Armed Forces: Historical Cases

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Let me be clear from the outset. Operation Banner, as the House is aware, lasted for nearly 30 years. It was the longest single continuous deployment of the armed forces in British military history. During that period, over 250,000 people served. The armed forces and the RUC combined lost over 1,000 men and women to terrorism. There were over 7,000 awards for bravery, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary was rightly awarded the George Cross. As this Government’s Northern Ireland manifesto at the last election made clear,

“we salute the remarkable dedication and courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces in defending the rule of law and in ensuring that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent.”

Quite simply, without their contribution, what we know today as the Northern Ireland peace process would never have happened. All of us across this House and throughout our United Kingdom owe them a huge debt of gratitude, just as we owe them an enormous debt for the work they have done and sacrifice they have made in other parts of the world referred to in the motion: in Kosovo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

Wherever they operate, we quite rightly regard our armed forces as the best in the world. The Government ask them to put their lives on the line in order to defend us and our way of life. In return, they rightly expect the fullest support from the Government, and this Government, through my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his colleagues, are determined to provide it.

[Dr Murrison]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that support should extend to the provision of the costs of engaging a solicitor to advise those who have been sent letters by the Ministry of Defence inviting them to unburden themselves about the events of 30 or 40 years ago in order to assist the police with their inquiries? I am sure that he would not want those individuals inadvertently to incriminate themselves or those they were operating with all those years ago. If he is correctly suggesting that we should be properly supporting our veterans who served in Op Banner, then that must surely extend to finding the cost of engaging solicitors to advise those individuals properly and appropriately.

[James Brokenshire]

The Government have always acknowledged their ongoing duty of care to our former soldiers. Our policy is that where veterans face allegations concerning actions they took in the course of their duties, taxpayer-funded legal support, including counsel where appropriate, will be provided for as long as it is needed. In addition, I am advised that the Ministry of Defence can assist veterans with welfare support, either directly or in partnership with other agencies such as Combat Stress, depending on the veteran’s individual needs and circumstances.

[Dr Murrison]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful, because this is very important. My right hon. Friend says, in effect, “if allegations have been made”. These letters, as I understand it, contain no allegations but will be disturbing nevertheless to the predominantly elderly gentlemen who receive them, who will need proper advice on whether to unburden themselves in the way that is suggested or whether to ignore the letters. I think that that advice can come only from a solicitor. My question is whether the MOD will provide the costs of the provision of that legal advice.

[James Brokenshire]

I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s point away and discuss it with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence to seek clarity for him and for those who may be in receipt of those letters.

I must also be clear to the House that we will never accept any kind of moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the rule of law and terrorists who sought to destroy it. For us, politically motivated violence in Northern Ireland was never justified, whether it was carried out by republicans or loyalists. We will not accept any attempts to place the state at the heart of every atrocity or somehow to displace the responsibility for actions from where it may lie. I want to underline that we will not accept attempts to denigrate the contribution of the security forces and to give any kind of legitimacy to violence.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I agree wholeheartedly with the point that the Secretary of State is making. Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister outlined what can only be described as the new gold standard for investigations. She made four commitments. She said that the system will reflect the fact that 90% of all killings were carried out by terrorists. She said that it would be

“wrong to treat terrorists more favourably than soldiers or police officers.”

She said that the investigative bodies have a

“duty to be fair, balanced and proportionate”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 1014-1015.]

She said that no disproportionate investigations will take place. How will the Government give effect to that gold standard, which we welcome?

[James Brokenshire]

The points that the hon. Gentleman raises are very much embodied in the Stormont House agreement and the legacy bodies and institutions referenced by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). If I may, I will come on to those issues in greater detail later.

Being the best in the world means operating to the very highest of standards. We expect nothing less, and I know that our armed forces would not have it any other way. As the noble Lord Stirrup put it in a recent debate in the other place:

“The need to act lawfully is not a side consideration for the Armed Forces; it is an integral part of the ethos and training.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 2076.]

We believe in the rule of law, and the police and armed forces are charged with upholding the law. They cannot operate above it or outside it. Where there is evidence of criminality, it should be investigated without fear or favour. In our view, however, what characterised the overwhelming majority of those who served was discipline, integrity, restraint, professionalism, and bravery—and we should be proud of them.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Soldiers were of course subject to the rule of law, including, notably, the sergeant and platoon commander in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders who were charged with the murder of two civil rights campaigners, Michael Naan and Andrew Murray, in 1981 and convicted. Many were investigated and some were actually prosecuted and convicted.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes that point about the upholding of the rule of law. I will come back to what we judge are the right next steps in terms of balance, proportionality, and giving effect to new arrangements to deal with the legacy issues embodied in the Stormont House agreement.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House yesterday, it is appalling when people try to make a business out of trying to drag our brave troops through the courts. In that context, the motion welcomes the Government’s decision to wind up the Iraq Historic Allegations Team following the solicitors disciplinary tribunal hearing and the consequent decision to strike off Phil Shiner. This called into question the credibility of a large number of IHAT’s remaining case load, which will now revert to the Royal Navy police. To be clear, the Government have a legal obligation to ensure that criminal allegations against the armed forces are investigated, but we remain determined to ensure that our legal system is not abused, as it clearly was by Mr Shiner, falsely to impugn the reputation of our armed forces. We should all support the decisive action taken by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary in that case.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend, who is himself a solicitor, is making an essential point about the rule of law as it must be practised by honourable members of the legal profession. He is highlighting the important role that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal played in finding this man guilty of deception of the most abject kind. Will he comment on how the shadow Attorney General can possibly continue to defend that extraordinary individual and yet claim that she will represent Her Majesty’s Government should the Labour party ever be elected?

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to underline that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s hearing resulted in a decision to strike off Phil Shiner, and the credibility of a large number of IHAT’s remaining case load has now been firmly called into question. It is important that we respect, recognise and uphold that determination by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

[Ian Paisley]

The Secretary of State is touching on the very important point of transparency and fairness in all of these investigations. The public prosecutor in Northern Ireland was formerly the solicitor for Sinn Féin. He handed in the names of the on-the-run people on behalf of Sinn Féin, and the Government dealt with that matter. Of course, that was brought to the attention of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee when it investigated the on-the-run case. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the perceived conflict of interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has in his knowledge of senior republicans and their involvement in very serious and organised crimes, he should resile from involvement in all further parts of this matter?

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland has pursued prosecutions against a number of individuals for serious terrorist crimes during the troubles, and it continues to do so, as well as pursuing other cases. It is wrong to suggest that the PPS is in some way only applying itself to one side. I know that there are strong feelings in that regard, but it would be wrong to personalise the matter in this way. It is important, in terms of upholding the rule of law, that we should also uphold the independence of the police and of prosecutors. It is important to frame the matter in that context, but I acknowledge that people may have strongly held views.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will my right hon. Friend convey a message to this individual and say that sending out letters to organs of the press in this country, saying that any criticism of him will be met by legal action, is completely unacceptable? He is publicly accountable and publicly paid, and if we want to criticise him, we will do so and he will not resort to law to try to shut down newspapers that report our criticism.

[James Brokenshire]

There is always the right of complete free speech in this House and, clearly, the right, which we uphold as a democracy, of the freedom of the press. However, we need to be careful in our comments when we seek to personalise matters. We know the consequences of that from the past. I acknowledge that there are strongly held views, but I underline the independence of the prosecution service and of the police. That is something that we should absolutely treasure, while of course holding people to account and being able to comment publicly. The freedom of our rule of law is important, but equally the press and this place have the freedom to debate matters robustly and vigorously.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Brokenshire]

I know that many Members want to contribute to the debate. I will take further interventions, but I want to make progress.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

May I just ask something about that point?

[James Brokenshire]

I will make some progress.

As right hon. and hon. Members are well aware, addressing the legacy of the past has been one of the most difficult issues since the Belfast agreement nearly 19 years ago. What is clear today, as this debate highlights, is that the current structures in place are simply not delivering for anyone, including victims and survivors on all sides who suffered most during the troubles. The rawness of the continuing pain and emotion of families and survivors is stark, and yet the need to make progress is absolutely clear.

The legacy of the past continues to cast a shadow over our society in Northern Ireland. It retains the ability to destabilise politics and it has the capacity to be used by those who wish to fuel division and promote terrorism to achieve their objectives. Of course, people are always going to retain their own views of the past, which will be shaped by their own experiences of it. I acknowledge that the Government’s view of the troubles will not be shared by everyone, or vice versa; but we should strive to reach consensus on the structures needed to address it, and in a way that helps move Northern Ireland forward.

The inquest system was not designed to deal with highly complex, often linked cases involving large amounts of highly sensitive material. The office of police ombudsman has to deal with historical allegations of misconduct, rather than focus on cases today. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has to devote substantial resources to dealing with legacy cases when I know that it would prefer some of them to be spent on policing the present. Taken as a whole, I recognise concerns that the current mechanisms focus disproportionately on cases involving, or allegedly involving, the state, leaving many victims of terrorism feeling ignored as a result.

None of that is to criticise any individuals, not least the police and prosecuting authorities, all of whom uphold the law independently of Government. I support them in their difficult work. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned earlier the shocking case of a police officer, who was about to go to work and serve their community, discovering that a device had been planted underneath their car. The consequences of that could be absolutely horrific. That underlines the bravery, determination and sheer public service that PSNI officers and others show day in, day out to uphold the rule of law and keep our communities safe, and the shallowness and evil of terrorism that seeks to undermine that. I know that the House will absolutely underline that strong message of support to them and the work that they do.

My comments are a recognition, which is widely accepted, that we need new and better structures for addressing the issues. The status quo is not sustainable. The Government have a duty to seek better outcomes for victims and survivors, and we need legally robust mechanisms that enable us to comply with our international obligations to investigate criminal allegations.

The Stormont House agreement was arrived at in December 2014, following 11 weeks of intensive cross-party talks with the UK Government, the five largest parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government on matters falling within their responsibility. The agreement contained the most far reaching set of proposals yet for addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s troubled past, including the historical investigations unit, the independent commission for information retrieval, the implementation and reconciliation group, and an oral history archive.

A number of different options were discussed during those talks. Amnesties were quickly dismissed by all the participants and are not the policy of this Government. We believe that the so-called legacy bodies set out in the Stormont House agreement continue to provide the most effective way to make progress on this hugely sensitive but hugely important issue.

Delivering the Stormont House agreement, including the legacy bodies and reforming legacy inquests, was a key Northern Ireland manifesto pledge for the Conservative Government at the last election, and we remain committed to that. In doing so, however, I am also committed to the need to ensure that former soldiers and police officers are not unfairly treated or disproportionately investigated. That is why any legislation we introduce will explicitly set out that all of those bodies, including the historical investigations unit, will be under legal obligations to operate in ways that are fair, balanced and, crucially, proportionate.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The House will be greatly reassured by the concern of the Secretary of State and the Government about the lack of proportionality on the part of the authorities in Northern Ireland, but can he not understand that the disparity between the two is overwhelming? One side were a bunch of terrorists hiding in the shadows, dressed not in military uniform; the other side were trying to enforce the Queen’s peace in Northern Ireland. All the incidents involving the latter are meticulously recorded. One cannot go to the National Archives in Kew and find the IRA’s records of the people it brutally murdered.

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely recognise the sense of justice, and the sense of the need for justice, on all sides, which underpinned what my hon. Friend said. Yes, there are meticulous records. There are meticulous records of the investigations of terrorists, which should be looked at properly. That is part and parcel of what I am saying about the establishment of the historical investigations unit. The terrorists were responsible for 90% of all deaths in the troubles, and any investigative processes have to reflect that.

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend, who is being most tolerant in taking interventions, accept that if 10% of the people who were killed were killed by the security forces—bearing in mind that the other 90% of killings were all murders—even if as many as one in 10 of the killings by the security forces were murder, which is exceptionally unlikely, the proportionate rate would be one in 100, not one in 10?

[James Brokenshire]

That is exactly why the Stormont House agreement had at its heart the messages that I have already delivered of fairness, balance and proportionality.

The case load of the historical investigations unit will contain some of the most notorious atrocities that resulted in the deaths of our armed forces, such as those at Warrenpoint in 1979 and Ballygawley in 1988. The HIU will look at cases in chronological order, meaning that each case will be investigated in the order in which it occurred, so that there is no prioritisation of some cases over others.

Any legislation that establishes the HIU will include specific tests that must be met in order that a previously completed case is reopened for investigation. Specifically, that will mean that new and credible evidence that was not previously available to the authorities will be needed before the HIU reopens any closed case. We are also looking at ways to ensure that when prosecutions do take place, terrorists are not treated more favourably than former soldiers and police officers. The bodies will be time-limited to five years to ensure that the process is not open-ended, thereby helping Northern Ireland to move forward.

Turning the Stormont House agreement into detailed legislation has been and continues to be a long and necessarily complex process, but a great deal of progress has been made in building the consensus that is necessary to bring legislation before the House. I believe that with hard work on all sides, the outstanding areas of disagreement are entirely bridgeable.

In September, I signalled my intention to move the process to a more public phase. I had hoped that that would have taken place by now, but a continuing lack of consensus and then the political situation at Stormont have delayed it. However, I remain committed to giving the public a say on the proposed bodies and to building confidence in them from across the community. I want to take that forward as soon as possible after the Northern Ireland Assembly election a week today, so that we can make progress quickly.

Any approach to the past must be fair, balanced and proportionate; it must have victims and survivors at its heart; and it must be consistent with our obligations to those who served and, in so many cases, sacrificed so much to bring about the relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today.