Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Northern Ireland Office
Julian Lewis
Main Page: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)Department Debates - View all Julian Lewis's debates with the Northern Ireland Office
Tuesday 9th July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 9 July 2019 - (9 Jul 2019)
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 6, which stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and 16 other Members. It relates to a topic that, by sheer coincidence, I was addressing the Chamber about on 9 July exactly 12 months ago to this day. That topic is the need for protection for our service personnel against repeated reinvestigation of alleged offences committed during the troubles, even though those have in many cases been previously investigated and there is little or no prospect of significant new evidence being forthcoming.
The amendment speaks for itself. It suggests that there should be
“a report on progress made towards protecting veterans of the Armed Forces and other security personnel from repeated investigation for Troubles-related incidents by introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, in the absence of compelling new evidence, whether in the form of a Qualified Statute of Limitations or by some other legal mechanism.”
It is very important to note that the word “amnesty” does not feature in the amendment. I was particularly pleased when, in another debate on this subject on 20 May this year, my hon. Friend, as I choose to describe him, the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who is an authority on these matters, intervened to make the point strongly that what the Defence Committee has in mind—namely, a qualified statute of limitations—is not an amnesty in any way, shape or form.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful. Since the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment makes reference to “other security personnel”, will he confirm whether he and his colleagues have taken the view of the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association, and will he elaborate on their opposition to any such amnesty or statute of limitations? That would be enlightening for the Committee.
Dr Lewis
I am afraid that we have got into a situation where people in Northern Ireland have become, to some extent, a prisoner of their own rhetoric. As I understand it, there is opposition to what people imagine is being proposed on the basis that it draws some form of moral equivalence between the forces of law and order and those people who went out, illegally armed, to commit terrorist offences. It does nothing of the sort. The only equivalence that anyone can or should read into such measures is the basic equivalence before the law that applies to everyone.
I have made this point before, and I am afraid that I am going to keep making it until one day more people accept it: already, in the form of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, such equivalence is quite clear. What that Act provides for is that if somebody has been convicted of not just one grave offence but even multiple murders, they might well be given a life sentence, but under that legislation no one will ever serve more than two years of that life sentence in jail. That has sometimes been thought to be something that applied to paramilitaries and terrorists but not to the armed forces, but in repeated debates on this subject it has been established very clearly and unambiguously in ministerial statements from the Front Bench that it applies to everyone. That does not create moral equivalence between the people it applies to; it simply creates the same equivalence before the law that applies to every British citizen, whether virtuous or villainous.
Emma Little Pengelly
We have just had the conclusions of the legacy consultation and the release of a summary of the findings. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the confusion on a statute of limitations is that, due to the narrative around this, people do believe that this is an amnesty, but in fact it talks about limiting some circumstances, on the basis of fairness, which is very different from the principle of amnesty?
Dr Lewis
I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, and delighted that I gave way to her, because she has put that far better than I could.
What we are trying to come to here is a reasonable conclusion that would mean that, should compelling new evidence emerge—something that was overlooked and has now come to the fore, and that puts a completely different complexion on an allegation of a serious crime—indeed that would still be pursued, but where matters had been looked at previously, and where there was no compelling new evidence, a line should be drawn.
There is one more element that comes into this, which is the question whether such a qualified statute of limitations would conform to international law.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him and others on tabling the amendment. There are two issues here for me. First, on the point of fairness and equality, does he agree that it is deeply unfair that the state seems to be actively looking not to bring former terrorists to justice while actively looking to bring soldiers, who were there legally doing their job under the law, and protected by the law, to justice. Secondly—I talk to ex-service friends about this often—is he aware of the appalling signal it sends that the soldiers who were doing their job are not being protected by the law, either recently in Iraq or 20 or 30 years ago in Northern Ireland?
Dr Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, for that perceptive observation. Certainly, on the differentiation between people who were lawfully armed, trying to preserve the peace and the good order of society, and those who went out unlawfully to try to disrupt that, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks will address that very point in some depth, because it goes to the heart of his amendment.
Lady Hermon
I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous indeed. I think that it would be very helpful if he, and indeed his colleagues, clarified how many members of the British Army have been investigated, re-investigated and prosecuted in Northern Ireland. I think the numbers would be very instructive and interesting.
Dr Lewis
I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that the numbers at the moment are very low, but the threat—the sword of Damocles—is hanging over a very large number of people.
That leads me rather neatly to the final point that I want to make, about conformity with international law, which does not require a prosecution but does require an investigation. That is why the Select Committee on Defence—we have a further report coming out that relates not just to Northern Ireland, but to the wider context of other campaigns—has always sought to combine the notion of a qualified statute of limitations with that of a truth recovery process. What might loosely be termed the Nelson Mandela solution means that we would satisfy the requirement for an investigation but remove the sword of Damocles hanging over someone’s head, because they would know that they would be required to say what they remembered of the events concerned, with an absolute assurance that no prosecutions would result. That would give the bereaved families the best chance of finding out the truth.
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend is very kind. I instinctively agree with the amendment that he has tabled. I am concerned about a statute of limitation, because if case law were applied would the other side not claim access to the statute of limitation as well? I would be grateful for his thoughts on that.
Dr Lewis
I thought that by implication I had covered that point. The likelihood is that anyone before the law would be able to lay claim to the statute, but the reality is that what my hon. Friend calls the other side—with their letters of comfort, among other things—are the last people who need to be worried about the present situation. We must not get hung up on the terminology. The people we have to protect are those where the records exist, but to whom letters of comfort have not been given—our armed forces veterans.
In conclusion, I want to—
David Simpson
The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point about the letters of comfort. I have to say that the letters of comfort were given to republicans, but those who put on the uniform of the Crown forces are being pursued for doing their duty.
Dr Lewis
That confirms the very point that I was making, and it is why the main purpose of the amendment, although arguably it might be cited by people who are unlikely to be prosecuted, is to protect our service personnel, security forces and so on.
I would like to end—I really will end—by saying that I was encouraged in a debate in Westminster Hall on 20 May this year by the response of the Minister of State to points of the sort that I have made today. He said that I had
“mentioned the Nelson Mandela approach; I will come back to that point, because it is central to any potential action and solution”.
He said that a solution
“must allow not only the victims and the veterans, but the whole society in Northern Ireland, to draw a line.”
He said:
“There is not an exact comparison between Northern Ireland, which is a unique place, and South Africa, but there are many parallels. We must find some way of creating an approach that will allow people to get closure, truth and justice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2019; Vol. 660, c. 248-250.]
That is what my amendment seeks to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Nigel Dodds
I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by Government Members, in relation to the military or armed forces covenant and its application across the United Kingdom, and on the definition of victims, again on a UK-wide basis. In amendment 19, we refer to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, but we believe that we need a definition of victims on a UK-wide basis.
On the armed forces covenant, our amendment 18 calls for the Secretary of State to publish a report
“on progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.”
This is important because, at the moment, despite the great service of so many in Northern Ireland in the armed forces of the United Kingdom over many decades, which has been recognised far and wide, and the dedication of Northern Ireland men and women in the services—and there are, therefore, many veterans—there is not the same application of the military covenant in Northern Ireland as there is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have of course talked about this issue in relation to the confidence and supply arrangements, and I look forward to the Minister saying something when he winds up about how we might progress this.
To give an illustration of just how difficult things are, just the other day—on 28 June—the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), received a letter from the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling, in which he replied to a previous letter asking about representation from the Northern Ireland Administration on the ministerial covenant and Veterans Board. The head of the civil service said that, unless and until there is an agreed position on participation by the Northern Ireland Executive, he was not in a position to attend or even to send another representative. This is how appalling the situation is: we cannot even have Northern Ireland represented.
Even if the Executive were back, there is no doubt that Sinn Féin would block the covenant’s application in Northern Ireland across a host of services and a host of Departments, as it has done. Of course, as we know, the armed forces covenant is not about giving preferential treatment to veterans; it is about making sure that they do not lose out as a result of their service. By any stretch of morality and law, that should apply in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We are looking for the Government to report on progress on that matter, and to ensure there is a legislative underpinning of the military covenant. Indeed, I notice today the campaign—I think it was in The Sun newspaper —for legislative underpinning of the military covenant. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that both the leadership contenders—certainly one—have signed up to it. I warmly welcome that, and we will certainly be sitting down to discuss, as part of the renewal of the confidence and supply arrangements, how we can actually move these things forward in detail.
The other amendment that I want to speak to very quickly is amendment 19 on the definition of a victim. I referred to this when debating the previous batch of amendments. The current problem in Northern Ireland is that the definition of victim applies equally to those who have been injured as a result of their own actions and in perpetrating terrorist atrocities. For instance, the Shankill bomber, who was injured—his co-terrorist was killed in a bomb explosion that killed many innocent people—is entitled, under the law as it currently stands, to be classified as a victim, and therefore eligible, under the proposals brought forward, for a victim’s pension. Innocent victims—those who were injured as a result of terrorist activities and the families of those who have been left bereaved—of course find that extremely agonising, and they want this appalling situation rectified. Our amendment asks the Government to bring forward a report on seeking to address this very pressing issue.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We will return to this theme, so they will forgive me if my response today may be more truncated than I would prefer if there were more time. There can never be a question of moral equivalence between a member of our armed forces and somebody engaged in terrorism on behalf of a paramilitary organisation. We need to make that very clear. Whatever our disagreements, the agreement over the lack of moral equivalence is absolute and we should not be drawn down that track. That said, I am extremely uneasy about the approach taken by both right hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to our international commitments. One of our commitments is as a state party to the International Criminal Court and the treaties thereof. Article 29 of the Rome statute makes it clear that crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be subject to a state-imposed statute of limitations. That is an absolute condition of the Rome statute. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. I invite him to check that.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the ICC, having been set up long after the troubles, does not have retrospective application, even if the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the law is correct.
Tony Lloyd
I did not necessarily automatically assume that the right hon. Gentleman was looking for retrospective legislation. That is an interesting point. The reality, however, is that for this state to now adopt retrospectively something that is imposed would be in contravention of article 29 of that statute.
I pray in aid the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a point about the role of the police. The role of the police and of the armed forces is very similar. George Hamilton, the outgoing chief constable of the PSNI, has made it clear that he does not believe in any form of statute of limitations. He said:
“There cannot be different rules for different citizens.”
That is a fundamental challenge. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland made the point that it would be an insult to police officers who were killed or injured on duty. This is the real point: in the end, we ask our armed forces to sign an oath to uphold the Queen and Her Majesty’s laws—except for the Royal Navy, ironically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who served in the Royal Navy, knows. We are talking not about the massive and overwhelming majority who serve faithfully in our armed forces, but about the small minority who transgress the law.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks drew a distinction between terrorists and those who are lawfully armed, but those who are lawfully armed and misuse those arms do not deserve any protection. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for New Forest East that I am not minded to support their amendment, but we will continue to debate this.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) raised an interesting question about the definition of victims, but it is probably too difficult to debate the whole point today. When I have spoken to victims of terrorism—for example, those in organisations such as WAVE—they have made it clear to me that they want to move on. They believe that, after this amount of time, pragmatism says, “Let’s get on and ensure that those who have been denied those pensions now receive them.” I have a lot of sympathy for that view. They have waited a long time for some form of recognition.