Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Tonia Antoniazzi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to make this statement, following the publication on Monday of our report, “The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland”.

Getting the approach right is key to protecting more than 20 years of fragile peace in Northern Ireland, which is a truly remarkable achievement. However, the past still casts a shadow over the present for many people, particularly those who have lost loved ones or who were injured or suffered significant trauma during the conflict. Unresolved cases of killing, torture and serious injury can poison relations in the present. Our report is a unanimous cross-party document. It is the culmination of a year’s work, and I am grateful to our Committee specialist, Dr Joe Ryan-Hume, and our specialist adviser, Dr Eamonn O’Kane, for their diligent and sensitive contribution to that work.

In December last year, my Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s then emerging plans. We received almost 80 pieces of written evidence, and held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from people directly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising these concerns with a unified voice, and I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. This was considered, constructive and consensual work, done at pace, so that we could produce a report before the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. It is our hope that the detail in the report can frame the parameters of the debate, in this House and beyond, on a host of issues.

I will start with the commission. We found that the current main legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has been unable to garner the trust and authority necessary across the communities to carry out its work effectively. It was clear that its roots in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 hampered it from the beginning, and that fundamental reform was inevitable. There remain, however, several outstanding issues.

I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Committee that reconciliation depends upon uncovering the truth. Does her Committee’s report go into the incompatibility of that aim with the reinstatement of trials that the previous legacy Act would have prevented, given that when people face the prospect of being put on trial, they are less likely, rather than more likely, to say what actually happened?

With regard to veterans going on trial, we did take evidence and heard those concerns, and it is reflected in our report. I would happily have a conversation with the right hon. Member to pursue that further. His expertise in this field is welcomed by all members of the Committee from across the House, so I thank him.

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent statement on our important report on the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I want to acknowledge the Committee staff, Chloe and Joe, who are sitting in the Gallery, who helped put our report together. The clear message from the families, the representatives and the victims, to whom I pay tribute, who we met across the Province was that they want answers, justice and to finally move on. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend set out how she thinks Members of this House can engage more properly and effectively with colleagues in the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we give full voice to all those affected by the troubles?

Having met the Good Friday agreement Committee and other Members in Dublin, it is imperative for us, and for Members of Parliament who have not spent time in Northern Ireland, to engage with what life is like for people and the legacy they live with. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in encouraging cross-party and cross-country collaboration with our counterparts not just in Dublin, but in Northern Ireland.

I apologise—I have only just seen this report. I was not aware that it was coming out in this statement, so forgive me if the hon. Lady has already covered this.

Two questions have emerged. The first is that one of the biggest criticisms as the Bill went through the House of Commons and that still remains—I say this as somebody who served in Northern Ireland and is among the veterans—is what appears to be the treatment of veterans and of those who committed the atrocities in one and the same way. It is their real concern that they are getting mixed up now with the idea of those who started this process and committed the most awful atrocities.

The second element is the role of Ireland. Its refusal to carry out parallel inquiries and to play a full part on topics like the Omagh bombing are big questions that have been asked. To what degree does the hon. Lady think the Government should address those questions seriously, because there was a distinct refusal on the Front Bench to deal with that last issue in any form?

I thank the right hon. Member and respect that he served in Northern Ireland, as we know many people have. The Irish Government have pledged to co-operate with the UK public inquiry, but it was clear from what we heard that victims’ families are frustrated with the decision not to commit to their own inquiry on the Omagh bombing, and that the lack of progress on the Republic of Ireland’s inquiry remains a profound obstacle to uncovering the truth. But we did hear positive statements when we were in Dublin, and I do have a greater understanding of why, alongside the troubles Bill going through Parliament now, there may be a misunderstanding. We urged them as a Committee to be more transparent and open with us and with the UK Government, so we know what they are doing and that they are not hiding anything from us.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the work done on the report. Building on the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the report highlight the importance of ensuring that we have ECHR-compliant processes in place if we want to ensure that there is full buy-in from the institutions in the Republic of Ireland in being able to answer the questions that victims and families need them to answer?

I thank my hon. Friend for her dedication and work on the Committee, and her ability to ask the questions that need asking. The absence of a clear requirement for ECHR compliance has been an issue. The fact that we are now moving forward with ECHR-compliant investigations is important. Those conversations with Dublin and the Irish Government are key. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that will be important moving forwards.

I am grateful to the Committee for its report and to the hon. Lady for her statement. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), protections for veterans really mean a lot to those who served in Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced these measures back in September when the House was in recess, he said the protections were specifically for veterans. Subsequently, he admitted in response to my written questions that they were available to all potential participants. Does she agree that we need absolute clarity on whether the protections are unique to veterans or would actually apply to former paramilitaries?

The hon. Member makes a good point, but what we need to do is get that clarification from the Secretary of State. I am not here to give an opinion; I am here to present the findings of our report. The Government call them “protections”. Should they be protections and who are they for? We need clarity around that.

I thank my hon. Friend, who chaired the process diligently, often in receipt of very difficult evidence from those who served and also those involved in the reconciliation process. On our visit to Dublin, it was great to understand how much of an improvement there has been in relations between the UK Government and the Irish Government, because that is the only way we will deliver what the people need us to deliver.

On reconciliation, the report lays out a path for what the Government must do to ensure that reconciliation is not lost as part of the process, as part 4 remains the same as it did in the previous Bill. Could the Chair of the Committee give us more detail on what she thinks the Government need to do to ensure reconciliation is delivered at the same time?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We have not seen much detail on reconciliation, but our Committee will consider it. I commend the Government on their much-improved relations with the Irish Government. It is testament to the Secretary of State and his new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), that we are in this position, and I am very grateful to them for it, but we need to make reconciliation work going forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) says.

I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for her report. It has been a pleasure to serve under her chairship on that Committee for the past year, and it is a personal sadness that I no longer serve on it. She mentioned that the Committee received evidence about a collective loss of confidence and faith in the ICRIR. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that we also received evidence setting out that there was no loss of personal faith or confidence in the leadership of that organisation? Sir Declan Morgan impressed us all with his honour, decency and candour. He just happened to be leading an organisation that was compromised for the very fact of its birth.

I thank the hon. Member for his service on the Committee, where his background in academia played an important role. Sir Declan Morgan brought integrity to the commission, and I thank him personally for his work. The evidence shows that it was not him but the set-up of the institution he was leading that caused it to fail.