Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
Debate between Baroness Suttie and Lord Caine
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.
Patrick Finucane Murder
Debate between Baroness Suttie and Lord Caine(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?