Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Well, perhaps it is a case of better late than never. These are Government amendments, but I am the first to admit that amazingly good ideas sometimes emerge from the Back Benches of both Houses of Parliament.

The amendments could also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings—including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice and appeals against conviction, which rely on the 2020 ruling—from being brought or continued. To align with the other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement. There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. The exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions, and I want to make it clear that the amendment would not lead to the reinstatement of convictions that had already been reversed.

There are other amendments relating to criminal justice outcomes. The Government’s primary focus has always been on establishing one effective legacy body seeking to provide better outcomes for families. We also want to ensure that organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the judiciary are able to concentrate their capabilities on more present-day issues.

It remains our view that the independent commission, when established, should be the sole body responsible for troubles-related cases, but we are also mindful of the concerns raised about the ending of the ongoing processes, especially given the current legislative timetable and the expected timeframe for the commission’s becoming fully operational. Our amendments would therefore ensure that ongoing criminal investigations, ombudsman investigations, the consideration of prosecution decisions, coronial inquests, and the publication of reports will continue until 1 May 2024, when the commission will become fully operational. We hope that the additional time provided will allow such cases to conclude their work, while ensuring a smooth transition between the ending of the current mechanisms and the commission’s taking on full responsibility for outstanding legacy cases.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the huge concern felt by families who do not think it is practical to expect all inquests to be completed by next spring? Some have not even begun, and it is feared that a two-tier approach will emerge. Owing to a number of factors, some cases scheduled by the former Lord Chief Justice will have started and may well finish, while others have not even had a chance to start. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, people do not believe that the new process will have the rigour of an inquest.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Our amendment provides until 1 May 2024 for inquests to conclude. Since the Bill’s introduction, expeditious case management of inquests in order to reach “an advanced stage” has resulted in the overloading of a system that was already struggling under incredible pressure, causing delay and frustration. We hope that the amendment will ensure that resources will now be focused on completing those inquests that have a realistic prospect of conclusion in the next year. The Government expect troubles-related cases that do not conclude via the coronial process by 1 May 2024 to be transferred to the fully operational ICRIR, led by Sir Declan Morgan as chief commissioner-designate, through the use of provisions already contained in the Bill, and I believe that those provisions will allow him to maintain the relevant level of investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Member for that, but he should be very clear that I did not actually mention solicitors. I said a legal practitioner, because they are not a solicitor. He wants to draw that out, as he has done by his comment, but he will now see that it is someone very specific. People will be able to look up the website of that person, who makes snake-oil sales in this case in that particular way, and it is wrong because such a person should recognise the outcome of the justice process.

In the Republic of Ireland there is no legacy equivalent. In the Republic of Ireland there is no equivalent for the right to access historical legal papers. There is no equivalent in the Republic of Ireland for ombudsman inquiries into Garda Siochana activity. In the Republic of Ireland there were requests by this state for 116 warrants for extradition to bring known terrorists back over the border to face prosecution in our courts, but only eight of those warrants were ever pursued and delivered on. More importantly, in the Republic of Ireland the possession of weapons in Northern Ireland is not regarded as a criminal offence and is not regarded as a terrorist offence. The possession of weapons in Northern Ireland, according to the Republic of Ireland, is a political offence, and people cannot face prosecution for a political offence.

I think Members can see some of the problems. The idea that we have a view from another state that all that is happening here should be dragged to court somewhere else by us on some sort of high moral ground is absolutely shameful. The Republic of Ireland has threatened His Majesty’s Government to take them to court on this issue, and they should have a good, hard, long look at themselves, because if this issue of legacy is going to be resolved, it will have to be resolved by both the north and the south, as well as by the United Kingdom Government, properly looking at this issue and resolving it.

I would go so far as to say that the Republic of Ireland actually has a duty to address these issues. Do Members want to know how many murders have a cross-border element to them? Of the 3,700-odd terrorist offences, or the almost 3,700 dead, almost 600 have a cross-border element. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned his own personal circumstances and the cases involving his family, where the terrorists fled back over the border. That is where weapon hoards were stored, and where the Republic of Ireland gave sanctuary to those people who were involved in almost 600 murders—of Roman Catholics and Protestants—in Northern Ireland. Remember that there were more Roman Catholics murdered by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland than there were Roman Catholics who were done to death by any other organisation, including the state. It is important to remember that the biggest group of people who get off the hook here is the Provisional IRA, and we should be guarding strongly against that.

I want to put on the record the comments of Senator Michael McDowell, the former Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland. Once again, the Senator has made it clear that, in the Republic of Ireland—he wrote this in The Irish Times—

“the Irish Government of which I was a member took the decision that further investigation and prosecution by An Garda Siochana of such historic offences was no longer warranted or justified by reason of the greater interest in ending the Provisional campaign and all other political violence in Northern Ireland.”

Of the Irish Government, he concludes:

“And so, as far as this state was concerned, a line was drawn across the page of historic Provisional IRA criminality in Northern Ireland.”

If Members want to look for immunity from justice, look no further than 60 or 70 miles from where I live, which is across the border in the Republic of Ireland, where they granted immunity.

Of course, in relation to the Government here, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made comments about the on-the-run letters and about the decision by those who support the Belfast agreement to let the prisoners out of jail, and all of those things turned justice on its head. I think we have to recognise that this is not going to be an easy fix. But I can tell you one thing, Mr Deputy Speaker: what the Government are proposing today will not satisfy people on the Government Back Benches and it will not satisfy the victims in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to the Government to think again.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I will start by putting on the record my appreciation for the efforts of the Government, in particular Lord Caine, over the past year, in trying to improve the Bill with the amendments that were tabled in the House of Lords. It is, however, a matter of regret—this will probably be a common theme across the Northern Ireland parties—that the Bill remains fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose. Even at this eleventh hour, it is important that we say to the Government—that is what we hear from most stakeholders in Northern Ireland—that they should withdraw the Bill. It is not wanted, and it is not going to work and achieve what the Government think it will. Even at this stage, I urge a rethink. Do not take the Bill over the line and end up with a situation where we have something that will not deliver for anybody in that regard.

The Bill is not fit for purpose in the sense that it is not compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. It does not have the support and confidence of stakeholders in Northern Ireland, whether that is the political parties—it is rare that we are so united, but we are on this point—the different victims groups, whose voices are particularly to be listened to; or the views of virtually every independent expert, such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory role to give its views on such matters. They are all deeply concerned about the Bill and do not believe it will deliver or that it is legally competent.

I want particularly to focus on immunity, as that is one of the core areas of debate, and on the Government amendments, which I will shortly be opposing. The concept of immunity is seen as being fundamentally unjust by victims. Most victims appreciate that they are unlikely to see their day in court and a successful prosecution of the culprits who took away their loved ones, but they do not want to have that hope extinguished. As long as there is hope, people are clinging on to that. That is the real fear, and it is on that pivot that people become particularly emotional. That is at the heart of the comments that the Government are hearing from victims across the political spectrum.

The concept of immunity is also seen as a de facto amnesty, which has its own implications. First, it goes against emerging caselaw at European level, but it also carries certain connotations that will weigh heavy on certain people. Let me frame this for a moment from the point of view of some people who have worked in the police, the Army and other security services over the past decades. I want to start by reflecting that the vast majority of people who served did so with honour, and with the intent of upholding the rule of law and protecting the entire community. There is a clear distinction between them and the terrorist, in that the former did not set out to do harm but rather to protect the community, whereas every day the mission of the terrorist was to do harm. That is a clear distinction.

The concept of immunity, particularly for those who were based in Northern Ireland, almost reinvents the whole nature of their service. They say, “We don’t need immunity because we didn’t do anything wrong. Why are we given this abstract concept? Where our colleagues did wrong, they should face justice because that is the rule of law, and the justice system is among many other values that they were serving.” This process turns that entirely on its head, and almost puts them at the level of the terrorist. That said, justice should be blind, and where there are issues to be followed through, whatever legacy mechanisms we have in place, that should proceed without favour to anyone.

That brings me to a wider point about the genesis of the Bill, and this is a fundamental reason why there is this lack of confidence. The Government cannot escape from the rationale set out at the beginning and the need to protect certain elements who are clamouring for protection against vexatious claims, who I think were generally more GB-based than in Northern Ireland as such. We have the comments from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis) when he was introducing the Bill and its pretext of giving protection to veterans who had served, in particular in the Army. Again, I stress that many other veterans do not want that protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest respect, that he has his particular view of what happened following Stormont House, but I believe that history says something a bit different.

Herein lies the issue for us all. It is a question for the party opposite, and it is a question for all Members in this place: if not the Bill, then what? There is no agreement following Stormont House. Families have gone for years, for decades, without answers to what happened to their loved ones, and I believe that the Bill is the right way forward at this point. History has been revisited in many different ways when it comes to how agreements might have worked in the past.

[Stephen Farry]

May I just point out that “New Decade, New Approach”, which was authored by this Government through one of the Secretary of State’s predecessors, contains a specific commitment to implementing Stormont House? As recently as January 2020, it was the explicit policy of the Government to deliver it. It is there, in black and white, in “New Decade, New Approach”.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but that became unworkable and impractical because the political consensus simply was not there when it came to legislation.

The hon. Member for Foyle asked what would happen if someone lied to the ICRIR. Well, that person simply would not be granted immunity: he would lose that immunity as a result of the new offence in the Bill.