(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat the Statement made by my colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the legacy of the Troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.
The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.
The new Troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the Legacy Commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.
The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of Troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor-General to independently consider whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed Legacy Commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including through legal representation.
We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate the work of any previous investigations, unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential to do so. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment as to whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.
Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold-calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the previous Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on Troubles-related civil proceedings.
I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the Troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission; to establish a dedicated unit within the Garda to deal with Troubles-related cases, including all outstanding cases in Ireland; and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.
Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the Troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality—but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.
Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. At the outset, it is right that in approaching this issue, first and foremost in our thoughts are the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over 3,500 lives were lost, tens of thousands more were maimed and injured, families were broken, and communities and livelihoods were destroyed, overwhelmingly at the hands of terrorists right here in this United Kingdom.
We also recall with pride those who stood in the front line against terrorism to protect the community, to uphold democracy and to maintain the rule of law. As the Statement acknowledges, and I welcome this, the vast majority of the more than 250,000 people who served during Operation Banner did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even-handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce provocation. Without their efforts, there would have been no peace process and no Belfast agreement, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, our concern over the proposals now being brought forward is that, in honouring that debt, they sadly fall short.
I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are. Finding consensus, often even within communities or the same groups, has eluded successive Governments, including, I admit, my own. Yet the previous Government’s legislation, while never perfect—as I often made clear—sought to establish a route towards providing victims and survivors with more information about what happened to their loved ones, while at the same time providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges, the current Government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged. Instead, they took the political decision to abandon them, and today, however much they seek to dress this up, we have a set of proposals that will see elderly veterans hauled before the coroners’ courts to account for the events of decades ago—or, worse still, face the possibility of criminal prosecutions at a time when we all know that the chances of former paramilitaries facing the courts will be vanishingly small.
The Government will of course point to the package of six so-called protections that they will introduce, but can the noble Baroness confirm that a number of them, such as anonymity or appearing remotely, are already at the discretion of the court? The Statement says that the protections will apply to other groups, such as police officers, yet inexplicably it omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify whether the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries, the Prime Minister said, “No, it’s for veterans”, but we know that this is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five of the six so-called protections for veterans will apply equally to former paramilitaries?
On inquests, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many will now resume and how many will be referred to the Solicitor-General? Will the resumed inquests include Loughgall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987? On those referred to the Solicitor-General—not, we note, the Attorney-General—what criteria will be applied to determine whether they are allowed to proceed or whether they will be taken on by the legacy commission?
At the point at which they were stopped, more than 700 civil cases had been lodged with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the courts service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the state, that the Government’s proposals will unleash? Do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed on it by reopening inquest and civil cases, in addition to the £250 million committed to legacy by the previous Government?
On Gerry Adams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government’s proposals will prevent him and others receiving a single penny of compensation, not least since Mr Adams has already announced his intention to challenge this?
On the role of the Irish Government, we welcome their new-found enthusiasm to address legacy matters, when there has not been a single prosecution for a Troubles-related incident within their jurisdiction since 1998. Can the Minister tell us what “fullest co-operation” means in practice when exactly the same words were used in respect of the Omagh public inquiry, yet the Omagh families remain highly critical of the role of the Irish Government?
Finally, is it not an unbelievable approach to negotiation that the Government would agree to a joint framework with Ireland while it maintains an interstate case against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg? They criticised our legislation for lacking consensus, yet is it not a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish Government who hold a threat over them that they will not drop this case until they are satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country?
I look forward to the Minister’s detailed replies. If she is unable to give the detail needed at the Dispatch Box today—I appreciate that she has quite a long day—will she commit to write to me?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.
From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.
I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.
I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?
We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans
“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]
I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?
In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have lots of bits of paper in front of me, so please bear with me. I need to start by putting on record my genuine thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for everything he did, and the previous Government for everything they attempted to do—some of which I agree with, and some I do not. But we are using all their work as a basis to try to fix the things that simply are not working, to make sure that cross-community faith is heard in the legacy commission, and to fix the things that, candidly, were false promises, as it turned out, for members of the veterans community. But there is no one in your Lordships’ House who would question noble Lord’s commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, nor that of his Front Bench, and the same goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am beyond grateful for the time they give me, both inside and outside this Chamber, to try to make sure that we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people who were touched by the Troubles and still do not have answers.
There is a reason why we are bringing forward this legislation. It is not because there is nothing for your Lordships to discuss or do at the moment—noble Lords will be aware that we will be sitting until quite late again this evening—but because we genuinely believe that this is the final opportunity to deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and the promise of the Good Friday agreement, and to make sure that the next generation does not carry the burden of the past, but can move forward.
There are victims waiting for answers. They include the families of veterans who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during Op Banner, when they ran to put themselves between terrorists and the general public. They are also the people who suffered horror at the hands of terrorists, and it is only right that people receive answers. That is why we are all here, and I hope that as the legislation progresses through your Lordships’ House, it is what we all seek to do.
There are many questions that were asked, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. If I miss any, which is inevitable, I will write to the noble Lord. But it is fair to say that we will be discussing these issues for many hours in your Lordships’ House, so inevitably I will cover them all. Whether it is today or not, I commit to write to all Members present if there is anything I have missed.
Before I touch on the issue of veterans, on which, unsurprisingly, I have a significant amount to say, I put on record my personal role as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While it is an honorary role, I do have a uniform, and I consider myself part of the military family and therefore I take these issues—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is absolutely right—very seriously. I have engaged personally with veterans both at home and in Northern Ireland on my visits, including when I visited Omagh in August to mark the anniversary of the bombing, and met with an extraordinary group of men. I subsequently met some of the women who also were present on that day, who must deal with the consequences of what they saw every day. They are dealing with one of the worst examples of what happens when you are told the wrong location of a bomb and you push people towards it, as opposed to away from it. People are still suffering every day because of their experiences in Northern Ireland.
I want to be really clear to noble Lords, as I will be throughout this process, on the protections available to veterans. We have listened to the veterans community. The reality is that immunity was a false promise and did not deliver for them. It has never been enacted, and we must make sure that veterans have actual protections in place, not false promises—they deserve so much better. There will be, without doubt, a huge amount of contention about this. It is very important to reference the fact that this is the reality of where we currently stand. Noble Lords are absolutely right that some of the protections we are announcing apply to more than just veterans, because they have to. They must also apply to other people, other groups that served, including the RUC and others. There is not a word that helps us get to just to one point of people, but I want to reassure noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with veterans at its heart.
The protections, while they may apply to others, were designed specifically to help veterans. Those protections include protection from repeated investigations; the legacy commission will not needlessly duplicate previous investigative work veterans may have already participated in, unless it is necessary. Veterans will not need to explain historical context that is already known. It is ludicrous to me that junior officers, or non-commissioned officers, were asked to give evidence about strategic environments; they may well have been under 20, and they were having to give an overview. It is unnecessary, and the MoD has experts on hand who can provide that context. They will have the right to stay at home: veterans will not be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the commission or to an inquest. They will have the right to seek anonymity: veterans will be able to request anonymity when giving evidence. They will also have protections in old age. At the weekend I listened once again to a podcast on 50 years on from Bloody Sunday. In fact, now it is 53 years on. We are talking about people who need protection in old age. Veterans’ health and wellbeing will be taken into account by the commission and coroners if they are required to give evidence, and they may not need to give evidence at all based on those considerations.
On protections from cold calling or unexpected letters, veterans will be contacted only through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support. This is an incredibly important thing, because it will also ensure that no veterans slip through the net and end up getting contacted by accident. On the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, the MoD will also make an independent expert adviser available to remove the need for veterans to give testimony or historical context in the operations. In addition, every time they are contacted, we can make sure that the MoD can provide the bespoke support needed for that veteran. My noble friend the Minister at the MoD has been clear in making sure that this is in place, and I thank him for it.
Turning to another incredibly important thing, one of the additional parts of the legislation is the right to be heard. There will be a statutory advisory group for the legacy commission, which will provide an opportunity for the voices of all victims and survivors of the Troubles to be heard, including ones from a service background. It is very important that those voices are heard, including throughout the operation of the legacy commission.
I will move on to some of the other issues that were raised. Nine inquests will immediately restart; the others will be assessed by the Solicitor-General, as one of the law officers. There will be up to 24. She will be analysing each case based on the relevant sensitive issue, and there will always be a presumption in favour of referring that case to the commission. She will also be assessing the capacity to undertake the reinstatement of the inquest. Within 18 months of the Act gaining Royal Assent, she will provide for what will happen to the additional outstanding cases. On funding for the PSNI—a very topical question today—we have committed to £250 million. I will revert in due course to additional funding if required. Obviously, there will always be ongoing conversations. On the capacity of the MoJ, I will be in contact. I will write to the noble Lord on the question about the court service and what additional support we are putting in place, although I do not recognise the number referred to.
Gerry Adams is obviously at the heart of this conversation. There are several outstanding cases around the ICOs, but in the legislation we are bringing forward a reinstatement of the Carltona principle in the context of the interim custody orders. The previous Government’s attempt to address this following the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. We need to find a better way of reaffirming this principle. The Government’s belated attempt to do so via an amendment to the legacy Act has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. That is why we are including it in primary legislation. I look forward to debating that in due course with all noble Lords.
I realise that I am over time but I have two more points, if noble Lords will indulge me slightly. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness for raising the interstate case. I would expect that as soon as this legislation gains Royal Assent, there will be absolutely zero grounds for the continuation of the interstate case and I look forward to it disappearing at that point, if not before. Secondly, on Omagh, I have been there twice this year. I have met the people giving evidence to the public inquiry and others. We are quite clear on the issue of Omagh. I welcome the MoU to the inquiry, which has been signed by the Irish Government, to bring forward more evidence. I hope that we will see genuine efforts. I want to be clear that a public inquiry is currently under way; anything that would undermine that while it is still trying to get to the facts of the case will not help us. I welcome its work and thank Lord Turnbull for the work he is doing. The Irish Government have committed through the MoU to working forward; I am really pleased with that step and look forward to seeing the outcomes.
I realise that I may not have touched on all the points, but I will write to noble Lords about the issues I have missed.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I too pay tribute to all the victims, the survivors and their families, who have suffered so much over many decades of the Troubles. She will be aware that there was great annoyance that this Statement was originally made when the other place was in recess and on the very final sitting day of this House, contrary to promises and pledges made to all the parties. The Government should apologise to parliamentarians in both Houses for that.
It is also important that, as we take this legislation through, there is no conflation of innocent victims with the perpetrators of violence, no conflation of the security forces of Northern Ireland—including the Army, the UDR and the police—with terrorists of whatever hue, and no conflation between those of us who advocate on behalf of the victims of terrorism and violence and those such as Sinn Féin which advocate on behalf of terrorists against the security forces. These basic principles must be re-emphasised if we are to give confidence to those who have suffered so much at the hands of criminals and gangsters. Will the Minister commit the Government, here and in the other place, to talking to the victims and veterans throughout this process and hear what they think of this legislation? So far, it appears that the only consultation that has taken place has been with the Dublin Government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord not just for his comments but for all the work he has done as a genuine leader in his community. There are still times when I call him and cannot believe that his name is in my phone. I am grateful for everything that he has given me. He is absolutely right that I need to apologise that we could not do this because of the timings of the international agreement, which is what the framework was. The noble Lord is very aware that the timing was not of my choice. I apologise to him and your Lordships’ House that it has taken us this amount of time to get here. I also make it clear that we are here today because Northern Ireland business should never happen on a Thursday, so that noble Lords can actively participate.
The noble Lord touches on a very important point about the victims of terrorism. Many people have made that clear, including Ben Wallace. I debated using this quote but, when Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace said that:
“No-one is above the law. The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for. That’s why we are better than the terrorists”.
I am clear about our responsibility to make sure that the people affected by the most heinous terrorism of my lifetime on our shores get the answers that they are working for. There is not a day in the calendar on which someone was not murdered in the Troubles. As we stand here today, people will be grieving and remembering what happened to their loved ones. We all talk to victims’ groups regularly, as well as the NIO.
I will make one offer to noble Lords. I will be in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions before this legislation comes forward, and definitely between now and Christmas. If there are people whom the noble Lord would like me to sit down with—that offer goes to all Members of your Lordships’ House who live in Northern Ireland—and talk to about their experiences and what they need from this legislation, then my time is theirs.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the statement that my noble friend has just made, as well as the Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the primary legislation that the Government are introducing. The previous legacy Act was never going to be sustainable. I never thought that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who was very open to discussion on that Act, for which I thank him, was a 300% advocate for it. Its immunity provisions were opposed by every victims’ group and political party, so it is good that it is being repealed.
I have two specific points. On the legacy commission, I would like some clarification on the welcome reference in the Statement to “learning from Operation Kenova”. That operated to criminal justice standards, which meant that you could in principle refer cases for prosecution, although it was very difficult given their longevity over many decades and the difficulty of finding sustainable evidence. Is that what “learning from Operation Kenova” means? Secondly, the commission has not enjoyed support on a cross-community basis from the different victims’ groups or the parties. What does the appointment of codirectors for investigation mean? Is it designed to give it some kind of independent authority and oversight? I would welcome it if that were the case, because that would enhance its credibility.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his questions, his work as Northern Ireland Secretary and his role in working with victims’ groups, including WAVE, with which he has a long-standing relationship. He is absolutely right about immunity, which was opposed by everyone. That is one of the reasons why it was in our manifesto; we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. Criminal investigation standards are what we are expect from the legacy commission. The other learning we take from Operation Kenova is that voices will be heard within the commission that are currently not. There will be victims’ voices, as well as those of veterans, whom I have spoken about, and other people affected, which we hope will guide the work of the legacy commission going forward.
On the codirectors for investigation, we are also bringing forward a new governance structure to make sure that there are clear reporting lines and accountability for the legacy commission. There will be two roles for the codirectors: one for someone who has expertise and a history of investigations in Northern Ireland, and another for someone who has experience of investigations, but not in Northern Ireland. That means that we can make sure that, if there is a perceived conflict of interest, it is answered. I hope that will go some way to reassuring people who should be accessing the legacy commission for help.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I have one specific question in relation to the proposal in paragraph 6 of the joint framework to replace the existing Commissioner for Investigations with two co-directors for investigations, one of whom must have experience outside Northern Ireland. Is it envisaged that this appointment will go to someone from the Irish Republic? This would place in their hands the authority enjoyed by a commissioner to confer the powers of a constable on an individual within the legacy commission, along with access to highly sensitive national security and intelligence-related material.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. There will be an open process, and the person appointed will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no commitment or expectation that the person will be from the Republic of Ireland, and I would be surprised if they were.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement this evening. I also thank her for the engagement we have had over the last few weeks and for the letter I received today in response to the representations I had made. I totally condemn all that violence and terrorism, and the murder of innocent people over all those long years. For those of us who lived in Northern Ireland and grew up during that period of violence, it was very difficult. I have two questions, one of which has already been referred to.
First, will the new legacy body be independent of the Secretary of State? That was one of the issues that was raised with the previous legacy legislation. Secondly, will the Government ensure that a victim-centred process is pivotal to all of the legislation? I welcome the fact that there is a joint British and Irish Government approach because the problem with the previous legislation was that there had been no consultation with the Irish Government. Therefore, what further consultation will take place on a formal and informal basis with political parties and all the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
One of the most important things about the additional powers we are giving to the legacy commission is the new governance structures, which I hope will give a level of confidence about its independence. That is not to say the Secretary of State will be completely isolated; we are talking about some issues relating to national security and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation. However, we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what when, and so that people can have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary.
On a victims-centred process, let us remember why we are doing this: it is about victims, their families and people. Candidly, it is not about most of us in your Lordships’ House—though there are notable exceptions to that. This is about making sure that everyone has the answers they need. Every family I have talked to needs a different set of answers and is looking for different things from the commission; we need to ensure that what they want and need is at the heart of it.
Of course we will continue engagement. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us. All political parties will be engaged, both inside and outside the Chamber. We will continue to actively engage with all victims’ groups.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a victim of IRA terrorism. As I stand yet again to speak on legacy matters, I feel that trauma rising in me; I feel my heart beating and the distress, and for those who have suffered both outside and inside this House, it is always traumatic when we get to these things. However, I welcome the Government’s proposed legislation, though I have not had time to consider it in detail. I want to make two points.
Having had members of my family serve in the military in Northern Ireland, I understand the position with regard to veterans. However, it will be profoundly important—and I hope the Minister can assure me—that veterans, former members of the PSNI and any serving members of the PSNI from that era and ordinary people in Northern Ireland will all receive the same treatment under the rule of law and that there will be no special treatment for veterans.
For example, many people who suffered in the trauma of the Troubles left Northern Ireland. They presumably will be afforded the same right to give evidence and be interviewed at a distance as those veterans who are in Northern Ireland. It is profoundly important that happens because there was no trust in the Northern Ireland Troubles legacy Act and it is vital we get this right to allow people to have trust in it.
Secondly, despite £250 million being allocated, it is going to be vital that there is not just support for the PSNI in this. Our public prosecution and court services are broken; cases take far too long to get to court and there does not seem to be the lawyers to operate and move things along smoothly. There needs to be real thought about how we underpin the processes we are going to set under way. I therefore ask the Minister for assurances that there will be wider consideration there.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She reminds all of us of the personal cost that many people in your Lordships’ House and across Parliament have paid. She also reminds me of why I am so passionate about what we are trying to achieve: making sure that she and others get answers, but also making sure that this is the final generation that has to carry this burden. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year, I met with a group of people who called themselves the “peace babies”. It is incredibly important that we hold on to the peace babies and that they do not have to carry the burden of this trauma.
With regard to the specifics, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Veterans Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said in July that this is not a call for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That should apply to everybody; everyone should receive the same treatment under the law. Protections will apply to all victims. I want to be very clear to noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with a view to what was specifically impacting veterans; while other people will benefit from it, we did start with that process.
On the court system, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. My hope and expectation is that most people will seek to use the legacy commission. That is why we are strengthening the commission, its governance and hopefully giving more people confidence in it, so that it will not overburden the courts. I will revert on the other points that she made.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I compliment the Minister on her deep feeling about what was said. I will comment on veterans. This Parliament, people sitting on these Benches and down there, sent young men, such as myself, to Northern Ireland into the face of danger. Many of them were killed. Not all of them behaved perfectly—I know that perfectly well—and some went to prison, but mostly people were doing their duty. We need to remember that the whole time.
On the other hand, we have IRA terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, who almost certainly was responsible for the murder of Jean McConville. I cannot mention any other cases. The Minister would expect me to remember people such as Andrew French, a friend of mine, and Simon Ware, a friend of mine, who were murdered by terrorists. I do not think that anybody has ever been caught for their murder, so I say to the noble Baroness: please remember that soldiers went there to do their duty. They may not always have got it right, but that is why they were there, sent by people sitting on these Benches.
Secondly, please make sure that no murdering terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, get money from the state, having murdered many members of the state and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, if there is a problem with the law, change the law.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I will start with the final point: we are changing the law, and that is what we are spending a lot of time on. This includes the re-establishment of the Carltona principle, to ensure that the principle that several Members of your Lordships’ House used when they were Northern Ireland Ministers and believed that they were acting in good faith exists in law and is retrospectively applied.
I thank the noble Lord, and everyone who served, for his service. We sent many young men to Northern Ireland. Many did extraordinary things to keep us safe and I thank them for doing their duty. I make it clear that veterans’ families, including the families of the veterans he named, need answers too. I hope they will seek to go to the legacy commission to make sure that they get answers. It is why we want to make sure that veterans’ voices and those of the victims’ families are heard and are at the centre of the commission.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, the Belfast agreement has been held up in high esteem here. But why are the Irish Government involved in this part of the scheme? The Irish Government were not involved in strand one of the Belfast agreement, so why do we need agreement from them now to take this forward? It is nonsensical. They have done nothing down the years to support the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism—in fact, on some occasions they have facilitated terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is an absolute shame. I quote the Minister’s own words: “We are better than the terrorists”. It does not appear that way, if there are to be new inquests into the eight terrorists of Loughgall who tried to murder and maim everybody in the station there. It is absolutely terrible and ridiculous. We are not starting off from the same basis at all. There is not fair treatment, simply because security forces hold all the information, terrorists do not. Is this a departure from the Belfast agreement? Has she set the Belfast agreement aside, in the interests of trying to get some deal with the Irish Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord served with distinction for many years. I am grateful for the time he gives me and for the work that he has done in Northern Ireland to deliver peace.
As someone who was born in 1979, for me, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was something I celebrated and welcomed and consider one of the most successful achievements of the last Labour Government. The reality is that the Republic of Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is one of the reasons why it is so incredibly important that we are working with it. This is an unprecedented level of commitment from the Irish Government about the Troubles and I am truly grateful that they have moved forward. They have been clear that they will facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant authorities with the commission. They are establishing a dedicated unit to deal with Troubles-related cases, acting as a single point of contact for families within the Irish system. They will make a financial contribution of €25 million over three years to resource legacy mechanisms. Consistent with the Stormont House agreement—which I know the noble Lord’s party was not supportive of but which shows that the Irish Government have been party to this for many years—the two Governments will establish the independent commission on information retrieval to make sure that people get the evidence when they need it.
I know that there are concerns, and that the proof will be in the pudding, but working with the Irish to deliver answers for the people of Northern Ireland is incredibly important. As I have said consistently throughout, this is about answers for the people who are still waiting for information about what happened to their families. It is they who are front and centre in all of our efforts.