Sudan

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, because she always brings such authority to a debate.

I too thank the Minister for initiating this important debate and congratulate him on his comprehensive and powerful speech. It is very welcome that we are having this debate today; a debate in government time is long overdue. As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, this sometimes feels like the forgotten war, yet it is so far from forgotten for the millions of displaced, sick and starving of Sudan. It is stark to see quite how little coverage of the war there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, compared to the coverage of what is happening in the Middle East or Ukraine.

I worked on a project in Sudan from 2022 to 2023— I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. Indeed, my last visit to Khartoum was in April 2023 with my noble friend Lord Purvis, just one week before this awful civil war started. By the time we left Khartoum, the roads were all closed, the pro-democracy campaigners were facing the Sudanese Armed Forces on the streets, and the air was thick with tear gas. Then, just one week later, on 15 April, the full-blown civil war started.

It is the most cynical of wars. It is not a war about ideals or ideology but about personal wealth, power, influence and access to natural resources—and all at the terrible expense of ordinary people, especially women and children, who now face starvation on a catastrophic scale. It is estimated that 37% of the population faces severe food insecurity. It is a war that, in many ways, has become a proxy war for current geopolitical tensions. During my visits to Khartoum, the Wagner Group was clearly visible in the streets of the capital, and at that time it was supporting the RSF. However, there is evidence that Russia is now cynically switching sides in its bid to maintain access to the Red Sea.

Both sides in this war—the RSF and the SAF—are accused of international war crimes. There are truly appalling reports of soldiers using rape as a weapon. Even before the fighting broke out, the UN estimated that 3 million women and girls in Sudan were at risk of gender-based violence. It is rightly described as

“one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”

by UN officials.

Yet after President Bashir was removed in 2019, there were genuine hopes that the transition to a civilian-led Government based on human rights and the rule of law might be possible. Certainly, in September 2022, during my first visit to Sudan, I was struck by the optimism and hope when talking to my Sudanese colleagues. At home in my flat, I have a copy of Hussein Merghani’s wonderful watercolour from 2019, which shows hundreds of people, including women and children from Atbara, travelling by train to join the sit-in at the military headquarters in Khartoum in April 2019. The painting is optimistic and shows the strength of public support at that time, across the country, after the revolution in 2019, for a different future for Sudan. It was an all too fleeting time of optimism.

One of the people I got to know while working in Khartoum was Samia El Hashmi. Samia is an eminent Sudanese lawyer and women’s rights activist who was working with the Sudanese Bar Association. After the revolution, Samia helped to draft a new constitution for Sudan which enshrined human rights and the rule of law. In many ways, Samia for me embodies the many wonderful and highly educated people I met in Sudan—people who just want to live a normal life in the country that they love but who had to flee for their lives when the fighting started in April last year.

The history of relations between Sudan and Britain is long and complex, but this shared history creates a special bond between our nations. We should not forget that the University of Durham’s Sudan archive preserves much of the history of Sudan. With this shared history comes responsibility. After the December revolution, the UK rightly played an important role with the quartet in supporting the democratic transition and promoting civilian government, political security and stability, economic reform and human rights. This is a process which should be continued and revived whenever—as we all hope—this conflict can be brought to an end.

I do not have an instant solution for how we can bring about peace to Sudan. I am sure many noble Lords speaking in the debate today are much better qualified and placed than me to make suggestions in that regard. But as my friend Samia has said to me, Britain can and must continue to play a trusted role, and do all in our power to work with others to bring about an end to this most bloody of conflicts.

In his concluding remarks, I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the Government’s position on increasing the arms embargo to cover the whole of the country. I welcome what he said in his opening statement: that the Government will do all they can to ensure that those guilty of the most appalling war crimes—particularly against women and children—will face justice through the International Criminal Court.

Wars can too easily become about just statistics, but for me, this is personal. It is about the Sudanese people I had the opportunity to get to know and work with during my visits to Sudan. They desperately want the international community to give them some hope that the conflict can be stopped and that they can return to their country and start to rebuild once again from the rubble.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and wish her well, but I must say—this is no reflection on her—that Northern Ireland would be better served in this House with a full-time departmental Minister.

The shooting dead of Patrick Finucane at home in front of his family in February 1989 by members of the loyalist terror group the Ulster Defence Association was a heinous act. Like all terrorist atrocities committed during the Troubles, whether loyalist or republican, there could never be any justification for it.

As the Statement makes clear, since 1989 there have been a number of investigations and reviews into the killing of Patrick Finucane—most recently the review by the late Sir Desmond de Silva QC, established by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, which reported in December 2012. Sir Desmond, who had full access to the Finucane archive and all relevant state papers, concluded in 2012 that while there was no “over-arching State conspiracy”, there were shocking levels of state collusion.

The Statement acknowledges the unprecedented apology from my noble friend, which I helped to draft, and the Opposition stand by every word of that apology. Any state collusion was, and is, always wrong and should always be condemned, and those responsible should, wherever possible, always face the full force of the law.

The de Silva review sought to establish the facts of what happened in a far shorter timescale than could ever have been achieved by a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I maintain that the review, delivered on time and on budget, was a thorough, substantial piece of work that put far more information into the public domain about the Finucane killing than had ever been made available before. Despite that, as the noble Baroness made clear, after a series of legal challenges the Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that the de Silva review, along with all previous investigations, was not fully Article 2 compliant, for the reasons the noble Baroness set out in the Statement.

It is worth pointing out that the 2019 judgment did not conclude that a public inquiry was required to remedy the Article 2 deficiency, let alone order such an inquiry. Rather, it said at paragraph 153 that:

“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.


Following further court challenges by the Finucane family, and deadlines set by the Court of Appeal in Belfast, the new Government announced yesterday that they will now establish a public inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act—something that, as the Statement points out, had previously been rejected by the Finucane family.

Although we respect the Government’s decision in this case, we believe it to be a mistaken decision and one that, I fear, is likely to be a case of “Grant in haste and repent at leisure”. In our view, a better and more appropriate way forward would have been to refer the case to the newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, ICRIR. This body is now staffed and operational, since 1 May, under the distinguished leadership of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, who revealed on Monday that the commission has already considered 85 applications, with eight of them now at the information recovery stage.

For all the controversy surrounding the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, and despite the new Government’s pledge to “repeal and replace” the Act, they have now committed to keeping the ICRIR, the establishment of which forms the vast bulk of the Act. Indeed, in the Statement the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in Sir Declan Morgan and the ability of the ICRIR

“to find answers for survivors and families”.

In February this year the High Court found the ICRIR to be capable of conducting effective Article 2-compliant investigations and to be sufficiently independent of government. The Statement acknowledges that the commission has similar powers to compel and secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies to those available to any public inquiry. The commission is able to hold hearings in public under an enhanced inquisitorial process and has the powers to compel witnesses—the main deficiency identified by the court in the de Silva review.

In light of all this, can the noble Baroness set out precisely what a public inquiry can achieve that the ICRIR cannot? Why set up an entirely new process, with all the time and cost involved in that, when we have a body in place that could begin straightaway and deliver the same outcomes?

On timings, can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the Government expect to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry, when we are likely to see the agreed terms of reference, and when the inquiry will begin formal proceedings?

The Secretary of State expressed the expectation that, given previous reviews and investigations, costs can be contained. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, given the thoroughness with which we expect public inquiries to be conducted, and mindful of the history of such inquiries in Northern Ireland, this might turn out to be something of a triumph of hope over expectation? What is the Government’s estimate of the time and the cost?

The Government’s main argument in favour of a public inquiry in this case appears to be its “unique circumstances”, the promises that were made at Weston Park in 2001 and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the other place in 2004. Can the noble Baroness set out what precisely are the unique circumstances of this case that set it apart from other atrocities carried out during the Troubles and that merit different treatment? Have the Government considered the impact of this decision on other victims and survivors of the Troubles? Can she confirm that the challenge to the previous Government’s decision not to proceed with a public inquiry, on the basis that this had been promised by another Government years before, was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 2019? Can she also say how many other demands for public inquiries the Government are currently considering?

Finally, I welcome the acknowledgement in the Statement of the role of the security forces, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, and whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.

From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.

It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?

On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?

Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.

As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.

The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.

I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.

As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.

As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.

That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.

I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.

Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.

The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.

We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.

Elections Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Desai (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I speak on this amendment because, when I arrived here in 1965, I had an Indian passport and I was surprised when, during the 1966 election, someone said to me, “Have you voted yet?” I said that I did not know I had voting rights in this country. He said, “Get on with it and get yourself registered.” This explained to me that, in the UK, we were subjects, not citizens. It was as subjects of the monarch that we qualified. Since the monarch also ruled over the Empire, all subjects of the Empire were equally qualified to vote in the election.

As far as I remember, the notion of citizenship only came with our membership of the European Union. We began to talk of ourselves as citizens, and we had differently coloured passports and things like that. However, the muddle that the noble Lord referred to in moving his amendment is that we are not clear as to what entitles us to vote. Is it our status as subjects of an empire? Is it our status as local taxpayers, as used to be the case before the universal franchise came in? Is it residency? If there is ever another, better version of this Bill, perhaps the first part of it should clarify the status of an individual under which he or she is qualified to be a voter. Until the muddle is clarified, we will have to proceed with a compromised mish-mash of rights.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I also pass on my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord True, for a speedy recovery. Having had it myself fairly recently, I can say that it is a horrible illness.

I want to move on to the question of Northern Ireland and speak in favour of Amendment 156 in my name, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has signed. It would ensure that EU citizens lawfully resident in Northern Ireland can continue to stand for election and vote in Northern Ireland district elections after the end of the Brexit transition period. It is primarily a probing amendment, however.

In the EU-UK withdrawal agreement, the UK Government committed, under Article 2.1 of the Northern Ireland protocol, to ensuring that certain equalities and human rights in Northern Ireland would continue to be protected after Brexit. Does the Minister—I appreciate that he is filling in at rather late notice—agree with the assessment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland that the Bill as it stands risks stepping back from those commitments and may in fact be in breach of the UK’s obligations under Article 2.1 of the protocol? Will he undertake to set out, either in response to this amendment or in writing following this debate, the Government’s assessment of the relevant provisions of the Elections Bill in the context of their conformity with our commitments under Article 2.1 of the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in support of Amendment 156. I also pass on my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord True, for a speedy recovery. I agree with the thrust of the amendments in this group; as a democrat, I believe in a fully functioning democracy in which all residents are allowed to register to vote, exercise their mandate at elections and be candidates in elections. That is what a functioning democracy is about. Universal franchise is vital in a liberal democracy and should be one of the hallmarks of the UK—free, fair and unencumbered elections.

Amendment 156, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, deals with that specific Northern Ireland situation. It is a probing amendment. We seek to delete paragraphs 7 to 9 from Schedule 8, which would ensure that all EU citizens lawfully resident in Northern Ireland continue to be able to stand as candidates and vote in district council elections in Northern Ireland.

I was a councillor in Northern Ireland for many years, as was the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, across the Chamber. We valued our time in local government as a learning curve. Many of those who participated in those elections and many new residents in Northern Ireland would also value that participatory part of democracy, in voting in district council elections and having the ability to be a candidate. I can think of a colleague in Derry and Strabane District Council, who is originally from Kenya, and is now a serving councillor.

This section does not apply to British and Irish citizens; it applies to EU citizens who have arrived to reside in Northern Ireland since January 2021 and whose country does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK. I remind your Lordships, and particularly the Minister, that this is in some ways reminiscent of the “I” voter situation in Northern Ireland, which was removed by the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, when everybody in Northern Ireland was granted universal franchise. I remind the Minister that elections and the right to exercise one’s franchise are very emotive issues in Northern Ireland. Please do not go down this road and create further problems with other EU nationalities and create barriers on the island of Ireland. It is highly important that that does not happen, because this is an emotive and politically charged issue, as it deals with EU citizens and excludes them; it could be perceived as a discriminatory provision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the equality and human rights commissions in Northern Ireland, which are concerned that this provision of the Elections Bill could contravene Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which states that there must be

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”

provisions, as set out in the Good Friday agreement, resulting from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It could be perceived that this provision, within paragraphs 7 to 9 of Schedule 8 to the Bill, could contravene those rights under Article 2 of the protocol. If passed into law, this provision would create two new types of EU citizenship for the purposes of UK elections law—a qualifying EU citizen and an EU citizen with retained rights—in addition to the EU citizens who do not fall into either of these categories.

The right of EU citizens to vote in local district council elections in Northern Ireland was underpinned by EU law until the end of the transition period. I declare an interest as a member of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee in your Lordships’ House. We have engaged with Minister Burns, a Minister for the Northern Ireland Office in the other place, on this issue and we have received a response. An identical response was received by the equality and human rights commissions.

In my humble view, so far in those responses the Government have still not set out in full their assessment of the relevant provisions of the Bill in terms of compliance with Article 2. Will the Minister do that today? If that is not possible, will he write? It is most important that that is done to satisfy the concerns of both commissions.

Further, will the Minister and his colleagues commit to meet both commissions in Northern Ireland, either via the Cabinet or the Northern Ireland Office, to discuss Article 2 provisions under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol and how this contravention and these issues can be addressed to ensure that there is a full, participatory democracy that excludes nobody and includes all?

Official Development Assistance

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this timely and extremely important debate, and commend him on his powerful opening speech this afternoon.

On Monday this week, the Prime Minister set out his ambition to make the UK a science superpower, yet these cuts not only undermine current and future science research but that very ambition. Many projects will have funding cuts midway through, leaving them unable to complete critical work such as vaccine development or fighting future pandemics through AMR research. This means that millions of pounds worth of British taxpayers’ money which has been invested in those projects now risks being lost. Making cuts at this most critical time, particularly given the opportunity for leadership through the G7 and COP 26 presidencies, risks damaging the UK’s position on the global stage.

Innovations for global public health need public funding, because there is no incentive for private research. We should recall that it was innovations such as work on malaria vaccines which helped lead to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. This research, long funded by UK ODA, has built a depth of expertise in infectious disease vaccines that is almost unparalleled. Does not the Minister agree that there is a very real risk that such innovation will not be there when we need it in future if we do not fund it now? In the wake of Covid-19 and with budgets tightening around the world, does not the Minister further agree that applied health research is exactly what is needed right now to make our limited budgets go further?