Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will respond to the regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, regarding the scope of the proposed draft remedial order which addresses various incompatibilities found by the Northern Ireland courts in respect of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I acknowledge and welcome the sincerity of her concerns, and the importance of ensuring that future mechanisms for addressing Northern Ireland’s legacy issues fully comply with our human rights obligations and are capable of commanding public confidence.

Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There is no more emotive or long-standing issue for us to discuss in your Lordships’ House than the legacy of the Troubles, and the real and tangible impact that this has had on too many families. I put on record my sincere thanks to everybody present who has worked tirelessly to try to deliver a level of peace and justice for those affected by the brutal and horrific acts of terror perpetuated during one of the most painful periods of British history. I want to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for his contribution this evening. His speech demonstrated for me the sheer scale of the trauma of the Troubles, and the reality of the horror and evil of paramilitary terrorism.

Last week, I had the honour of spending some time in Northern Ireland, meeting some of the groups that work with and support those affected by the Troubles. I am in awe of the people I met; their determination was inspiring and their stories were devastating. I thank each and every one of them—people who were prepared to share the terrible traumas that they experienced during the Troubles, including in the line of duty. I cannot comprehend the scale of the pain they continue to experience, and it is something that I will always remember.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt. To clarify, the amendments that found their way on to the statute book were government amendments that I moved at Third Reading of the legacy Act. They were not amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson.

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

I apologise, and stand corrected on the record.

This Government take their human rights obligations extremely seriously, and the provisions therefore need to be repealed. The Government are carefully exploring how to lawfully address this complex issue alongside our clear commitment to implement legacy mechanisms that are fully compliant with human rights.

For clarity, although we did not proceed with an appeal on this issue to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal commented on the issue, saying that

“it will rarely be permissible in Convention terms”

to make the changes “with retrospective effect”, which fed into our decision-making. I will revert to some of the other points associated with this later in my speech.

I also recognise that a number of submissions from individuals and organisations say that the draft remedial order could or should do more, and some state that it is entirely the wrong legislative vehicle to use. I reiterate that the JCHR will very shortly publish its report, and the Government will carefully consider any recommendations made, as well as the written submissions, before coming back to Parliament to lay the remedial order for a further 60 days.

On the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on the Dillon appeal, the steps outlined in the Secretary of State’s oral statement make it clear that the Government will respond directly to recent court judgments, including by bringing forward measures to create a fairer and more balanced disclosure regime, fulfilling the Government’s promises to allow inquests previously halted to proceed and to remove the bar on civil proceedings.

However, the Court of Appeal’s finding in relation to disclosure and effective next of kin participation raises issues that could reach far beyond the scope of the legacy Act, including on the state’s ability to keep people safe. Our approach to repealing Article 2 of the Windsor Framework’s grounds is framed by the importance of maintaining a clear human rights framework in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the current Brown legal proceedings. She will appreciate that, given their ongoing nature, I cannot comment.

Many noble Lords rightly raised the current, pervading issue of the rewriting of history. I have been clear from this Dispatch Box historically, and will continue to be, that I and this Government do not and will not support the rewriting of history. I reassure noble Lords on that matter, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for being the first Peer to raise it this evening.

With regard to the issues pertaining to the Irish Government, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow, Lord Empey and Lord Caine, the Government will continue detailed discussions with the Irish Government on a way forward. The Government consider the Irish Government an essential partner in this process. It is important that the UK and Irish Governments seek to agree a way forward that helps provide victims and families with as much information as possible, and to do so in a way that is underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House agreement.

However, the process of discussion cannot be unending. Time is passing and, as families get older, they must be afforded ways to obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. This evening, the Secretary of State was going to come and join us, but he is with the Tánaiste. They have been discussing issues between the two Governments in seeking an approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in which all communities can have confidence.

On the inter-state case raised by noble Lords, of course I hope that one of the consequences of our promised legacy reform will be the withdrawal of that case, although that is a matter for the Irish Government.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

As the noble Baroness pauses, I wonder whether she could help me by just clarifying one thing. I think I heard her say that the Government have come to the clear conclusion that it would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights to allow someone in Gerry Adams’s position—or, rather, not to allow him—to proceed with his claim for damages because that would be against the convention. Is that the Government’s position?

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

That is absolutely not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is clear, and the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been clear: we will find a lawful way to move forward. We are still consulting with lawyers on what that should be. As a lawyer, the noble Lord will know that that is not something that can be done overnight.

The Clonoe inquest was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I very much appreciate the sensitivities of this inquest and its findings, as well as the anger that they have caused. The Government will come back in due course, as they are currently considering the details of the inquest.

We have discussed veterans and immunity provisions before. My position has not changed. This Government will do everything we can to support those who served—those who ran towards the fire and put themselves between terrorists and civilians in order to keep people safe.

I want to touch on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Unusually, I find myself agreeing with much of what he said—it had to happen once— including that people in uniform must operate within the law and that the overwhelming majority of those in Northern Ireland did exactly that. We owe them a debt of gratitude; I am grateful for their service. We will continue to work with them and with veterans groups to make sure that, as and when any support or legal advice is required, we are there with them.

The Policy Exchange funding was raised by several noble Lords. This Government do not recognise the basis of the figures for any future costs in this report; they are entirely speculative. The figures include estimates based on policies that are yet to be determined. Therefore, they are highly speculative—I make no comment to the noble Lord, Lord Godson. To touch on the future costs, obviously that will form part of our debate when we bring forward primary legislation.

There were comments this evening about the role of the Attorney-General. I want to be very clear and remind noble Lords that, due to precedent, neither we nor he can comment on the specifics of which cases he advised on, and noble Lords would not expect me to do so.