Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, for giving an oral statement on this very important subject, and for scheduling the statement at such a time as would not interfere with the Opposition day debates—that was very decent of him.

I do not intend to rehearse all of the long debates that were had in the last Parliament over the legacy Act. The Labour party won the general election on a manifesto that included a number of measures that the Secretary of State has just discussed, and it has a mandate to make the changes it wants to make. But I will say this: there was an attempt by the last Government—a desire from the last Government—to draw a line under many difficult things that had happened, and with the actions the Government are now taking that line is being erased.

I will remind the House of the central reasons why the last Government legislated. They did so to try and protect some elderly people, including servicemen, who were being brought before inquests to discuss events that may or may not have happened very many years before. This was a process inevitably weighted against the police and the armed forces, who kept records and whose servicemen were easily locatable and contactable. Tonight there will be many such men harbouring a sense of dread. I know the Government are taking a different approach, but I do ask them to spare a thought for those men this evening and to think very deeply about what they can do to support them and what help they can offer them.

I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer them all this evening, so I would be grateful if he would undertake to write to me on these very important matters.

The first issue I would like to touch on is the ICRIR, which was set up by the legacy Act. Indeed, for all the Government’s current talk of wanting to replace the legacy Act, a very large part of that legislation is concerned with its establishment. I was very pleased earlier in the year that the Secretary of State affirmed his support for the ICRIR and for Sir Declan Morgan, who is doing an admirable job of overseeing it.

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will

“reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability.”

I would be grateful if he could set out exactly how and why he intends to do that, given that in September Sir Declan made it clear that he already had the necessary independence and powers to do his job.

Secondly, I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State intends to appeal the Court’s specific finding regarding the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where disclosure would be prejudicial to national security, but will he confirm that, in the event that his appeal is unsuccessful, the Government will legislate to ensure that national security is protected? If he does so, he will have our support.

Thirdly, I must ask the Secretary of State about the new regime that is emerging—it seems rather more by accident than design—and how it will work. We will have inquests, the ICRIR and inquiries. Who will decide which route a family goes down? Will it be the family, the Government or the courts? What criteria will be used? How will disputes about the route chosen be adjudicated? One of the qualities of the legacy Act was that it greatly simplified the system. The system is now being returned to complexity.

Finally, I must ask the Secretary of State to give the House some clarity on the Government’s position on article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. I am pleased that he is continuing his appeal against the Colton judgment handed down in July. That was a decision in which the Court of Appeal sought to disapply statute, and in his statement in July he referred to it as a technical point of law, but it is quite some technicality. Article 2(1) of the Windsor framework is very important in this judgment, and I would like him to be able to give clarity on the Government’s position. Is it, as the last Government’s position was, that the rights available to the people of Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement should not be diminished as a result of our leaving the EU, or is it that a broader range of rights available at the time of our departure from the EU should not be diminished as a result of leaving the EU, or is it that the rights of the Northern Irish people should keep pace with EU law as it develops? Those are incredibly important points of law that will have a long consequence in British courts. I would be grateful if he could give the House clarity on those matters.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner of his response and for acknowledging that the Government have a mandate to introduce the changes I have set out today, although he did not comment on the fact that a number of elements of the legislation that the last Government put in place have been found to be incompatible with our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, and that alone is a demonstration of the failings of that particular legislation.

I acknowledge the point that the shadow Secretary of State raised about veterans, and we hold them very close to our hearts, as I know does the Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who is in the Chamber this evening.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about the ICRIR. Indeed, the courts have found it to be independent, and it has considerable powers. It is currently investigating a first case that I referred to it yesterday, following a report from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the changes that I will be discussing with all the parties I set out in my statement will be to further build confidence in ICRIR. Part of the reason ICRIR does not currently command the confidence of all survivors and victims groups is because it was created in an Act that closed off any other route of remedy. People were told, “You cannot have a civil case. You cannot have an inquest. If you are having an inquest now, we are cutting it short on the 1 May deadline, and the only place you can then go is ICRIR.” If I may say so, that damaged confidence in ICRIR. I have great confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and people have now started coming to ICRIR, and I want to build confidence. That is the basis of the further changes that I propose to come to later on.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question on disclosure, I have to say that, if we get leave to appeal, we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. When it comes to the different regimes, as he will know, for ICRIR, families can approach it and say, “I would like there to be a review or, if you think it appropriate, an investigation.” Certain people have powers to refer cases to ICRIR—I have just done so in the case I have outlined. It is for the Government to decide whether to launch public inquiries.

Yes, there is some complexity, as the hon. Gentleman might say, but it does give people a choice, and it does give them their rights. How could we say to citizens in one part of our important United Kingdom that they could no longer have the right to bring a civil case? That is what the legacy Act did, and that is what the Court of Appeal has recently found to be incompatible.

Finally, on article 2, I am not a lawyer but I think the hon. Gentleman set out quite well the range of issues that arise out of the way in which the courts have thus far interpreted article 2 and its application. As the courts have taken what I might describe as an expansive view of what article 2 means compared with what some people might have thought when it was originally written, it is important for the Government, and indeed for the country, to go to the Supreme Court and ask, “Which is the right interpretation?”