Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 6

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

We are talking about innocent victims and a victims’ payment scheme which is not about restitution or compensation; it is about recognition and acknowledgment and doing more to improve the dignity and quality of life of those who are eligible. As I have acknowledged, there have been criticisms in the past about the effectiveness, fairness and efficiency of compensation processes, and it is, in part, in acceptance of that that the Government, with cross-party support, are extremely committed to moving forward on this matter.

As the House would expect me to point out, this is a devolved matter. It will, of course, always be our strong preference that the establishment of a payment scheme to acknowledge the harm done to victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland be led by Northern Ireland political parties within an established Executive. That is the first priority for us. The Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I commend him for his active support of that process and hear the observations of the elected representatives of the DUP on that point. One thousand days on, we recognise that, not least due to the advancing years of many of those who could benefit from a victims’ pensions scheme, we must draw this matter to an acceptable resolution without delay.

The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who was in her place but has left, asked the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors to provide comprehensive advice on how a scheme of payments to those seriously injured in the troubles could be progressed, so that the issue was not indefinitely stalled in the absence of an Executive. That advice has been received. The UK Government are now committed, under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, if there is no Executive in place by 21 October—I have heard some pessimism on that front—to bringing forward regulations before the end of January, to ensure that a victims’ payment scheme can come into force in Northern Ireland by the end of May next year.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. Although the amendment puts an obligation on the Government to bring forward regulations, I suspect that such a change in the law and such a scheme would benefit hugely from being based in primary legislation, as opposed to regulation. What consideration have the Government given to discharging the duty to make payments to victims by bringing forward primary legislation, rather than regulation?

[Mr Hurd]

We are 100% genuine in our commitment to deliver on the moral and legal obligation to come forward with those regulations. Our intention at the moment is to come forward with regulations but to do so through a process that genuinely engages stakeholders and gives people the opportunity to express their view on the fairness and practicality of what is being proposed. But I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I am more than happy to follow up with her personally if she is interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say that with some trepidation because I may have called you Madam Deputy Secretary on the last occasion and now it is constantly in my head whenever I see you in the Chair.

As I did in the previous debate, I welcome the fact that we are now debating this issue in the House of Commons. On the last occasion, I indicated my concern about the lack of debate on these very important matters. I am particularly concerned today because of the confirmation of the Government position that many policy issues arising from this important and detailed measure may be dealt with by regulation. I want to add my strong support to other Members who have said that this issue would be much more appropriately addressed by primary legislation for a range of reasons.

The motion is technical, but the report does not contain a significant amount of detail about what will be done. What is referenced is the basic amount that we would expect to be done in terms of consultation with the stakeholder group—the project group being put together to bring this forward. I shall touch on the context for the motion and then some of the details of the proposal.

First, I have mentioned in the House before that I believe the measure of any process is how it treats our most vulnerable. The measure and test of the peace process in Northern Ireland should always have been how we treated our victims and survivors. It was the innocent victims and survivors of the many decades of the troubles who suffered the most in their loss and pain. They are also suffering today in 2019.

As I said in my maiden speech, I am always conscious when I stand in the Chamber that if I look to my left I can see the coat of arms of Rev. Robert Bradford and others who lost their lives to terrorism. Rev. Robert Bradford was the Member of Parliament for South Belfast. He served the constituency with honour and dedication, and he was cut down for purely sectarian reasons—because he was a Unionist politician. He was cut down while conducting a constituency surgery in a community hall in Finaghy. The caretaker was also killed. It was an appalling attack by the Irish Republican Army, not just on Rev. Robert Bradford, with the legacy of pain and loss for his family, but on democracy through the killing of a sitting Member of Parliament.

My challenge to this Chamber—albeit a relatively empty one tonight—is how many Members of Parliament remember what happened to Rev. Robert Bradford, or do they think that it is an inconvenient truth? I never walk through the doors without looking over and remembering the service that he gave and the life that he lost for his constituents. Frankly speaking, there is a party in Northern Ireland today that has never issued any statement of remorse, regret or condemnation for his murder. In the last few weeks, we have talked about the hate, bile and abuse that can happen in this Chamber, but we must always remember that that has been the case for some considerable time. Most of all, we must remember the consequences of such hate.

From speaking to many thousands of the victims and survivors of Northern Ireland over the years, I know —as do my colleagues—the pain and anguish that they continue to go through. I pay tribute to the WAVE Injured Group in particular, and to the many victims and survivors who have campaigned for many years on the proposal for a special pension. That proposal came about because many of the severely injured victims and survivors are now reaching pensionable and retirement age, but many of them do not have an employment-related pension because of the scale of their injuries in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The reality of the world at the time was that workplaces were different from today and it was difficult for people with severe disabilities to maintain and retain their employment. As they reach retirement, they therefore have to rely on the state pension, the disability living allowance or some small amounts periodically from the Victims and Survivors Service. The vast majority of those people are in that position through no fault of their own. They wanted to work, and they had had jobs. Some of them were young soldiers, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Many of them were just innocent victims going about their business, having coffee in a coffee shop or walking down the street. Some were severely injured in attacks targeting someone else; they were innocent bystanders and their lives were changed dramatically.

Those victims and survivors have told me that they suffer incredible and increasing pain, with new challenges as they age, as well as financial hardship. It is a travesty that despite a campaign over many years they have not yet received special support from this proposal being put into action.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Mention has been made of those with physical injuries that we can actually see, but many have suffered mental trauma and have not been able to work since. I ask that we include the mental trauma that many people have experienced alongside those with physical injuries when trying to address the issue in the future.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution. One of the interesting aspects of the proposal is that it has been so long in gestation that the debate, knowledge and evidence of the impact of the psychological injuries has grown. The original proposal was for the severely physically disabled victims, but I welcome the recommendation in the commissioner’s report that both physical and psychological injuries should be covered. The key point is the impact on the ability to gain employment and thus an employment-related pension.

On the Victims Commissioners’ advice, I was vocal at the time about my deep disappointment that it did not reflect the strong feeling among many thousands of people across Northern Ireland that the pension should not go to victim-makers. Throughout the many years I have been involved in this project it has been clear that that was a significant view among the victims and in the wider population. I have spoken with the commissioner on many occasions and I have huge respect for her. She does many things well, and I know that many victims have respect for her. I met her monthly or bi-monthly over several years and repeatedly raised with her my concerns that if the victims pension included the victim-makers, many people would be deeply hurt by that. What I said was that surely we have a responsibility first of all to do no harm. In this case, the issue is to do no further harm and cause no further hurt to the very genuine victims who are desperately in need of this proposal. I acknowledge that this tricky issue has held up discussions for some time, but the biggest impact on progress has been the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly. I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that this pension does not go to those who were victim-makers.

The Commissioner for Victims and Survivors has defended her report and said that she is caught by and operates under the definition of the 2006 order, but I find it unacceptable and I was deeply disappointed that the report made no reference to the existence of those other views. If I were a Minister or the Secretary of State and I was asking for this advice, I would want the advice to be clear: “There are these views on this matter, but also be aware there are that a significant number of other views, and if you progress down this recommended path hurt will be caused, victims will come out and say that they will not receive it, and that they are deeply upset by it.” That exists as a view and it should have been reflected in the commissioner’s report.

I find the fact that that was missing from the commissioner’s report deeply disappointing. I genuinely feel that it has led to her losing the confidence of a huge number of victims across Northern Ireland and that her position is unsustainable. That is the position that I have outlined to the Secretary of State, and I was therefore disappointed to see that the commissioner’s term was extended. It is key that any commissioner should have the support and confidence of the people she is supposed to speak about, and in this case what has happened has led to her losing that.

I want to move on to the specifics of the proposal in the report, which is the special pension for victims and survivors, and to touch on a number of very technical issues. As I mentioned, I am concerned about the proposal to introduce this through regulations because there were a number of aspects that need to be debated and aired for potential amendment. The proposal from the Victims Commissioner deals with the method by which people will be assessed, and she has asked very strongly that this is done in a way that is victim-centred. I asked the Minister and the Secretary of State to look carefully at the Victims and Survivors Service process. I was involved in the setting up of that new institution, and there was a lot of genuine intent about some of the mechanisms to assess the level of need of the victims and survivors, but within a very short period of time it became absolutely clear that victims and survivors were being re-traumatised or troubled by the process of questioning and assessment. They felt that this was a test that they either failed or succeeded at.

In due course, we have to change that process, so I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to look very carefully at it and to ensure that however people submit their applications and however the assessment is done, it takes account of the types of evidence and documentation already in the system—perhaps with the Victims and Survivors Service—to avoid victims and survivors having to go through the process again. It should be a victim-centred, sympathetic and empathetic environment, not a questioning environment or one in which people feel they are in the witness box giving evidence.

The Minister and the Secretary of State should also ensure that it is done swiftly. One of the big challenges with the Victims and Survivors Service was that the assessments take time, and dealing with hundreds or thousands of applications could risk people waiting six or 12 months before getting their assessment. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister could put their mind to how that can be done in a way that ensures victims and survivors can get financial help quickly while they are going through the process and waiting for it to end.

The Minister referred to the fact that we have had 1,000 days without devolution, and that to me is an absolute travesty. It comes back to the point that I raised in the earlier debate: this House has broken the precedent that it does not legislate on devolved matters. This House has legislated on devolved matters. Victims and survivors of the troubles—and the survivors of historical institutional abuse, those who are sitting on waiting lists, those who are dying on waiting lists, people who are waiting for their child to get an autism assessment, and people who are in desperate need of public services—ask me why those issues were picked for this House to decide to legislate on, despite the convention. Why pick those issues on which to break precedent and the convention of this House by legislating on them, while in this case the victims and survivors are suffering pain every hour of every day, and they have done so since they got their injuries 20 or 30 years ago?

These are victims in pain saying, “Why do we have to wait? Why are we being told, ‘No, no, this House doesn’t deal with that’? This House can only do that by regulation. This House does not legislate on that.” This House has legislated. It has legislated on cases that are considerably less urgent, where people are not in pain, where people are not in real financial need. As I said about the historical institutional abuse inquiry, I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to take swift action. This House and its legislative timetable, whatever is announced in the Queen’s Speech, could all fall. Who knows what will happen in the next few months? But this is the important point: the Minister can do this. He can introduce this provision as a piece of legislation. He can get the time to do that and he can do it very quickly. The message needs to go out to people in Northern Ireland—the victims and survivors who are suffering—that this is not a case of can’t; it is a case of won’t. I ask the Minister to make a promise to this House and those victims and survivors that he will decide to no longer go with “won’t” but to move to “I will”. I ask that he introduce it as quickly as possible to ensure that those victims get a special pension by and before 31 October, because he can do that.

[Maria Caulfield]

May I echo the hon. Lady’s point? I think there is a nervousness in the Government caused by a fear that if this place legislates it is offending the nationalist community, but members of the nationalist community were victims of institutional abuse or victims of terrorism and they all want compensation and need pensions and to have justice for what they have suffered. We need to be bold and brave about this. We will do no favours for the nationalist community by not legislating on either historical institutional abuse or victims compensation.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very valuable contribution and I absolutely agree. This is so difficult to explain to victims and survivors. I know that the Minister will have found himself in this position as well—it is so difficult to explain to people a point of constitutional theory or purity. Quite frankly, given what has happened in this place over the course of the past few weeks and months, people have no time for that. What people want is action and what victims and survivors need is help to support them in their pain. They need financial security as they get into their older age and they need the Government to act. They can act, and I am asking the Government today to please commit to doing so as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I did not feel it needed to be said, because actions speak louder than words. The commissioner has been confirmed for another period of 12 months. I think the Secretary of State’s instinct is to ensure some continuity while making it clear that future decisions must be for the devolved institutions.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

To reach the coda will be welcome. I thought I addressed that point when I said that, as we finalise the architecture, a number of big issues—the biggest being eligibility, of course—need to be resolved. No decision on that has been taken and finalised, but as we finalise our proposals, we will go through proper processes of engagement, not least with the Labour party.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Regarding the earlier point, I emphasise again that my personal opinion does not matter; I was articulating the opinion of victims and survivors and that is why I said the commissioner’s position is unsustainable.

We are talking about overseas nationals, but there is another point on which I have yet to get clarity. It concerns the many soldiers in particular—there are others—from Scotland, Wales and England who served in Northern Ireland and who sustained injuries but are now living in mainland UK who may want to access the pension. Previously, it was thought that this would be funded through the Northern Ireland block grant, but of course there are citizens from outside Northern Ireland and who are currently living outside Northern Ireland who may need to benefit. Has the Minister considered that technical point and how to resolve it?

[Mr Hurd]

It is more than a technical point; it is a point of fairness. Both of those lines of inquiry reflect the fact that what was discussed through the Stormont House agreement, as I understand it, was relatively narrow in scope. We are discussing widening the scope and thinking through the consequences of doing so. I would not even be entertaining this conversation if our minds were not open to doing that, but it reinforces the need to think through the consequences, including the financial consequences, and the ability to defend any proposals.