people are kept safe and secure in Northern Ireland rests with the Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Government.
The onward disclosure of information was all set out clearly almost exactly 10 years ago in paragraph 37 of the Stormont House agreement. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that none of the measures the Government are contemplating to strengthen further the independence of the new commission, or the commitment to amend the current Act’s disclosure regime, will in any way undermine that fundamental duty?
Can the noble Baroness be clearer as to what reform of the commission’s independence, powers and accountability means, given that both the High Court and Court of Appeal have, in the words of the chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, in September,
“clearly and unequivocally declared that the ICRIR is an appropriately independent public authority, both operationally and organisationally”.
The Government have already stated their intention to lay a remedial order under the Human Rights Act to repeal the conditional immunity provisions in the 2023 legacy legislation. Of course, they have every right to take that position. As a Minister, I never sought to hide the fact that these were the most controversial parts of the legislation, which a great many people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere found extremely challenging. That is why, during the passage of the Bill, I sought to toughen the criteria for granting immunity and to introduce sanctions where an individual was found to have misled or lied to the commission.
The immunity provisions were introduced as part of a response to the views expressed by some during the consultation on the Stormont House proposals in 2018 that they would never co-operate with any form of information recovery process if there was ever a chance of prosecution. As a result of the removal of these proposals, therefore, what assessment have the Government made of the possible impact on the willingness of people, particularly former paramilitaries, to give honest and frank accounts in respect of Troubles-related events, and on the work of the commission itself?
The decision to restore coronial inquests in Troubles-related cases will reopen the prospect of elderly veterans and police officers being hauled into court in Northern Ireland, in a highly adversarial environment, to be cross-examined by highly committed lawyers with years of experience dealing with legacy matters. Can the noble Baroness therefore expand on what additional support, including legal and pastoral support, will be given to veterans who find themselves in this highly charged and uncomfortable situation? As the Statement makes clear, we owe the vast majority of those who served in the security forces—including Members of your Lordships’ House present today—a huge debt. Frankly, they deserve better than this.
One of the criticisms of inquests in Northern Ireland is that, in respect of legacy cases, they work for only a very small number of victims and survivors. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what proportion of the stalled inquests deal primarily with the actions of the state and what proportion are focused on the activities of terrorist organisations? Furthermore, can she say how the inquest system and the commission will work in tandem? Who will decide, and by what criteria, whether a case warrants an inquest, a public inquiry or referral to the commission? Does she agree that it is surely better to have one body—that is, the new legacy commission—for victims and survivors to deal with all legacy issues, rather than a fragmented system that the Government intend to recreate?
On civil actions, before the cut-off point in the Act there were some 800 cases clogging up the Northern Ireland courts. In allowing cases filed after May 2022 to proceed, can the noble Baroness tell the House how she expects the courts to cope with this workload and what discussions she has had with the Justice Minister on this? Can she also tell us what the implications are for the £250 million of legacy funding that we allocated from Stormont House and New Decade, New Approach, and where the financial burden will fall for the resumption of inquests and civil cases?
Finally, the communiqué issued after the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on Tuesday referred to a number of legacy issues falling within the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government but was totally silent on Ireland’s failure to do anything meaningful to address legacy issues within its own jurisdiction since 1998. Can the noble Baroness explain that imbalance and what the Government plan to do to address it?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating this important and detailed Statement. These Benches strongly welcome both the content of the Statement and the constructive approach that it sets out.
Dealing with the past is an issue which provokes so much hurt and emotion. So many families have waited far too long for truth and justice. The previous Government’s approach regarding immunity was misguided and wrong, and has all too often resulted in a distrust of the process. As Sir Julian Smith MP said yesterday in the House of Commons, the new approach set out in yesterday’s Statement
“tilts back in favour of the rule of law and in favour of families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/24; col. 424.]
All political parties and victims’ groups in Northern Ireland were against the legacy Act as it was. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened and responded.
It is welcome too that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had several meetings with the Irish Government. Clearly, it is to be hoped that the Irish Government will feel able to drop their court case. It is a matter for them, but I hope they will soon feel able to do so. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to maintain constant and regular engagement with the new Irish Government to achieve that end, as well as, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, dealing with legacy issues in general?
I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan and the work he has done on the independent commission, but I none the less welcome the proposed reforms of that commission. Some, including in this Chamber, want to see it abolished altogether, but that was in the context of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act that are now being removed. Can the Minister say a little more about the process for consultation with families of victims and political parties in Northern Ireland to judge how the independent commission is operating in this revised context? As others have said, it can work only when it has the full confidence of victims and families.
“Reset” has perhaps become an overused term since the election of the new Labour Government, but I believe this Statement represents an opportunity to provide truth and justice for so many people in Northern Ireland who have waited so long.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There were lots of questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their constructive response to this Statement. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns. Considering the time available to us, the complex legal nature of the issues at play and ongoing legal cases, I also commit to write in response to some of the questions raised and will review Hansard immediately afterwards.
I commence by recognising the anniversaries of Troubles-related deaths that fall this week, particularly those in McGurk’s bar, Droppin Well, Ballykelly and Ballygawley barracks. These heartbreaking anniversaries emphasise why we are here today discussing how we can ensure that survivors and victims’ families can secure some level of peace. First, let me reiterate the goal of this Government, as the Secretary of State did in his Statement yesterday. We are trying to help families who lost loved ones in the Troubles finally establish what happened. This is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement, and it is clear that the correct approach is yet to be found. This Government have rejected the approach taken by the previous Government. Their approach was wrong. It did not gain the support of Northern Ireland parties, of a majority of victims’ groups or of the Irish Government. It is for this reason that the Government committed to repeal and replace that Act in line with our manifesto commitments.
The steps being taken today are part of that process, with a remedial order being used to take the first steps towards that goal. The aim of that order is to address legal deficiencies identified by the Northern Ireland High Court and one issue identified by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The remedial order will remove from the Act all provisions related to immunity and the prohibition imposed on retrospective and prospective civil proceedings.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced yesterday that this remedial order will be followed, when parliamentary time allows, by primary legislation, which means that will be phase 2 of the discussions that we will have today. That legislation will respond to the other findings of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, including reforming the disclosure regime, which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised. The Government’s aim is to allow the maximum disclosure of information while ensuring that proportional safeguards remain in place to protect the security of the state. I want to assure the noble Lord that that is our objective. This will closely mirror the process in statutory inquiries and other established processes. Further, it will realise the commitment made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to allow inquests that were previously halted by the legacy Act to proceed.
On some of the noble Lord’s specific questions on financing and support, I will write to him with detail.
In cases that are not able to proceed as an inquest, the Government will ensure that the independent commission is able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals and allow families to have effective representation.
Although the court found the commission to be sufficiently independent to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations, as the noble Lord highlighted, we will make further changes to its powers and accountability to strengthen the commission’s independence in order to secure the confidence of the public and the families. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, this work will consider provisions included in the draft Stormont House agreement legislation and learn from Operation Kenova, which sets out a framework for disclosure without immunity, which is why we will work so closely. That answers one of the questions from the noble Lord.
These steps, taken together, will ensure compliance with the ECHR, remove conditional immunity, ensure the reinstatement of legacy inquests halted by the Act, restore civil claims and reform ICRIR. Importantly, this will be done while ICRIR continues working on behalf of the growing number of families who have already sought its help.
In answer to the noble Baroness, the Secretary of State has made clear the value he places on engagement, and this Government will carry out an additional time-limited process of engagement on measures to be included in primary legislation. That includes ongoing engagement with Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank all noble Lords for how generous they have been with their time to date.
Engagement will include families, victims’ groups and veterans and, of course, the Irish Government. I emphasise that engagement with veterans will recognise the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers and members of the Armed Forces and security services who did so much to keep people in Northern Ireland safe during the Troubles.
It is clear that the full participation of the UK and Irish Governments in all legacy mechanisms is important if we are to provide as much information as possible for as many families as possible, and that is what we seek to do.
In line with the Secretary of State’s Statement, we have sought leave to appeal elements of the judgment in Dillon and others in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. This will address wider concerns and the potential impact far beyond Northern Ireland. As set out in the Statement, though, this will not slow down our efforts to seek agreement and bring forward legacy legislation so that ICRIR, which has begun its work, can demonstrate its capacity to assist victims and their families, helping them and society in Northern Ireland to take the next steps in the healing process.
I assure noble Lords about our support for veterans. Some Members of your Lordships’ House know that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself, if not a member of our military family, at least on the periphery of our military family. This is a matter very close to my heart as well as to many in this House. I thank the quarter of a million people who served during the Troubles to keep us safe. Our Government will work closely with veterans and veterans’ groups to ensure that the right pastoral care and welfare support are in place, as well as the right legal support as and when required.
With regard to other points raised, I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about our constant and regular engagement with the new Government of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State met Micheál Martin earlier this week and is meeting him again this week to discuss legacy issues. Regular engagement has started and will continue.
I outlined the process for consultation on the revised ICRIR. It will be with every Member of this House, if they wish to engage with me. We want to take as many soundings as possible to make sure that people have confidence and faith in what comes next.
I think I have answered the majority of questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and come back to noble Lords. I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House as we bring forward the Government’s next step in dealing with some incredibly complex but crucial issues.