Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Eames Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, it will not surprise the House, bearing in mind that Peers from Northern Ireland have lived through and experienced the events that have been referred to by virtually every speaker, that this is an extremely emotional occasion for me. The years of my adult life have almost totally been lived out in the years of the Troubles, and the jobs I tried to do all centred on people. They centred on the bereaved, the injured, the devastated, on those who committed terrible deeds and on those who were encouraged eventually to find a better route.

I have listened carefully to each speech tonight and have tried to put together the jigsaw of people referred to in my mind. Then I looked around the Chamber and saw many of my fellow Peers who do not live in Northern Ireland but who have taken the trouble to identify with our lives and experiences. I thank them for that. Then I looked across and saw the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In each case, memories flooded back of working with those with responsibilities for the government of Northern Ireland, as they had, and I am grateful.

At this moment, however, I think most of the houses in which I have stood, the bedsides besides which I have knelt and the families, particularly the young people, whose futures were devastated by the Troubles. So I make no apology for being personal in what I will say. It will not take long, for virtually everything that I feel needs to be said about this Bill has been said, and by people of such expertise as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—lawyers, people with human emotions, politicians from Northern Ireland and people who have endured some of the emotional stress of these past years.

When I heard the title the Government had chosen for this Bill, I was encouraged, as “reconciliation” has now found some structure in legislation. Then I read the proposed Bill and began to ask whether all the years of work and in seeking agreement were useless. Were all the tears shed and pains shared useless and unproductive? I could find nothing in the Bill that would increase the human expectation or realisation of true reconciliation; rather, it will add to the hurt and uncertainty, and to the dismal prospect of that hurt being endured for generation after generation.

My next reaction was to scrap the Bill totally, as it will not serve any useful purpose. I have sympathy with Members of the House who said, “Start from scratch. Start again”. But my memory goes back to Denis Bradley and me, and the Consultative Group on the Past, which made the first attempt to deal with legacy. We made many mistakes. We learned as we went along and society made its judgment, because we were at the wrong time. Society was not ready to look at its legacy. But, as I listen and read what has happened since, how many aspects of that report continue to surface? Put different labels on it, use different words, but the thoughts are there. There must have been something that was worth saying.

That led me to my second conclusion: we do not need to scrap the Bill totally but, as it goes through this House, must give it the sort of scrutiny that leaves no stone unturned so that we get to what is needed for the Northern Ireland of the future. That will mean questions about the work of the proposed commission, about its control and the control of it. It will raise questions about whether Westminster will be too involved and exercise too much control that could be exercised in Northern Ireland. It will ask questions of jurisprudence, which has not been mentioned tonight. My memory goes back to many years ago, when I tried to teach jurisprudence to reluctant law students. If there is one memory I have of those days, it is the knowledge that there is a sense in which the definition of justice is what must emerge at the end of any process dealing with legacy, wherever it is. I honestly believe that the Bill in its present form is totally guilty of running a horse—and, dare I say it, a hearse—through the nature of justice.

I believe that we must look at the Bill and not totally scrap it but take it to pieces and see which Lego bricks should remain. Many things have been said tonight about ways in which we can improve our approach. To conclude these brief remarks, I believe that the new legislation we seek must be centred on the victims, and on the suffering of the people who suffered most in our Troubles—above all recognising their claim to justice and to a better future—and on a generation of young people who deserve far more than my generation has been able to offer them. If we cannot do that, we need to move away from looking at the disaster on the decks of the “Titanic” and have a look at what caused the iceberg.

Finally, I say this to the Minister. I think we are getting a sense tonight of what he personally has gone through and is going through regarding this Bill. He deserves genuine tribute for his honesty in his introduction to this session. I say this to him: he knows Northern Ireland; he knows what we are like; and he knows where we have come from. I beg of him, in the face of his colleagues and those who wish this Bill to continue, to pause, and have the courage to say some of the things that he has heard said tonight, and realise that there is a future but it is a different sort of Bill.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Eames Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting
Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I remind the House that I spoke at some length and in detail in Committee last Tuesday, so I will speak only briefly in support of Amendment 6 and do so with increased urgency.

Since last week’s debate on essential damage limitation amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill—I remind the Chamber that they have the support of the entire business community and, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, pointed out last week, not just cross-party but all-party support in Northern Ireland—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed what many of us had long believed: that the Government are hell-bent on an ideologically hard Brexit that could do untold damage to the small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the overwhelming bulk of businesses in Northern Ireland.

When he told the Financial Times last week that there will be no regulatory alignment with the EU after Brexit and insisted that firms must “adjust” to new regulations, the Chancellor blithely said that businesses have had since 2016 to prepare. However, businesses in Northern Ireland were not presented with the Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol until last November, just a couple of months ago. How on earth are small and medium-sized businesses, which are the cornerstone of Northern Ireland’s private sector economy, supposed to adjust in only 11 months to a unique and complex set of relationships with the internal UK and EU markets —and just when the Northern Ireland economy slowed last year because of a contraction in the private sector?

When the Secretary of State said in terms in the other place that the Assembly and the Executive should take greater responsibility for Northern Ireland’s economic and financial future, I doubt that many here, or indeed in Northern Ireland, would say he was wrong, but the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand that and at the same time inflict serious damage on many private sector businesses through erecting obstacles to trade across the Irish Sea and through their hard Brexit policies.

As was stressed by speaker after speaker from all sides of the Chamber last week, these amendments are essential to protect the very businesses that the Government say they want at the core of Northern Ireland’s economic future. They are intended simply to put into law what the Government profess to support: that there should be no impediments to trade in both directions across the Irish Sea.

The Minister wrote to noble Lords offering what I am sure he hoped would be reassurance on the issues raised here, but we are not remotely reassured. To be frank—I say this as an admirer of the Minister—the letters were full of warm words and elegant waffle. The core message was, “Don’t worry. Trust us and it will all be all right on the night.” But business leaders and politicians in Northern Ireland do not want mere reassurance. They want action and they want it without delay, through either accepting Amendment 6 or the Government coming up with their own mechanism in law that will have precisely the same effect.

I have huge admiration for the Minister. I know that he is in a difficult position because No. 10 is flatly refusing to listen and accept amendments, but that is not acceptable. Businesses in Northern Ireland should not be sacrificed on the altar of government dogma and be forced to incur obstacles and charges when trading both ways across the Irish Sea.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to that of the noble Baroness, who spoke so eloquently on this subject this afternoon, for one reason: throughout my professional life, I have come to value the core of Northern Ireland life through its business community. In many cases, those businesses were small. They are the heartbeat of the Northern Ireland community. Given the sensitivities of our situation both politically and economically—politically because of the sensitive nature of reaching the recent agreement, which we all welcome—and of our geographical position, having on our shore what is soon to become the border between the United Kingdom and the European Community, there is no better word than “sensitivity” to be adopted regarding the wording of the amendment.

During the lengthy debate in Committee, I coined the phrase “the reality of reassurance”. Behind what has already been said this afternoon, that remains the key reason why we make a strong plea to Her Majesty’s Government to take seriously not just the amendment’s wording and technicalities but the motive behind it: the reality of reassurance. No one can tell how this will develop once Brexit is a reality. The noble Baroness quoted the letter that came to us from right across the business community, which is united in making a plea for this reality of reassurance. At this stage, I simply say this: I realise the difficulties faced by the Minister and I accept the sincerity of his position, but I urge the Government to realise that there is a lot more to this amendment than simply technical phrases.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 8 to 11, which stand in my name and that of my noble friends Lord McCrea, Lord Hay and Lord Browne. These amendments and the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, are very similar. Indeed, some might say that they overlap slightly, but I think that is no bad thing because of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I speak as a unionist and a supporter of the leave cause. We are clear that the withdrawal agreement does not get Brexit done, but that is to be proved. It merely creates an opportunity to get it done for Great Britain, but not for the United Kingdom. The final agreement will determine whether it is done for Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I will be happy to be proved wrong on this occasion, but I suspect—I say it myself—I will not be proved wrong.

The withdrawal agreement leaves Northern Ireland behind in the single market and, despite the legal technicalities, inside the EU customs union. The vote to leave was a vote not of Great Britain but of the United Kingdom. It does not respect the referendum result. There was never any discussion about the difficulties of a land border. The European Union dismissed all solutions, and, shamefully, many used the implicit threat of republican violence to make it appear unsolvable. The result was not to solve the trade and customs issue but to move the problems from the UK-Irish border to inside the UK.

The EU can hardly now approve a series of alternative arrangements that it spent three years dismissing as unworkable and undeliverable without admitting it was disingenuous on the land border. The act of putting a regulatory customs and tariff border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain did not solve the trade problems; it multiplied them. Great Britain is Northern Ireland’s largest market, and something like 70% of Northern Ireland’s retail goods come from Great Britain, so these potential checks will be more harmful than if they were at the land border.

The Prime Minister has given many interviews and there were commitments in the Conservative manifesto saying that our concerns are mistaken. I hope we are mistaken, as I said earlier. If we are, there can be no difficulty in putting those words and commitments into law. It would add a further layer of confidence that, in any breach or failure to fully implement the Prime Minister’s words and his Conservative Party’s manifesto commitments, it should not be Northern Ireland businesses and consumers who pay for that failure but the Government.

In the coming year, there is not one negotiation but two: the UK-EU free trade agreement and the Joint Committee working on the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol, which has often been spoken about here today. This measure in law would reinforce and bolster a strong negotiating position in a joint committee. The Government’s comments to address the concerns of Northern Ireland at the next stage of negotiations are being given practical action with legal weight.

I turn briefly to Amendment 9. The United Kingdom internal market is vital for the well-being of Northern Ireland, as others have said. We trade more with the rest of the UK than with the rest of the world. As a unionist, I do not want to see any barriers to trade placed inside my country, but from a practical, economic point of view it harms Northern Ireland to have any impediment to internal trade with the United Kingdom. This amendment attracted not just cross-party but all-party support in Northern Ireland. That has already been stated, and it cannot be stated often enough. That level of support is rare in itself, but on Brexit it is unprecedented.

The recently published New Decade, New Approach ushered in the restoration of devolution a little more than a week ago. It states:

“To address the issues raised by the parties, we will legislate to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market, and ensure that this legislation is in force for 1 January 2021. The government will engage in detail with a restored Executive on measures to protect and strengthen the UK internal market.”


This amendment can put that government commitment into action. Furthermore, the Government have stated that there will be no negative impact on Northern Ireland businesses. The only way to demonstrate that is to carry out the assessment called for by this amendment. It will ensure that there is ongoing monitoring, not just a one-off snap-shot.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Eames Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to those proposing these amendments. There must be times when your Lordships’ House feels, “Northern Ireland comes again with a special pleading for special treatment”; were I to come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I would have great sympathy with that view. On this occasion I want simply to put two realities to this debate and appeal to the Minister, who has often, if not always, listened with sympathy to the voices from Northern Ireland.

The first reality is that the business community of Northern Ireland has been suffocated by the uncertainty over the Brexit debate, which has been the result as much of its geographical position as of political factors. That uncertainty is now manifested in the debate we had earlier today on the protocol. We are left wondering as a community what unseen consequences could come from the sort of debates that will take place on future trade agreements once we leave the European Union.

The second reality is what I call the reality of reassurance. That reassurance can come only when we listen on the one hand to the repeated assurances of the Prime Minister that we will leave Europe as a United Kingdom. If that is followed up, I beg to suggest that the reality we face from the uncertainty surrounding the business community in Northern Ireland is that, when we leave as a United Kingdom, there will definitely be problems unique to Northern Ireland. If he can assure those of us who support these amendments that the Government will at least listen and not just give us trite phrases or slogans to live with, and that very definite attention will be given to the particular sensitivities of doing business in Northern Ireland post Brexit, many of our fears will be answered.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments, so forensically and comprehensively addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. The underlying problem that many of us have with it is the following. I served as a Trade Minister for a number of years, and I was able to set up InterTradeIreland, the body designed to promote trade between north and south, and which still exists. It has not been as successful as I would have liked; nevertheless, there is still huge potential there to grow trade. However, our problem is what we are told, not only by the Prime Minister but by the Government more generally, as against our experience with the reality of doing business across boundaries and between different economic units.

Whether we like it or not, from 2 October of last year, when the Prime Minister produced the first phase of his proposals with the European Union, it was obvious that Northern Ireland would be in a different regulatory environment, and once that was conceded, the customs environment was added to it. While there are reassuring words and undertakings, people like me and the businesses that have been referred to cannot just reconcile the aspiration to have free movement without any inhibitions or difficulties and the practical realities of being engaged between the European Union single market and an economy no longer in the single market. We are therefore in this kind of hybrid, of which there is no current example that I am aware of, and where there is the potential, as time passes, for the gap to grow.

We start off the negotiations early next month in the transition period with exactly the same regulatory environment that we have all become used to—there are no differences. That distinguishes the United Kingdom in its negotiation with the European Union from other examples, whether Canada, Mercosur or whatever. We have exactly the same regulatory environment as the rest of the European Union. However, the Prime Minister and others have said that they see things changing over time. The single market, which was invented by this country, is a noble idea, but to retain the integrity of that single market, the consumer protection requirements and standards must be verified in some way.

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

Lord Eames Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, there is an age-old phrase which runs like this: if you are not careful, perception can become reality. As I listened to what has already been said in this debate and in the previous debate—where again we were talking about the results of victimhood, although in a specialised form—I was reminded of that statement because the world in which I live and in which I have tried to serve in a particular capacity for most of my life is learning yet again that perception can become the reality. I know that we have had repeated assurances that all the efforts you can think of are being made to restore local government to Northern Ireland in an Assembly and an Executive, but I have to say to the Minister that on the ground, in everyday life and among everyday people, the perception is that we are taking second place as a community, in the eyes of the mother of Parliaments and the Government, to other considerations.

People think that Brexit was a golden opportunity to give us a reason for not pushing us too far and getting the result we needed. People believe in their hearts and, as they look at the constancy of the statements and reassurances that all is being done by Her Majesty’s Government to restore our Executive and our Assembly, people are saying “We hear that so glibly now that we no longer believe it”. I reiterate what has been said constantly in this House and pay tribute to the Minister’s efforts as a Minister to further our interests, but I have to say to him that that perception has gained tremendous ground of late. There has been criticism of the performance of successive Secretaries of State in Northern Ireland. Some of that criticism has been politically based rather than based on reality, but I ask the Minister whether there is any way in which the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland demands the involvement, contribution and leadership by Her Majesty’s Prime Minister. We believe that there has been a levelling off in the activity which could be brought to try to create a situation whereby a new Assembly and a new Executive appear.

I have often addressed the House on the legacy of the Troubles, and I want to touch on that again briefly. The consultation that is about to take place on the way in which legacy issues are dealt with has thrown to the surface an issue that I believe will gain momentum and cause tremendous heart searching. I refer to the question of when we define the beginning and end of the Troubles—the beginning being in the 1960s and the so-called end of the Troubles coming with the Good Friday agreement. Immediately my mind goes back to a situation such as the Omagh bombing and the many, many families affected by that bomb, either directly or indirectly by its consequences. If the suggested period by which we judge the Troubles comes to pass, Omagh will be excluded.

Of course we can argue that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—to which many Members of this House contributed—marked a watershed, and no one knows that better than the former Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. It was a watershed. We had such hopes for the future—some of them realised, some of them shattered—but if we go so far as to select a historical point as the end-point when we no longer consider the needs of people, we will court trouble. My mind is not wise enough to give noble Lords a solution, but I warn the Minister that there is trouble ahead over the question of how we define the extent of victimhood. I urge him to consider that with his colleagues, for I believe that, no matter the urgency of the matter that we stress in this House, there will be a long-term grievance for many people.

The other point that I want to make is that I believe the day will come when we look back at the period in which we are living and say that one thing that we omitted to recognise was that the situation in Northern Ireland, with the lack of government at Stormont, was saying to the House and to the United Kingdom things of immense importance about the theory and practice of devolution. Devolution works when there is agreement—when the centre recognises and trusts what the limbs of devolution are doing and understands why they are doing it. However, if the limbs do not work, there are questions that the centre has to answer. One, I believe, is the question of how we deal with the theories of devolution when, for some reason, one of the limbs does not work.

I say to the Minister that I believe that the day will come when people—perhaps not those who are with us at the moment but another generation—will say, “Why were they not awake to the lessons of the theories of devolution that were staring them in the face?” One, of course, is the matter of dealing with our legacy. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has given us frequent reminders about the situation in our health service and hospitals, and to that I would add the situation in our schools. Teachers have to buy toilet rolls so that their school can stay open and they have to make sure that meals are provided—in some cases that I know of, out of their own pockets. Why is that? It is because no one is taking responsibility at a government level on the hill at Stormont.

That leads me to one conclusion. Apart from technical detail and political consideration, there is a moral issue at the centre of the devolution structure that says that we, centrally, have a duty to do something when a limb of devolution fails and does not exist. Therefore, I ask the Minister, with his genuine concern for us, to take seriously what has been said this afternoon not just about the political need but about the needs of the ordinary people—the men, women and children—who live with the legacy of our Troubles.

Report Pursuant to Sections 3(1), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 3(9) and 3(10) the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019

Lord Eames Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to join the welcome and tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on his maiden speech. I have had occasion to see him at work in Stormont House in Belfast but, more important than that, to know something of the influence he has had over the years in that role. I too welcome him.

How much repetition can this House take when it comes to Northern Ireland? How much can we yearn for something new? We talk of the definition of a victim; we need a victims’ definition that covers the entire United Kingdom, in which the difference between self-inflicted wrong and innocent suffering is clearly defined. We need some recognition in Northern Ireland, and in the United Kingdom generally, of the evil in the ongoing hunt of veterans who gave so much during our Troubles; for it is the legacy of those years that still reaches out to my generation, which came through so much during them. That legacy will constantly dominate all discussions on Northern Ireland as long as we allow it to dictate how people view Northern Ireland.

It is for that reason that we must state that in the sense of victimhood, suffering, enduring and, above all, coming through the situation, everyone who lived in Northern Ireland suffered change in their lives because of the experience of the Troubles. I speak as one who has tried to serve Northern Ireland over the years in a pastoral capacity. It is when we come to recognise the special nature of victimhood—the sort of definition that Denis Bradley and I looked at all those years ago—and get to the truth of the element of what “victimhood” really means that we can clearly define the difference that society desperately needs.

The people who the reports we are considering address tonight are utterly disillusioned by the failure of the body politic. They see it in terms of their local Assembly; they are also asking questions about the nature of devolution and about who cares. So often when they look to the mother of Parliaments, they do not get a clear answer. For that reason, in my limited contribution tonight, may I simply make the plea again for realism towards what is happening in Northern Ireland, as Brexit comes down the track on to a part of the United Kingdom which will feel the full force of Brexit without an agreement?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Eames Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging and in-depth discussions this evening on the Queen’s Speech. I make no apology for bringing to your Lordships’ attention, as we come to the end of the debate, a theme which has reared its head at almost every juncture of today’s work: the question of devolution. I do it for this reason. Although much reference has been made to Northern Ireland and its problems, its hopes and its failures, there has been little reference to the theory of devolution, which lies constitutionally, legally and politically at the root of many of the relationships of a country that faces Brexit. I believe that some of the lessons that come from my part of the United Kingdom are worth remembering as we approach that crucial stage of our history.

People say the Troubles are over. There were those of us in this House and in the other place who, when we saw the ending of the obvious elements of strife, turned away and said, “It’s over—it’s now history and we can move on”. But those of us who dedicated so much of our active lives to building bridges, healing wounds and trying to bring communities together know that it is still a tender plant when we talk of the peace process. For that reason, when I hear people talking about the question of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the fact that it will soon become the frontier between the United Kingdom and the European Union, I wonder: do we pause to think of the significance of that other word which has to be linked to the theory of devolution—the word “relationships”? Relationships not only within the devolved nations but between the devolved nations and between those nations and central government will be tested as never before when Brexit becomes a reality.

I do not speak as a party politician or to represent a political party, but as one who has seen where relationships can break down, where harm can be done and where injury can be caused when this tender plant called relationships is allowed to flounder. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, reminded us earlier on in this debate of the importance of looking at the whole theory of devolution —what is happening in Northern Ireland with the collapse of the Administration and with the questions being asked about how Brexit will affect the United Kingdom as a whole. But remember, it will first and foremost affect the people of Northern Ireland. The border is not just a question of north/south but a question of east/west. Those relationships go to make up the community from which I come, and it is a question which we cannot allow to founder in the happenings of Brussels.

The Queen’s Speech rightly reminded us that the Government will attempt to work closely with the devolved nations in the years ahead, particularly through the Brexit process. However, they must go further than that in the case of Northern Ireland. It must be recognised that before, during and after Brexit the relationships that have been so carefully built up in the peace process could be fractured. Those of us who live there, and who know it is a tender plant, know that the slightest wavering of purpose or outside pressure could quite easily take us back. I am ashamed to say it, but I have to admit that sometimes I believe we are only a gasp away from seeing some of the darkness of that period return.

I beg the Government, as they approach Brexit and all its complications, and as they look at the theory of devolution, to remember that we are talking not just about laws or the constitution but about ordinary human beings who have been through a great deal and who have the right to expect, from this place and the other, a sensitivity that will ensure that Brexit is as much about people as it is about things.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Lord Eames Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as co-chairman of the Consultative Group on the Past, set up by the British Government to inquire into ways in which we could not only bring out the truth of the past but bring about reconciliation. I also declare an interest as Bishop of Derry three years after Bloody Sunday. For those reasons, and for other obvious reasons, when the Saville report was published it was a very sombre occasion, not only for those such as myself who were deeply involved in the work of the community in that particular area, but for those who, throughout the length and breadth of the Troubles, ministered to people of all denominations and political outlooks who were the victims of the tragedy of those years. I use the word sombre because I can think of no other appropriate word which would remove triumphalism, or any other equivalent word, from that occasion.

Like many, many others, I welcome the way in which the report was received in Westminster, and particularly the response of the Prime Minister. I also welcome the way in which this debate—a welcome debate—has been introduced by the two previous speakers, who have brought before us a much wider dimension than the simple details of that report. If I might issue a plea in this debate from my personal perspective, it would be this. While there are details in that exhaustive report which obviously must be addressed, I beg that the House put it into perspective, because it is one attempt—a lengthy attempt—to put one more piece of the jigsaw of the past into perspective. I hope that we do not lose sight of that fact.

Let me tell your Lordships of a conversation that I had a few days after the Saville report was published. It was with a widow of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which played such a pivotal role in the defence of the community during the Troubles. I had buried her husband, and I wondered what her reaction would be to the Saville report. I did not get the reaction that I had anticipated. She said, “Thank God he’s not here to hear that, because if it’s true”—and she accepted the findings—“he would have been ashamed that this had brought such shame on the British Army in the Troubles”. That helps to put into perspective the vast number of brave men and women who took a part in the security forces during our Troubles and who, despite the very dangerous situation in which they worked, were not guilty of some of the things that have been alleged and proved under the Saville report.

In putting it into perspective we must also recognise that, when looking into the past of Northern Ireland, the key word is “victim”. It is not just the victims that we think of immediately—those who have lost loved ones, on whatever side of the community they come from—but the way in which standards suffered. Morality was questioned, and ethical issues were raised which were swept inevitably under the carpet because of the speed and pressure of events which were a tragedy for the entire community. Whenever we come across attempts to try and find out what happened in the past, there will always be mention of the Saville reports of this world. But does a report answer all the questions, or does it by its very nature pose other questions that it cannot answer?

I think, for example, of another part of the diocese where I worked in those days—the small village of Claudy, which was devastated by an IRA bombing. Innocent people representing both communities, and children, were among those who died in that explosion. The justifiable feeling of people such as those in Claudy, and in other areas in Northern Ireland who looked at the expense, length, publicity and attention given to Bloody Sunday was to say, “We too are victims. We, too, suffered. We, too, lost loved ones. We have questions that are not being answered. We have asked society to help us find what they call justice”.

Immediately you are faced with what I have described in the past as the huge ambit of interpretations of what “justice” is. For one person it will be to see a prosecution of those who caused the loss of a loved one, and they will not be satisfied until they see someone in the dock being sentenced for the crime. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who simply say, “We want to know what happened and how it happened, and we simply ask human questions”. As I have said in this House before, I will never forget the mother of the young policewoman who was killed in the explosion in Newry, who simply said to me, “Archbishop, I have only one question in finding justice”. I asked, “What is it?”. She said, “Did she have her dinner before she died?”. That was a simple human reaction, at the other end from those who seek justice in our courts. That illustrates the huge expanse of what it means to be a victim.

When we debate this report, we have to recognise that it lifted both a veil and a burden from a large part of the community of Londonderry. When I went there as a bishop, I was very conscious on my first visit to the Bogside of how deeply feelings ran about the events of Bloody Sunday. At this distance, therefore, I can understand the reaction to the tribunal’s report when it was published. I also recognise and pay a warm tribute to the actions of my successors, the church leaders in that city, who on the publication of the report went into the Bogside and simply listened, talked and prayed with those most affected, no matter what denomination they came from. As has already been said today in this Chamber, that is another indication of how far society has come.

There are, though, two levels to this discussion. There is the marvellous, courageous political progress made by the politicians in Northern Ireland, but there is also the question of any change of heart among ordinary people leading ordinary lives every day on the ground. One is political progress; the other is the question of human reconciliation. From what I am told, the reaction to Saville has been a huge step in that direction. People have said, “We have found justice. We have an answer to some of our questions”. Even though that is true and there has been general relief, however, one has to think again of the feelings of that widow who said to me, “I feel a bit ashamed that this should cast any aspersion on the reputation of the British Army”.

Moving on from that, I want to quote the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—if she will forgive me quoting her—when she wrote,

“there is an ongoing, articulated need for the investigation of so many of the unsolved and of some of the ‘solved’ atrocities of the Troubles”.

I interpret her words to mean that until society—every one of us—finds some way to deal with the past, this is going to go on and on crossing our path.

The Government have said that this is the end to open-ended inquiries. In the light of the expense and everything else involved, we would welcome that. I certainly would. However, I pose another question: with what do we replace that system? What do we say to society will be the alternative to Saville? If we do not come to terms with the sensitive nature of dealing with the past in a place such as Northern Ireland, there will be a constant drip-by-drip exposure and calling of attention to atrocities, to events and to suspicions—the list is endless. Coroners’ courts, investigative journalism and ancillary events to court cases will go on and on not just for our generation but for the generation—the most important one—that will read of the Troubles in history books. Memories are what make us, mostly, what we are, but they also dictate what we could become. I urge Her Majesty’s Government, if they do not see the future of inquiries in the currently accepted sense, to give urgent and honest consideration to what they will replace the inquiries with. What will they place in the vacuum when they take away the system of inquiries into the past?

The Consultative Group on the Past, of which I had the honour to be co-chair, suggested the establishment of what we called a legacy commission that would bring together the threads of detection, reconciliation and building up for the future. We were told that the cost involved in setting up such a commission would be prohibitive, but then we learned of the cost of the Saville report. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to accept that the time is right, through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to urge the local parties in the devolved Administration to take the courage to address how they deal with the past on a cross-community basis. For obvious reasons—for political reasons—that is a very sensitive issue. No local political party grasps with open heart the issue of how to deal with the past. However, until there is that sort of agreement and the establishment of some structure to make that possible, the drip-by-drip agony will continue.

I pay tribute to the successive Secretaries of State—many of them sitting in your Lordships’ Chamber—with whom I have had the privilege of working over the years. I believe that they will agree with me that the complexity of the issue is such that it will not be answered by one report, one tribunal or one decision but must be directed to where it matters most. The answer must come from the bottom up, from what society is ready to have and from what society is prepared to do.

Let me finish on this note: a sign of dealing with the past is a gauge of a society’s maturity. The question is whether Northern Ireland is mature enough to find the truth of the past. Saville would indicate, encouragingly, yes. If that is a true indication, I believe that it is up to the party politic in the devolved Administration—encouraged by Westminster and Her Majesty’s Government, supported by the Irish Government—to find a way in which that drip-by-drip agony can come to an end.

Reference was made to South Africa. I have studied the South African truth and reconciliation process but I have also looked at Chile, Argentina, East Timor and other efforts to look into the past. Do you know what conclusion I have reached? When all the dust settles we can forget about legislation; we can forget about laws, tribunals and debates. We end up looking into ordinary human life and the reaction of people to tragedy. Thank God I see—as, I hope, do those who, like me, live and work in that part of the United Kingdom—the seeds of real hope. We must grasp the fact that, until we deal with the past in a holistic manner, we will face other Savilles and other questions that we must answer honestly.