Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Caine

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I welcome the fact that my noble friend supports the restoration of the institution; where I part company is on the issue of alignment. There is absolutely nothing in this deal that prevents the United Kingdom diverging from European rules and European law, should Ministers believe that is in the interests of the UK. Fundamentally, that will be a matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which remains sovereign. Indeed, the pipeline of automatic alignment is ended through this agreement by the introduction of the new robust democratic safeguards and checks, such as the Stormont brake.

So far as my noble friend’s final comments are concerned, there is absolutely no diminution in Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom. As the statutory instruments make clear, Northern Ireland is a full integral part of the United Kingdom and of its internal market.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I am very glad to add to the congratulations to the Minister, who has been central to the success of this process. In the other place, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland talked about a breakdown of trust between the United Kingdom Government and the local parties. One of the people who has worked hardest to restore that trust is the Minister.

Does the Minister agree that this is in fact also a tribute to three Prime Ministers, who worked very hard from the beginning of this Parliament, with great difficulty and often very slowly, and often under great criticism in this House, to put the Good Friday agreement back in place? This includes the commitment in the agreement to address the alienation of one or other community—in this case it was the unionist community, but not that long ago it was the Irish nationalist community on the Irish language question—and to act in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement by putting that at the centre of affairs in a way which makes quite a dramatic change.

The Minister will remember us both studying the 2018 withdrawal agreement. There was no mention at all of a role for the Northern Irish Assembly—look how far we have moved in that respect. The December 2017 agreement between this Government and Europe committed the British Government to supporting an all-island economy, which then fuelled all those in the TUV, for example, to believe that that means a politically united Ireland. In fact, 25 years ago they said the same thing about the Good Friday agreement. Does the Minister agree that that scenario has also passed as a result of the Command Paper?

Finally, does the Minister agree that there was a certain irony when we debated the Bill of the Johnson Government in this House? I can remember being told very firmly that the DUP will always let you down. Does he think that we can now smile at that? I should say that was from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, who is my good friend, for his kind words. I pay tribute to him for the many hours of work he put into this process behind the scenes in bringing us to this place—and, if I am allowed to say, to members of his wider family. In the interests of brevity, I endorse entirely his comments. I reiterate my tribute to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the fantastic work they have done in bringing us to this place.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Caine

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the intervention. I did not express it quite correctly; I was thinking of the likely number of prosecutions, which is a substantially lower number. She is right to make the correction.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I turn first to Amendment 10 to Clause 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The legislation is clear in relation to the powers provided to the ICRIR to assist in the performance of its functions. That includes Clause 5, in relation to disclosure, and Clause 6, which provides for ICRIR officers to have the powers and privileges of a constable. Clause 14 provides the ICRIR with the power to compel individuals to provide information, a power which is not provided to police officers but, in the Government’s view, is necessary to ensure that the commission can deliver effective legacy mechanisms while complying with our international obligations. Although I am sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment, I suggest that it is not necessary.

In respect of the noble Lord’s comments about the employment of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers—former members of the Historical Enquiries Team—there is absolutely no prohibition, as I made clear in earlier comments in Committee. I think he is aware of my steadfast support and gratitude for the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over many years.

I turn to Amendments 21 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. We had an extensive discussion about this issue yesterday afternoon so she will be unsurprised by my response. In our view, the Bill’s definition of a “close family member” is already extensive and covers spouses, civil partners, cohabitees, children, parents and siblings, as well as stepchildren, step-parents and half-step-siblings, and the ICRIR must accept a request for a review from any of these individuals. Therefore, this is a provision which is unlikely to be required in the majority of cases, given the comprehensive scope of the definition of close family member. However, where no close family member exists, it is right that the ICRIR has discretion—I repeat, discretion—to consider whether that request is appropriate. This could, for example, be considering the nature of the relationship to the deceased by the person requesting the review, both in terms of how they are related or the reality of that relationship. Factors such as whether they were estranged or were closely involved in the individual’s life could be relevant.

In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness about data, we discussed this extensively. I am afraid I do not know the details of the circumstances in which Kenova has made the request to which she referred, but I think the Government’s position on this is solid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to address the subject of the fairness of the working of the commission in future. This amendment is alongside Amendments 37 and 47, which essentially have the same effect.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Just to clarify: does the noble Lord wish to speak to Amendment 12, which we have not yet reached?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

If I am honest, I am not entirely sure I follow the point the noble Baroness is making, but I stand by the point I have just made, that our intention is not to impose unnecessary restrictions through this legislation but to allow the commission to access information and be in a position to put more information about what happened into the public domain than has been the case.

Turning to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I understand the intention behind this amendment, but Clause 11(7) already requires the commissioner for investigations to ensure that the commission does not do anything that duplicates any aspects of a previous review, unless duplication is deemed absolutely necessary. We believe this is a proportionate approach that ensures the resources of the commission are not wasted through unnecessary duplication, while providing limited discretion for the commission where that might be required. In our view, the effects of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would be to hamper the ability of the commission to conduct reviews which might lead to the effective provision of information to many families, which would run counter to a key objective of the legislation. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.

Stormont Brake

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Caine

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I very much agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State will speak to all the Northern Ireland parties in the very near future. I agree with my noble friend about the achievements of the 1998 Belfast agreement; as we approach its 25th anniversary, it is important that we seek to move that forward. He is absolutely right.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her Question. I fully accept that both the SDLP and the Alliance Party have difficulties with the Stormont brake. On the other side of the argument, the Centre For The Union published overnight its eagerly awaited text, which argues that, in principle, it is sympathetic to the Stormont brake. That is an important moment in this struggle to see the return of Stormont.

There is a lot of concern about how the brake might work in practice. I want to put a question to the Minister. Over the past two years, Northern Ireland has been much dominated by the efforts initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place, to introduce derogations from the operation of the original protocol. As far as I can see, most of those derogations are now embodied in the new deal, but this was done to effect stability and was done unilaterally. Now that there is an international agreement that underpins the actions of the British Government with respect to the Stormont brake, surely it is logical that, when a decision is not unilateral but is based on the international agreement, the British Government can be relied on to pursue again the objective of stability in Northern Ireland as firmly as they have done over the past two years—and in rather more favourable international circumstances.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I must call him my noble friend, because we go back so many years. He makes very important points. I thank him for his contributions on these subjects, not only today but over a number of months and years. Of course, he is right to highlight the importance of stability, to which I referred in an earlier answer. That is the surest foundation for the union and for strengthening Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

On the broader point, he referred to derogations. So much of what we have had to do through grace periods and easements has now been made permanent because of the Windsor Framework. That allows us to move on. In a similar vein to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I hope that one of the consequences of this is that we can now move forward, not just in Northern Ireland but in our broader relationships with friends, partners and colleagues in the European Union.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Caine

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I will need to read the clause through again and come back to the noble Baroness on that, if I may. As I was just saying, moving Clause 19 into the schedule is simply intended to make this legislation easier to follow.

The ability of commission officers to use their powers of arrest and detention as part of its investigations is important. That includes cases where a suspect, having not obtained immunity, needs to be detained for the purposes of questioning. That would happen as part of the case-building process in a criminal investigation before a file was referred to prosecutors. I have tabled Amendment 151 to remove any doubt as to the circumstances in which criminal enforcement action can be taken where immunity has not been granted, and where a referral to a prosecutor has not yet been made. In addition to allowing for the exercise of powers of arrest and detention, the amendment also ensures that the commission would be able to charge a person with an offence before a referral to a prosecutor had been made. The amendment also clarifies that those with existing powers of detention—for example, the police—may continue to use those powers where they are being exercised in connection with the commission’s functions.

Amendments 150 and 153 are related minor and technical amendments. We touched on the importance of the chief commissioner’s actions over the course of a review leading up to a report, as per Amendment 36. Under Clause 15, the chief commissioner is required to share the draft report with the person who requested the review, with victims, where applicable, and with any relevant family members as defined in the Bill. These persons will have the right to make representations, which must be considered before a report is finalised. Separately, the chief commissioner must share the draft report with any living individual subject to significant criticism in the draft report, who also has the right to make representations that must be considered before a report is finalised.

We have discussed today the referral of conduct to prosecutors. Amendments 114 and 135 specifically would expect the commissioner for investigations to refer conduct to prosecutors in cases where the threshold is met, unless there is a good reason not to do so. If the commission were under an obligation to refer all relevant conduct to prosecutors that it considered an offence, there is a risk this would place an unreasonable operational burden on it—a concern that was also relevant to the Stormont House agreement. I will try to get through this as quickly as I can.

I turn to post-Troubles sentencing, and specifically Amendment 149 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn. All offences, including terrorist-type offences, committed after 10 April 1998 will remain the investigative responsibility of the relevant police force. I recognise the intent behind this amendment but we have already tabled an amendment which could mean that people lose immunity if they are convicted of knowingly or wilfully misleading the commission. I am content to keep engaging with noble Lords and others on possible instances where we can strengthen the incentives to engage with the body and ensure adequate and proportionate penalties for those who do not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme have probed the meaning of “general immunity from prosecution” in Clause 18. To be clear, as I have said immunity will be granted only in respect of conduct disclosed by an individual as part of their application. “General immunity from prosecution” does not mean immunity for all Troubles-related conduct in which individuals may have been involved but which has not been disclosed. Clause 18(9) makes it clear that, where immunity from prosecution is framed as a grant of general immunity, it must be framed by reference to the particular conduct that the person has disclosed. In other words, it will not confer immunity in relation to other conduct. The noble Baroness is looking at me slightly quizzically; I am happy to go through this again with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, proposed an amendment to add an additional condition that must be met before immunity is granted: that the commission is satisfied that the grant of immunity would be compatible with convention rights, comply with the constitutional principle of the rule of law and satisfy the interests of justice. In response, the Government remain confident that the legislation is legally robust and complies with our obligations, so it is not necessary to make specific reference in the Bill to the compatibility of convention rights in respect of the commission discharging specific functions. It is the Government’s view that this is already covered.

The noble Lord referred in one of his questions to cases being initiated by the state or being initiated by families. While the commission will carry out reviews where requested to do so by a family or where a person has requested immunity, I assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State and other public officials, such as the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland, will be able to request a review where this is necessary to ensure an effective and efficient investigation for the purposes of discharging the UK’s international obligations. Those powers are there.

As I have explained before, the commission, as a public authority, will be under a duty under the Human Rights Act to act compatibly with convention rights when exercising its functions and making any of its decisions. Working together with public prosecutors and making use of its full police powers, it will also be able to institute criminal proceedings against suspected offenders in cases where conditional immunity has not been granted.

In response to the noble Baroness, who I know disagrees with me on this, I set out at length last week that the Government’s view is that the absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in a limited and conditional way is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths and serious incidents that is extremely unlikely to come to light in any other circumstances. It is through the recovery of information for the benefit of families and wider communities, in part by means of the conditional immunity process, that the new body will be enabled to contribute to moving society forward in Northern Ireland. It is therefore consistent with the Government’s stated objective to provide more information to victims and survivors in a timely and efficient manner, which would not happen if we engaged in a single-minded focus simply on criminal justice outcomes.

I have gone way over time. I have tried to answer as many points as possible, but if there are any that I have missed then I am happy to sit down with noble Lords following Committee. On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments, as I will not press mine.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019: Section 3(5)

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Caine

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this report, and I add my support to those who have spoken against the continuation of direct rule.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raised the question of whether there should be an election next year—I think that he is right to raise it, although I do not know the answer—and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a very important point about health. However, what worries me about the report is that there is a slight sense that we are on the right path. It is noticeable that the Stormont House agreement is mentioned but not its date. It is now five and a half years old. That is a telling little omission. We are told that it has principles that help with reconciliation and so on. It is not the fault of the Stormont House agreement as such, but I cannot see how the principles in it promote reconciliation. I have said in this House before that I do not think the proposals for independent investigation will promote reconciliation. Of course, the consultation that has been carried out shows that, at some level, people in Northern Ireland still want independent investigations. But the hard truth is that they want independent investigations into the other side’s doings rather more than as an abstract reality.

The consultation shows no sign of what was almost a majority of opinion the last time this House debated the issue of legacy. Many in the House who spoke that night had long service in Northern Ireland and had lived there. The majority opinion was tending towards drawing a line under this by some means. Parliament itself seems also to have indicated at various points that that is the majority opinion and could be gained some time next year if this becomes the issue.

Perhaps more important is the Irish language question. I want to say one thing. We have been told, quite rightly, that Brexit was stopping a deal or an accommodation. That is a perfectly correct point; it has made things very difficult. But a no-deal Brexit, which was the most destabilising prospect for the talks, has now virtually disappeared. We have Second Reading. I know that some like to think that no deal is still there but, in the real world, it has disappeared. I well understand the objection to the approach to Brexit that the Government are taking but, for good or ill, as an issue interfering with the talks early next year, it should not be a problem in the way that it certainly has been in the last few years.

Equal marriage and abortion are other divisive issues that are now resolved. These issues were creating huge problems in the talks. Many people will be unhappy with the way that they have been resolved but, for good or ill, as I have said, they have been resolved. Irish language is the remaining great issue along with legacy issues. I am not convinced that the resolution of legacy issues is a precondition to getting the Executive established but I think that the Irish language is. Once again, this Parliament has the capacity to resolve that. The St Andrews agreement seems to say that that is the job of this House. Certainly, the framing language around the St Andrews agreement suggests a moderate reform, if we look at the way it is couched, for the prospects for the Irish language.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My noble friend has mentioned two issues. I raise a third: the sustainability of institutions, so that we cannot go back to a situation whereby one party can pull down the whole edifice.

[Lord Bew]

I absolutely accept the wisdom of that point. Indeed, this is an important subject for conversation and dialogue in the lead-up to the talks. We cannot have a repeat of what has happened over the last 1,000 days. I am simply saying that the Government have had little choice but to allow things to drift for these 1,000 days, but next year there will be a new political context creating new opportunities. I am not committed to any of these solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, might be right or wrong on the election; that is not the point. I might be right or wrong on the Irish language. What I am sure of is that we cannot go on drifting. The Government should be aware that a break is coming. A new situation will be coming about early next year and there will have to be new thinking. We cannot go on talking about the Stormont agreement of 2014.