Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, in dealing with the very difficult subject of legacy in Northern Ireland, there is always the risk of dangerous and lazy myths distorting our thinking on the subject, which can then be exploited by the men of violence. At the heart of that are wrong assumptions. The first is that, in looking back at the Troubles, everyone in Northern Ireland was in some way responsible—that we were, in effect, all perpetrators. The second lie is that everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond was a victim. Worse than that, we have seen those two concepts conflated, so that, in the worst possible cases, perpetrators are sometimes presented as victims and, latterly, in a rewriting of history, some are portrayed as community defenders, heroes and examples for our young people. Nothing can be further from the truth. Let me try to deal with some of those myths.

Not everyone in Northern Ireland was a perpetrator. The vast majority of people opposed violence throughout. Indeed, every Northern Ireland Member of this House has a proud record of opposing that violence.

Not everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. There are Members of this House who have suffered directly as a result of the Troubles—I think of those who have been targeted, or whose families have been targeted, by terrorist actions: people such as the noble Lords, Lord McRae and Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to name just three.

I am fortunate enough that I am not a victim of the Troubles. My family went through them unscathed, and I was able, as much as possible, to grow up with a relatively normal childhood in Northern Ireland. I was able to do so by way of the protection provided to me by the security services—and, indeed, the security services providing that protection to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. They stood as the great defenders of democracy and peace at a time when people in both republican and loyalist circles were intent on inflicting violence.

Not being a victim is one of the reasons why I believe that the legacy Act put through in the last mandate was the wrong way forward. While it is difficult for many of those who have suffered as victims of terrorism to achieve justice, in particular from a long time ago, there was a perception that in trying to draw the line over what had happened in the Troubles, we were snuffing out the opportunities for any innocent victim, the survivors of the Troubles and their families to achieve justice. That is fundamentally wrong.

To that extent, the action the Government are taking in providing a remedial order is at least a partial step in the right direction by moving away from that situation, but for very different reasons from those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I think that it does not go far enough. Some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, while genuine in concept, run the risk of taking us in the wrong direction. We must look first at the bigger picture and ensure there is genuine equality in the law for everyone.

The stark reality when looking at the legacy of the Troubles is that over 90% of the victims were killed by republican and loyalist terrorists. Around 10% of the deaths were caused by members of the security forces. Within that, on many occasions, the deaths that were as a result of the actions of the security forces were justifiable in preventing further loss of life. One thinks, for example, of the intervention of the security forces at Loughgall or, more recently and as has been highlighted in the news, at Clonoe, where it was not the security forces acting beyond their remit but intercepting active terrorist units and preventing them inflicting further death and misery on the civilians of Northern Ireland.

Some 90% of the Troubles deaths were caused by paramilitaries and terrorists, yet an outside observer looking at Northern Ireland today could be forgiven for not realising that. That is because, clearly, the concentration of inquests and court cases has had an overwhelming focus on the role of the state and individual members of the security services, to the extent that, for a lot of people in Northern Ireland from both sides of the community, there is a concern that, in looking at the past, we are seeing a very one-sided process.

What is the impact of that? First, it creates a sense of false equivalence: that the security services were simply one other player in a multifaceted war between different factions—that must be nailed down as a lie. The security services did all they could to protect all sections of the community all the time. We know that there were occasions when individual members of the security services overstepped the mark and engaged in criminal behaviour. I have no hesitation in saying that anyone who was engaged in criminal murder, from whatever source, deserves to face that, but if we are to try to persecute and to blame, for example, the Army in relation to an event such as Clonoe, I think that we have got something fundamentally wrong.

Even worse than that false equivalence between the forces of law and order and those who sought to inflict death and injury throughout the community in Northern Ireland—be they loyalist or republican—there is a greater and more dangerous myth now beginning to persist. There are those within our society who would seek to rewrite history to present the security forces not simply as being on a par with paramilitary organisations but as the source of the Troubles and to suggest that those involved, particularly in republican organisations, were really there simply to defend their community; they were the people who took up the shield on behalf of their community.

A narrative has been put about, particularly by republicans, that in some way tries to rewrite this history. We have seen that in a very stark way, over the last week or two, since the death of the IRA commander Bik McFarlane, who was directly involved in committing five murders of innocent civilians. Indeed, it was highlighted by the Taoiseach, in the last day or two, that he was also involved with the murders of Garda and state forces within the Republic of Ireland. Yet this individual is now eulogised; the words of the leader of Sinn Féin throughout Ireland were that he was a “great patriot”.

That is the danger we have with the rewriting of history. If we go down a route that provides that level of imbalance—that does not focus on the role of paramilitaries but, instead, concentrates almost exclusively on the actions of the security forces and digs deeper into what it can find out about them and blame them for—we are reinforcing a false narrative. That is both damaging to the perception of the past and deeply insulting to innocent victims and survivors of the Troubles and their families. It is not simply an attempt to rewrite the past; it has grave dangers for the present and future, because it provides for those on the republican or loyalist side who are still committed to seeing violence in any shape or form both to excuse what has happened in the past and potentially to act, particularly for dissident republicans, as a form of recruiter.

I think that is very dangerous, and that is why I would be in favour of, for example, the Private Member’s Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is currently talking about, which would make the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence. When we look to remedies on legacy, not only must we be careful to provide the opportunity for everyone to achieve justice but there must be a level playing field. To scapegoat the security forces will take us in completely the wrong direction. While I believe that the regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, comes from the best of motivations, there is a danger of it taking us in the wrong direction. I will therefore oppose it today.