Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Baroness Suttie and Baroness O'Loan

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They went on to say that

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

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

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

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

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

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

Omagh Bombing

Debate between Baroness Suttie and Baroness O'Loan

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland Secretary’s Statement from last week and I very much echo and agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

The decision to hold the inquiry is welcome. It is the right decision, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be commended for it. He listened, and he changed his mind. He has given the families and community in Omagh the hope that they will now learn the truth. As Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was murdered on that day, said:

“This is not a case of deflecting the blame from those who are responsible—that was the criminal terrorists who planned, prepared and delivered this bomb into Omagh. What we’re looking at is the failings of the people that are there to protect us.”


The murder of 29 people, including two unborn children—twins—happening as it did just months after the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998 was a truly appalling and barbaric act of an unprecedented scale throughout the Troubles. The devastation to the community and the impact that it has had on the victims and their families, as well as the 220 people who were injured, is almost unimaginable. It is a credit to the peace process that the terrorists did not succeed and it was not derailed.

The Secretary of State said in his Statement,

“the inquiry will allow us to meet our article 2 procedural obligations under the European convention on human rights”.

That is also to be welcomed.

Will the Minister say what he expects to be the timetable now for the announcement of the chair of the inquiry and the publication of the terms of reference? How will he undertake to keep Parliament informed? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I am slightly surprised by the different type of approach to this inquiry from that of the legacy Bill. Will the Minister say a little more about how he imagines this very different process will fit in with the proposals in the current legacy Bill?

The families of the victims and the injured have already waited nearly 25 years. It will, at times, be a difficult and painful process, but as Michael Gallagher has said,

“If we don’t have this process, for the rest of our lives we’re going to be wondering ‘what if’.”

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords—