Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reform the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to strengthen its independence, powers and accountability.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to building the confidence of victims and families in the work of the commission and to making timely progress so that they can obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. To do this, the Government are engaging with all parties to help determine what provisions should be included in primary legislation to reform the commission, as outlined in the Secretary of State’s Statement to the Commons on 4 December 2024, which I repeated to this House.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. We are aware that 90% of the killings that took place during what are known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland were caused by terrorists, many of whom emanated from the Republic of Ireland. What are the Minister and the Government doing to try to engage with the Republic of Ireland? As we have heard from both the former Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland’s proposals for dealing with those killings that emanated from that country have been very weak. Will the Minister also give an undertaking that no former security force members who served in Northern Ireland will be excluded from serving as investigators in the ICRIR?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, and for his service with the UDR in Northern Ireland and as a politician. With regard to our engagement with the Government of Ireland, as co-guarantors of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we are working closely with the current and incoming Governments of Ireland to ensure that their role in dealing with legacy cases is recognised. We are looking to engage with them as key stakeholders as part of our new plans for legacy, which, as the noble Lord knows are in development. He will be aware that there are currently no prohibitions on investigators for ICRIR and I would not expect there to be any.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday the Prime Minister promised that the Government would stop Gerry Adams receiving any compensation. Why, then, in July, did they so abruptly drop the appeal against the High Court judgment on the amendments I made to the legacy Bill that would have achieved just that and which Labour supported at the time? Was the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland consulted before that decision was taken? Until publication yesterday of the Policy Exchange paper, what proposals of their own were the Government actively working on to remedy this situation?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think it would be helpful for people to appreciate what the Prime Minister actually said yesterday, which is that the legacy Act was

“unfit, not least because it gave immunity to hundreds of terrorists and was not supported by victims in Northern Ireland—nor, I believe, by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Court found it unlawful … We will put in place a better framework. We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 324.]

The objective in Sections 46 and 47 was right, which is why my party supported it in opposition. The method has been found to be unlawful and we are looking at every option for engagement. The noble Lord may be interested to look at the comments of the High Court. Although we did not appeal, the court chose to comment and suggested that we would have failed in our appeal. I have the exact wording which I will send to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister provide your Lordships’ House with an update on the progress of the remedial order and of repealing the legacy legislation, which, as she rightly said, was opposed by political parties in Northern Ireland? Will she indicate that this new process will lead to the end of collusive behaviour on all sides, a root and branch review of ICRIR, and a commitment to the standards of legacy which were agreed by parties and by both Governments at the Stormont House talks in 2015?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. On 4 December, the Secretary of State laid a proposal for a draft remedial order in Parliament. This is the first step in correcting the mistakes of the previous Government’s approach and in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as was in our manifesto. The remedial order must sit in both Houses for two periods of 60 days to allow for proper scrutiny of the draft and for proper representations to be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has a key role in the process. It has already launched a call for evidence, which is due to close on Monday. The Secretary of State’s Statement, which I repeated in this House, also announced plans for primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. This will include provisions to reinstate legacy inquests halted by the Act, and to reform and strengthen the independent commission.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little more on the timing of the primary legislation? It is important to get this legislation right, but does she accept that this continued legal uncertainty on legacy issues is serving nobody in Northern Ireland well? Will she commit, for example, to bringing forward the new legislation, including a comprehensive reform of ICRIR, by the next anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in April?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. Let us be clear—this is about the victims of the Troubles and giving their families and those still affected by the Troubles the answers they so desperately need. Too many people have had to wait for too long. The Government are engaging with all parties in a spirit of openness to deliver on the promise of the Good Friday agreement, as well as on the Stormont House agreement. We will bring forward draft legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I belong to one of the families of those victims. Does the Minister accept that resolute action must be taken to deal with the legacy of the past? Without it, former soldiers will continue to find themselves in court, facing vexatious claims, while prominent terrorists such as Gerry Adams will fill their pockets with British taxpayers’ money to the horror of innocent victims and to the shame of this Government.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already touched on that last point and how we will deal with it. On next steps and protecting veterans, both the pain of those victims and the fear and concern of our military community need to be established. I put on record and declare my interest as an honorary officer of the Royal Navy and part of the defence family. It is clear that we need to act to protect veterans. Any veteran who needs to go through legal proceedings will receive welfare and, where appropriate, legal support. I am pleased that, last month, the Secretary of State announced the appointment of David Johnstone as the new Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. This will ensure that veterans’ voices across Northern Ireland will continue to have a strong advocate to support them.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Government have decided to hold a public inquiry into the Pat Finucane case, rather than pass it to ICRIR, which the Secretary of State said was exceptional. A judge has now ordered a public inquiry into the death of Sean Brown, which, I am glad to say, is being appealed. Will the Government commit to a policy of there being no more public inquiries into legacy issues and legislate to this effect?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government have enormous sympathy for those killed, injured or bereaved as a result of the Troubles. I may be putting words into the noble Baroness’s mouth, but I assure your Lordships’ House that there is no hierarchy of pain or injustice. The Pat Finucane inquiry was agreed in the Weston Park agreement in 2001 and again in 2004 as part of a series of public inquiries. There is a public inquiry into Patrick Finucane because of the unique circumstances there. Noble Lords will appreciate that court proceedings on Sean Brown are happening today, so I cannot comment on that, but the Secretary of State has made clear his confidence in ICRIR as a vehicle for inquiries. That is why we are doing everything we can to secure confidence and make sure that it is the appropriate vehicle.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, to be clear and to reinforce what the Minister said, there was a concrete agreement 20 years ago that the British Government would have a public inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder. As one who was party to that agreement as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, before moving on to other positions, I am very glad that the Government have finally honoured it. It is a matter of honour when you explicitly carry out an agreement, not once but twice, that you eventually do something about it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, not for his question but for his work in helping secure and continue peace in Northern Ireland. We are where we are today because of his work and that of many others in this Chamber. We are very grateful for the work he did as one of the signatories to the Weston Park agreement.