Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Jeffrey M Donaldson

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

Okay. I will move on.

The Secretary of State has clearly been trying to do his best with a Bill he inherited from one of his predecessors, but this Bill will slam shut the doors to justice. It is now well over a year since the Bill was published. In that time, Ministers have had ample opportunity to consult. The Secretary of State outlined dozens of meetings, and he has had the chance to consult and listen to victims, their representatives and local Northern Irish politicians. That is ample opportunity to win the people over to the Government’s approach, yet nobody has been won over—no politician, no victim, no international partner, no one.

Immunity from prosecution for murder would work only if it had popular support in Northern Ireland. It does not. The Government have underestimated the strength of feeling among victims. I have been asked by some victims to put their views on the record. On 10 August 1996, John Molloy had nearly reached his home in north Belfast when he was confronted by a group of young men and women. John was Catholic. He was repeatedly stabbed in a frenzied attack and was left to bleed to death on the pavement. He was just 18 years old. John’s still-grieving parents, Pat and Linda, want to know how offering his killers immunity will aid them in reconciliation? We are trying to heal divisions but this Bill is damaging.

Take the case of Cecil Caldwell, a 37-year-old construction worker who was travelling in a minibus from Omagh, where he and his colleagues had been repairing an Army base. A roadside bomb was detonated, killing eight of the 14 people on the bus. As the dead and dying lay on the road, their pay packets were stolen. A simple, dignified monument was erected at the site, and it is regularly vandalised. Cecil’s wife, Jean, does not want this legislation. She has asked whether the Government have any idea of what victims have gone through. If the Bill is not an aid to victims such as her, what is the point?

Clearly, the Government are also conflicted. In the other place, amendments were introduced to stop Gerry Adams receiving compensation, following a Supreme Court ruling in 2020. We support the upholding of the Carltona principle and that amendment. However, there is a disconnect between the horror the Government feel at the idea of giving Gerry Adams compensation and the potential implication of the immunity clause we are debating. I want to explore that in a hypothetical.

Gerry Adams has, of course, always denied being a member of the IRA, but he is currently being sued in the High Court by victims of the IRA in a civil case. Not only will this Bill halt any similar cases, but the immunity provisions remain open to Gerry Adams if he were ever to need them. Immunity is worth a lot more than compensation. In this hypothetical, should Gerry Adams seek to avail himself of immunity, nothing in this Bill could prevent it, and the people supporting the Bill would be the very first ones on their feet screaming for emergency measures to prevent it from happening.

Even if we choose to ignore the moral problems of this policy, there is also doubt about it on the Government’s own terms. Members need not take my word for it, because this is the view that Sir Declan Morgan gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last year. The House will know that Sir Declan has been named as the chief commissioner of the independent body. He said:

“The only group who will go for immunity are those who have been the subject of investigations, brought in for questioning and it looks like there is a viable case. It seems to me like that is a vanishingly small number of people.

Again, the question then arises of why you would put immunity in place for such a small number of people in the circumstances. You must be able to justify that. That presents a challenge.”

I do not have reason to believe that Sir Declan’s views on the number of people who will go for immunity have changed since his appointment.

Immunity cannot be justified when the rest of the Bill shuts processes down which have worked for some victims.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Peter Kyle]

Shadow Minister, for the time being.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I was going to make that clear in my comments. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what he is saying. I understand entirely what motivates my colleagues on the other side of the House who served in the armed forces; I had the honour of serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. But here is the problem for me: for all those whom we are seeking to protect from prosecution, there are countless others who put on a uniform of the Crown, in the armed forces and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and were murdered in cold blood by terrorists and whose families will not now have the opportunity of justice. I cannot look those people in the eye. Louie Johnston is one of my constituents, and the shadow Secretary of State referred to him. I recall having just been elected a Member of Parliament in 1997 and the news coming through about the murder of his father, Constable David Johnston, and of Constable John Graham in Lurgan. Louie was in my office recently and the current system is not delivering for him—we do need change. We need a system that can deliver, but surely it is the victims who should have the choice. Surely it should be down to the families to choose whether they want to pursue justice or information. When we deny them that route and we take away the access to justice, we diminish the prospect of achieving the second objective of this Bill, which is reconciliation.

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Member makes his point passionately, with great erudition and personal experience as the representative of the Lagan Valley. There is very little I can add to the insight that he has just given the House. We in this place have striven in recent years to give extra rights to victims. Indeed, the Victims and Prisoners Bill is passing through the House—I believe it has just passed Committee stage. In England and Wales, we are passing legislation that gives more rights to victims. Only in Northern Ireland are we doing something that disempowers victims and puts in place a set of institutions that will make it immeasurably more difficult for victims to get the reconciliation that they so desperately deserve, so I have complete sympathy with the right hon. Member.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Jeffrey M Donaldson

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I fear the shadow Secretary of State is approaching this on the premise that the dual regulatory system will be compulsory. As I understand the Government’s proposal, it is for each business—and sector, indeed, if it so wishes—to decide whether it wants to opt in or opt out of this system. Businesses and sectors could decide to opt into the UK system only or the EU system only, or both. The idea that every business and sector will have to adopt both sets of regulations is simply not true.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the intervention. I make two simple points: first, I used the word “could” encounter, not “would” or “be compelled” to encounter. Secondly, let us take a business that might be operating in both markets. It would be forced to undertake the bureaucracy required by both markets. He says that is optional. Of course it is, but it is not optimal if a business that is operating perfectly contently and successfully—perhaps even growing, and creating more wealth, opportunity and jobs in Northern Ireland—wants to withdraw from one of the markets just to avoid the paperwork. It would not be forced; I understand that. It would be voluntary, but let us not kid ourselves that withdrawing from one of the markets simply to avoid bureaucracy or red tape would not have any impact on jobs, prosperity and wealth in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Northern Ireland does not operate in a vacuum. A business in my constituency is no different from a business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If a business in his constituency wants to sell goods in the EU single market, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that business can apply British standards, even if they are different from EU standards, and sell those goods in the EU without complying with EU standards? Of course not. Businesses in Northern Ireland have to make commercial decisions. If they want to sell goods to the EU, they must comply with EU standards. If they want to sell goods in the UK, they must comply with British standards. That is the way the commercial world works. That is the way it is regulated. Let us not pretend that we are creating a new regime here for Northern Ireland businesses, and that if we want to sell goods both in the UK and the EU, we need only one set of standards. That is not the case.

[Peter Kyle]

I am not quite sure where to start with that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests we take the instance of my community in Hove and Portslade, on the sunny Sussex coastline. If businesses there are exporting to the EU, then of course they have to do all the additional red tape that has been imposed by the particular Brexit deal negotiated by this Government, but they do not have to do so if they are selling locally. This is the problem we have at the moment: we are suggesting a dual regime for the domestic Northern Ireland market, so it is not the same. Those who trade within Sussex—there is such fantastic produce grown, compiled, sold and retailed there—would not expect to have two regulatory regimes forced on them in Sussex. I do not think we should conflate exporters with those who produce for the domestic market. That is the problem we face in Northern Ireland; producers there are certainly being forced, in that situation, to make a choice. I am not suggesting that anybody is being forced to trade under both regimes. They can unilaterally decide to withdraw from one of the markets and perhaps downscale their business. But let us move on.