Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the moving and forensic speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.

I hesitated before putting my name down to speak because I cannot claim the knowledge of Northern Ireland that other noble Lords can. Having had the privilege of being a member of the independent Opsahl commission that considered the future of Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and having visited numerous times subsequently, I took very seriously the passionate opposition to this Bill voiced in a number of quarters. I apologise for any repetition, but I hope it will serve to reinforce the case against the Bill.

I intend to make just two general points, relating to human rights compliance and to the failure to listen to the virtually unanimous opposition to the Bill in Northern Ireland, reflected in my noble friend’s amendment. These two fundamental concerns support the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government should “reconsider its whole approach”. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which I thank for a very useful meeting the other week, argues that the Bill requires

“immediate and thorough reassessment, which should take place through meaningful engagement. The result should be victim-centred and human rights compliant”.

Its view is that

“this is not delivered by the present Bill”,

and nor can it be simply by means of a few amendments. This is a pretty damning conclusion from the official body established to advise on human rights matters in Northern Ireland.

On human rights, the JCHR voices its agreement with stakeholders that the Bill is unlikely to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It expresses serious doubts as to its compatibility with Articles 2 and 3, but also with Articles 6 and 13—the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy—despite the former Secretary of State’s statement that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. One of those stakeholders, Amnesty, describes the Bill as a “flagrant breach” of human rights obligations. The NIHRC expresses grave concern and focuses in particular on what it considers to be the Bill’s incompatibility with Articles 2 and 3, and by extension suggests that the Bill contravenes the Belfast/Good Friday and Stormont agreements. It suggests that there is “little evidence that expert views on human rights compliance were meaningfully considered.” The Minister’s welcome, conciliatory speech offers some hope that they have, to some extent, been so now, but as colleagues have said, we need to see the detail, and it is not just about Article 2 compliance.

A briefing from Freedom from Torture and Survivors Speak OUT warns that the Bill “provides impunity for torture” and in doing so breaches the UK’s obligations under multiple international treaties, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It quotes the Committee against Torture, which has made clear that in order to ensure that perpetrators of torture do not enjoy impunity, state parties must

“ensure the investigation and, where appropriate, the prosecution of those accused of having committed the crime of torture, and ensure that amnesty laws exclude torture from their reach.”

The briefing explains: “We know as torture survivors that seeking justice helps recovery by affirming the unfairness of what we endured, restoring some control”, yet the Bill “silences victims and survivors”. Liberty makes similar criticisms and dismisses the attempt in the ECHR memorandum to the Bill to argue that it is consistent with the UK’s obligations under the convention against torture.

The Constitution Committee echoes concerns raised about the Bill’s implications for the UK’s international obligations and the rule of law, and it quotes criticisms voiced by two UN special rapporteurs and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has urged a fundamental rethink of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie pointed out.

The Constitution Committee also notes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said,

“the strength of opposition to the Bill—particularly by victims—which risks undermining its aim of addressing the past and promoting reconciliation.”

That is such an important point. In his letter to Peers, the Minister stated that “the Secretary of State engaged widely and listened to many different views”, but this is not how those affected see it. To the extent that the then Secretary of State did engage—and that is disputed in relation to the drawing up of the Bill itself—he may have listened, but he certainly did not take on board what he must have heard.

According to the NIHRC,

“the Bill does not reflect the views of 17,000 consultees who engaged with the NIO on the previous legacy bill and is staunchly opposed within NI, including among victims, survivors and their families.”

It suggested that public confidence is lacking due to the Government forging ahead with the Bill without “meaningful consultation”. As far as I can tell, apart from possibly a small group of veterans and the Malone House Group, no organisation or political party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill. I acknowledge that veterans—whose views are reported by the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner—tended to be more equivocal and show what the commissioner terms “begrudging acceptance”. Nevertheless, he also makes clear that veterans

“do not want an amnesty”.

Indeed, an invitation to a meeting with bereaved families of British Army soldiers said that they feel “deeply aggrieved” that the protection of veterans is said to be the justification for the Bill.

The Constitution Committee warns:

“It is constitutionally inappropriate for such a significant measure to pass without consent”,


which is clearly lacking at present, regardless of whether or not the Assembly sits.

Could the Minister explain why the Government are railroading the Bill through despite such widespread and fundamental opposition? This opposition calls for more than the few improvements that the current Secretary of State himself acknowledged are needed when answering Oral Questions a couple of weeks ago, and which the Minister has suggested would lead to amendments being tabled before Committee. Welcome as that acknowledgement is, I am not sure that it reflects an understanding of how fundamental the opposition to the Bill is.

Surely the Government cannot believe that reconciliation can be achieved by imposing it in this form on an unwilling population. Reconciliation requires treading carefully. As the then Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill’s Second Reading in the Commons, it concerns the

“most difficult and sensitive of issues.” —[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 176.]

The Bill may have succeeded in uniting Northern Ireland’s political parties and civil society groups, but unity in opposition to the denial of justice and internationally recognised human rights does not offer a path to genuine reconciliation.

Could the Minister explain why the Government, in drawing up the Bill, have ignored the advice of bodies established to provide advice on human rights issues? In this context, could he respond to the request made by Simon Hoare MP, chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, at the Commons Second Reading that, in order to assure the House that the Bill is Article 2-compliant without “setting a precedent”, the Government give

“active consideration to putting Treasury counsel’s advice on this matter in the Library”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/22; col. 195.]

The then Minister of State did not respond in his summing up and it seems that we are expected to accept a simple assertion that the Bill is compliant, despite all the advice we have received to the contrary from the JCHR, NIHRC and others. Indeed, he ignored the whole issue of human rights, despite concerns raised by the former Secretary of State, Julian Smith, who I know earned considerable respect in Northern Ireland.

The Minister’s letter to Peers claims that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past through providing better outcomes for victims, survivors and their families, giving veterans the protection they deserve, and helping Northern Ireland’s society to look to the future, which I think was reflected in his speech today. These are admirable aims, but I do not know of anyone outside of the Government who believes that this Bill achieves them.

The JCHR, the NIHRC and the Northern Ireland Victims and Survivors Commissioner have asked the Government to think again. Informed by the view of victims and survivors, the commissioner expresses deep unhappiness and warns that the legislation is

“fundamentally flawed, and is not victim and survivor centred.”

In a letter to me, he explains that

“no-one I have met believes that the Bill is going to help heal or reconcile,”

and in a recent letter to the Daily Telegraph he states:

“A draconian Bill, designed by one party in splendid isolation, is not the way forward, and it is not what our victims and survivors need.”


The JCHR spells out what alternative legislation would need to look like. It would ensure first that

“investigations are independent, effective, timely, involve next of kin, and are subject to public scrutiny; (ii) perpetrators of serious human rights violations are held to account; and (iii) that all possible avenues for the pursuit of justice and the provision of an effective remedy are available to victims and their families.”

Many in Northern Ireland believe that it should reflect the Stormont agreement which, while not perfect, I believe commanded sufficient support to offer a way forward, despite what the Minister said in his speech.

While I welcome the fact that the new Secretary of State and the Minister are engaging in a way that should have happened before the Bill was drafted, I can think only that they will have heard a clear message that it is not fit for purpose. It will not achieve the Government’s aims, but it will create considerable resentment and unhappiness among those it purports to help. It should be withdrawn—or at the very least, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, should be paused—so that the Government can go back to the drawing board and return with a Bill that is human rights compliant and can command support among victims and survivors of the conflict. They deserve no less.