Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Suttie
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating this important and detailed Statement. These Benches strongly welcome both the content of the Statement and the constructive approach that it sets out.
Dealing with the past is an issue which provokes so much hurt and emotion. So many families have waited far too long for truth and justice. The previous Government’s approach regarding immunity was misguided and wrong, and has all too often resulted in a distrust of the process. As Sir Julian Smith MP said yesterday in the House of Commons, the new approach set out in yesterday’s Statement
“tilts back in favour of the rule of law and in favour of families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/24; col. 424.]
All political parties and victims’ groups in Northern Ireland were against the legacy Act as it was. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened and responded.
It is welcome too that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had several meetings with the Irish Government. Clearly, it is to be hoped that the Irish Government will feel able to drop their court case. It is a matter for them, but I hope they will soon feel able to do so. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to maintain constant and regular engagement with the new Irish Government to achieve that end, as well as, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, dealing with legacy issues in general?
I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan and the work he has done on the independent commission, but I none the less welcome the proposed reforms of that commission. Some, including in this Chamber, want to see it abolished altogether, but that was in the context of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act that are now being removed. Can the Minister say a little more about the process for consultation with families of victims and political parties in Northern Ireland to judge how the independent commission is operating in this revised context? As others have said, it can work only when it has the full confidence of victims and families.
“Reset” has perhaps become an overused term since the election of the new Labour Government, but I believe this Statement represents an opportunity to provide truth and justice for so many people in Northern Ireland who have waited so long.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There were lots of questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their constructive response to this Statement. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns. Considering the time available to us, the complex legal nature of the issues at play and ongoing legal cases, I also commit to write in response to some of the questions raised and will review Hansard immediately afterwards.
I commence by recognising the anniversaries of Troubles-related deaths that fall this week, particularly those in McGurk’s bar, Droppin Well, Ballykelly and Ballygawley barracks. These heartbreaking anniversaries emphasise why we are here today discussing how we can ensure that survivors and victims’ families can secure some level of peace. First, let me reiterate the goal of this Government, as the Secretary of State did in his Statement yesterday. We are trying to help families who lost loved ones in the Troubles finally establish what happened. This is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement, and it is clear that the correct approach is yet to be found. This Government have rejected the approach taken by the previous Government. Their approach was wrong. It did not gain the support of Northern Ireland parties, of a majority of victims’ groups or of the Irish Government. It is for this reason that the Government committed to repeal and replace that Act in line with our manifesto commitments.
The steps being taken today are part of that process, with a remedial order being used to take the first steps towards that goal. The aim of that order is to address legal deficiencies identified by the Northern Ireland High Court and one issue identified by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The remedial order will remove from the Act all provisions related to immunity and the prohibition imposed on retrospective and prospective civil proceedings.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced yesterday that this remedial order will be followed, when parliamentary time allows, by primary legislation, which means that will be phase 2 of the discussions that we will have today. That legislation will respond to the other findings of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, including reforming the disclosure regime, which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised. The Government’s aim is to allow the maximum disclosure of information while ensuring that proportional safeguards remain in place to protect the security of the state. I want to assure the noble Lord that that is our objective. This will closely mirror the process in statutory inquiries and other established processes. Further, it will realise the commitment made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to allow inquests that were previously halted by the legacy Act to proceed.
On some of the noble Lord’s specific questions on financing and support, I will write to him with detail.
In cases that are not able to proceed as an inquest, the Government will ensure that the independent commission is able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals and allow families to have effective representation.
Although the court found the commission to be sufficiently independent to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations, as the noble Lord highlighted, we will make further changes to its powers and accountability to strengthen the commission’s independence in order to secure the confidence of the public and the families. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, this work will consider provisions included in the draft Stormont House agreement legislation and learn from Operation Kenova, which sets out a framework for disclosure without immunity, which is why we will work so closely. That answers one of the questions from the noble Lord.
These steps, taken together, will ensure compliance with the ECHR, remove conditional immunity, ensure the reinstatement of legacy inquests halted by the Act, restore civil claims and reform ICRIR. Importantly, this will be done while ICRIR continues working on behalf of the growing number of families who have already sought its help.
In answer to the noble Baroness, the Secretary of State has made clear the value he places on engagement, and this Government will carry out an additional time-limited process of engagement on measures to be included in primary legislation. That includes ongoing engagement with Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank all noble Lords for how generous they have been with their time to date.
Engagement will include families, victims’ groups and veterans and, of course, the Irish Government. I emphasise that engagement with veterans will recognise the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers and members of the Armed Forces and security services who did so much to keep people in Northern Ireland safe during the Troubles.
It is clear that the full participation of the UK and Irish Governments in all legacy mechanisms is important if we are to provide as much information as possible for as many families as possible, and that is what we seek to do.
In line with the Secretary of State’s Statement, we have sought leave to appeal elements of the judgment in Dillon and others in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. This will address wider concerns and the potential impact far beyond Northern Ireland. As set out in the Statement, though, this will not slow down our efforts to seek agreement and bring forward legacy legislation so that ICRIR, which has begun its work, can demonstrate its capacity to assist victims and their families, helping them and society in Northern Ireland to take the next steps in the healing process.
I assure noble Lords about our support for veterans. Some Members of your Lordships’ House know that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself, if not a member of our military family, at least on the periphery of our military family. This is a matter very close to my heart as well as to many in this House. I thank the quarter of a million people who served during the Troubles to keep us safe. Our Government will work closely with veterans and veterans’ groups to ensure that the right pastoral care and welfare support are in place, as well as the right legal support as and when required.
With regard to other points raised, I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about our constant and regular engagement with the new Government of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State met Micheál Martin earlier this week and is meeting him again this week to discuss legacy issues. Regular engagement has started and will continue.
I outlined the process for consultation on the revised ICRIR. It will be with every Member of this House, if they wish to engage with me. We want to take as many soundings as possible to make sure that people have confidence and faith in what comes next.
I think I have answered the majority of questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and come back to noble Lords. I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House as we bring forward the Government’s next step in dealing with some incredibly complex but crucial issues.
Northern Ireland
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Suttie
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the east-west council is one of the important structures of intergovernmental relations and institutions we will use to improve relations and collaboration on policy. The first meeting was in March 2024 and we will announce the date of the second meeting shortly. On the Council of the Nations and Regions, noble Lords will forgive me for the laugh but the Question following this one is on that council. It is a manifesto commitment and core to us resetting and normalising relations across the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Brexit has had a profound impact on politics in Northern Ireland, including on its relations with the rest of the United Kingdom? Young people often feel that they have been particularly negatively impacted. Does the Minister therefore not agree that reconsidering the Government’s policy on the EU youth mobility scheme would be very positively regarded by young people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I live in a place where 73% voted to leave. This Government have been very clear on our approach to Brexit and its clear impact on Northern Ireland. We need to make Brexit work for everybody, including young people, and find the benefits of Brexit. I look forward to further discussions in due course.
Northern Ireland City Deals
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Suttie
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I shall be clear: if the former Government had not left us in such a challenging fiscal situation, there would be no financial pause and we would not be in the position we currently are. While I agree that the timing was unfortunate, whenever the announcement was made it would not have been welcomed by those people whom it affected. I assure your Lordships’ House that, since the announcement was made, the Secretary of State and all the officials at the NIO have been working tirelessly with key partners. We are doing everything that we can to make representations to our very dear and close friends at the Treasury, to whom I am going to be very nice for the next 20 days, making it clear how important these deals are to the future of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too express disappointment at the timing and the way in which this has been handled. It has caused great economic uncertainty and a loss of momentum for those areas which were expecting to receive the funds. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that an impact assessment had not been carried out. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to assess the economic consequences of these decisions, not least their impact on regional development in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have seen no such impact assessment either. The Secretary of State was clear about this yesterday. However, we are making every effort to demonstrate the potential success of these deals. As we have seen with the Belfast region deal, £350 million of UK government money has led to £1 billion of investment in association with the deal. I turn to the timescale. We do not know what will be announced in the Budget and spending review. This is a six-week pause in a programme that has so far taken three years and is likely to go on for another 15. Six weeks is an appropriate pause to make sure that every penny of government money is appropriately allocated.
Patrick Finucane Murder
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Suttie(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.
From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.
It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?
On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?
Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.
As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.
The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.
I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.
As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.
As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.
That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.
I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.
Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.
The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.
We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.