Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Statement

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the legacy of the Troubles made in another place last night by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The timing of the Statement was chosen so as not to take time away from the Opposition day debates we have just had, while also enabling the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to be updated today.

Addressing the legacy of the Troubles was one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement, but this task remains incomplete. Too many families I have met have had to wait too long to find out what happened to their loved ones. I have found it difficult to listen to their stories about the brutality of the killings, the way some of them were treated afterwards, and the passing of the years without finding answers.

The approach taken to legacy by the last Government was wrong. It was rejected by the Northern Ireland political parties, victims’ groups and the Irish Government, and it was opposed by the Labour Party when we were in opposition. Aspects of the legacy Act have now been found by the courts to be incompatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. This must be remedied, and the Government are committed to repeal and replace that legislation, as set out in our manifesto.

I am today laying a remedial order under the Human Rights Act to take the first steps to honour that commitment. This order will remedy all of the human rights deficiencies in the legacy Act identified by the Northern Ireland High Court in February in the case of Dillon and others, and one issue from the Court of Appeal judgment in September. Specifically, the order, if adopted by Parliament, will remove all provisions from the Act relating to the immunity scheme, which—let it not be forgotten—would have enabled any of those who perpetrated the most appalling terrorist crimes to seek immunity from prosecution from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—ICRIR. Of course, as many victims’ families recognise, with the passage of time the prospect of successful prosecutions is increasingly unlikely.

The order will also enable all civil proceedings that were prohibited by the legacy Act, including future cases, to proceed. This means that individuals will once again be able to bring Troubles-related cases to the civil courts—a basic right denied them by the legacy Act.

In addition to laying this remedial order, I can also announce today that I will introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. This legislation will implement our promise to restore inquests, starting with those that were previously halted by the legacy Act. It will also, in direct response to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s findings, amend the Act’s disclosure regime so that it is fair and transparent and, crucially, allows for the greatest possible disclosure of information, following very closely the model for statutory inquiries and other established processes.

We will also ensure that, in specific circumstances—namely, in cases that are unable to proceed as an inquest—the independent commission is able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals and ensure that families have effective representation. While the courts have found the commission to be sufficiently independent to conduct Article 2-compliant investigations, the confidence of families in its work is paramount, so we will make further changes to reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability. As part of this work, we will consider provisions previously included in the draft Stormont House agreement legislation, as well as learning from the experience of Operation Kenova.

The steps I am outlining today seek to correct the mistakes of the previous Government’s approach, ensure compliance with the ECHR and deliver on what this Government have promised: the removal of conditional immunity; the reinstatement of legacy inquests halted by the Act; restoring civil cases; and reforming ICRIR, while enabling it to continue working on behalf of the growing number of families who have already sought its help.

The many discussions that I have had with interested parties in recent months have been invaluable in the development of this approach. I will now undertake further discussions on specific measures to be included in primary legislation so that, together with the remedial order, the Government fulfil our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. To be clear, this will include further meetings with families, victims’ and survivors’ groups, Northern Ireland parties, civil society and the veterans community, recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the Armed Forces and the security services who did so much to keep people in Northern Ireland safe during the Troubles. I want to take the opportunity to reassure the House that, as a Government, we are committed to ensuring that veterans receive the right welfare and, where appropriate, legal support.

I will, of course, also continue to have detailed discussions with the Irish Government, who, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, are an essential partner in this process. I hope that the UK and Irish Governments will be able to agree a way forward that helps provide victims and families with as much information as possible and does so in a way that is underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House agreement.

I am sure everyone recognises that, as time passes and families get older, we need to get on with enabling them to obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. In parallel, the Government also need to set out the grounds for appeal on elements of the Court of Appeal judgment. As I have said, the Government will use primary legislation to respond directly to a number of the Court of Appeal’s findings on disclosure. However, the primacy of the Executive in decisions relating to the security of the state is a principle long recognised by UK courts and is a crucial element of the state’s ability to keep people safe. For this reason, we will appeal the court’s specific finding regarding the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where such disclosure would prejudice the national security interests of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the court’s findings relating to effective next of kin participation in cases that would otherwise be inquests raise issues that could reach far beyond the scope of the legacy Act. It is important that the Government seek legal clarity from the Supreme Court, and that is why we have decided that the Government must seek to appeal on this issue as well. The Government will also pursue an appeal in relation to the findings on Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, for reasons I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 29 July.

I would like to say as clearly as possible that these decisions on appeal are to address wider concerns and their potential impact far beyond the legacy Act and Northern Ireland. They will not slow down our efforts to seek agreement and bring forward legacy legislation so that the ICRIR, which has begun its work, can demonstrate its capacity to assist victims and their families.

Finally, what is all this for? It is to enable families who have lost loved ones—families who above all should be in our hearts and minds today—finally to learn what happened. Nothing will ever ease the pain that they endure to this day, but we must hope that society in Northern Ireland, which has come such a long way since 1998, can begin to heal the terrible wounds of the past and look to a better future. I commend this Statement to the House.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am not normally nervous at the Dispatch Box, but then I never anticipated responding in the presence below the Bar of one of my greatest musical heroes. I will try not to go over too much of the same old ground.

I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place yesterday. I note that, having pledged to repeal and replace the legacy Act, the Government are committed to supporting the new legacy commission, the ICRIR, the establishment of which formed the vast bulk of that Act.

We welcome the decision to appeal the judgment in relation to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The previous Government were clear that the commitment to no diminution of rights was intended to cover those specific to Northern Ireland, as set out in the 1998 Belfast agreement. It was never our intention that the article should apply more broadly than that and enable the courts to disapply primary legislation where they believe it engages provisions of EU law that no longer apply in Northern Ireland. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this is also the current Government’s position?

We also support the decision to appeal the court’s ruling on the Secretary of State’s powers to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information that could prejudice national security. The overriding responsibility for ensuring that no individuals are put at risk and that people are kept safe and secure in Northern Ireland rests with the Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Government.

The onward disclosure of information was all set out clearly almost exactly 10 years ago in paragraph 37 of the Stormont House agreement. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that none of the measures the Government are contemplating to strengthen further the independence of the new commission, or the commitment to amend the current Act’s disclosure regime, will in any way undermine that fundamental duty?

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating this important and detailed Statement. These Benches strongly welcome both the content of the Statement and the constructive approach that it sets out.

Dealing with the past is an issue which provokes so much hurt and emotion. So many families have waited far too long for truth and justice. The previous Government’s approach regarding immunity was misguided and wrong, and has all too often resulted in a distrust of the process. As Sir Julian Smith MP said yesterday in the House of Commons, the new approach set out in yesterday’s Statement

“tilts back in favour of the rule of law and in favour of families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/24; col. 424.]

All political parties and victims’ groups in Northern Ireland were against the legacy Act as it was. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened and responded.

It is welcome too that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had several meetings with the Irish Government. Clearly, it is to be hoped that the Irish Government will feel able to drop their court case. It is a matter for them, but I hope they will soon feel able to do so. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to maintain constant and regular engagement with the new Irish Government to achieve that end, as well as, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, dealing with legacy issues in general?

I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan and the work he has done on the independent commission, but I none the less welcome the proposed reforms of that commission. Some, including in this Chamber, want to see it abolished altogether, but that was in the context of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act that are now being removed. Can the Minister say a little more about the process for consultation with families of victims and political parties in Northern Ireland to judge how the independent commission is operating in this revised context? As others have said, it can work only when it has the full confidence of victims and families.

There were lots of questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their constructive response to this Statement. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns. Considering the time available to us, the complex legal nature of the issues at play and ongoing legal cases, I also commit to write in response to some of the questions raised and will review Hansard immediately afterwards.

I commence by recognising the anniversaries of Troubles-related deaths that fall this week, particularly those in McGurk’s bar, Droppin Well, Ballykelly and Ballygawley barracks. These heartbreaking anniversaries emphasise why we are here today discussing how we can ensure that survivors and victims’ families can secure some level of peace. First, let me reiterate the goal of this Government, as the Secretary of State did in his Statement yesterday. We are trying to help families who lost loved ones in the Troubles finally establish what happened. This is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement, and it is clear that the correct approach is yet to be found. This Government have rejected the approach taken by the previous Government. Their approach was wrong. It did not gain the support of Northern Ireland parties, of a majority of victims’ groups or of the Irish Government. It is for this reason that the Government committed to repeal and replace that Act in line with our manifesto commitments.

The steps being taken today are part of that process, with a remedial order being used to take the first steps towards that goal. The aim of that order is to address legal deficiencies identified by the Northern Ireland High Court and one issue identified by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The remedial order will remove from the Act all provisions related to immunity and the prohibition imposed on retrospective and prospective civil proceedings.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s explanations in answer to the questions, which are very helpful, as well as the Statement. I also welcome the restoration of inquests and civil actions as routes to truth and justice for victims and survivors, because they should never have been closed in the first place.

Does my noble friend agree that ICRIR needs significant reform to win trust? It does not have that trust among victims and survivors at the moment, and it must gain it. There is real fear that it will focus on what one might call light-touch reviews rather than proper Operation Kenova investigations—truth recovery investigations. I accept that it should not undermine the security services, and Operation Kenova did not do that. It had the confidence of victims and survivors. The new process needs genuinely unfettered access to information, unencumbered by the test of reasonableness. The Minister explained that the Secretary of State will complete the repeal and replace commitment made by the Government. How will he do that specifically in the interest of victims and survivors, because that has to be paramount?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and put on record my personal thanks for the support that he has given me since I took on these responsibilities, as well as for the work that he has done for a long time in working with veterans groups and attempting to tackle some of the issues associated with legacy. I thoroughly agree with him that Operation Kenova could provide a template for going forward and the Secretary of State is committed to looking at how that worked. While protecting national security, it does provide a potential way forward. With regards to the reform of ICRIR, right now our intention is to reform it to build confidence. That is at the heart of everything we will seek to do with the primary legislation, and we can do that only with ongoing engagement.

The reality is that the victims of the Troubles are still in pain. We saw some of that in the other House yesterday; the heartbreak is real and tangible. It is not for me to decide what will work in this area to give them confidence. Candidly, it is not for many of us to determine what happens next. We need to talk to and engage with them to make sure that they have confidence in processes that they will be working with every day, so that they can get a level of peace. It is for them that we are doing this work.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Statement. I welcome very much the reinstatement of civil proceedings, the removal of immunity and the commitment to restore inquests. I look forward to ongoing engagement on these issues. I have to declare my interest as a member of the international steering group of Operation Kenova, which has been repeatedly referenced today.

Is the Minister aware that the court’s findings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Act derive from the very limited number of cases which Mr Justice Colton agreed to accept for judicial review? There were in fact 20 applications for judicial review and the majority were turned down. The consequence of that, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is that many issues were not adjudicated on and the Court of Appeal could adjudicate only on matters in the High Court, so there were very limited outcomes from that process. Can the Minister provide further clarity about what is meant by repeal and replacement of the Act?

The exceptional powers granted to the Secretary of State and the ongoing situation in which his decision-making will inevitably be informed by the intelligence services create a massive problem of trust. Is the Minister aware of the difficulties experienced by Kenova and the inappropriate classification of material as secret and not to be disclosed to families, which has occurred as a repeated feature in Northern Ireland, and can she ensure that restrictions on access to information are removed and that the assurances of support to veterans will apply equally to victims?

I thank the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue and for how generous she has truly been with her time with me and the Secretary of State. I look forward to working with her in the months ahead as we develop next steps; her voice will be incredibly important.

With regard to the specifics, I am of course aware of the detail of current legal cases and why some issues were raised and others were not. Bringing forward primary legislation means that we get to look at some of the other issues in the round, and I look forward to that process. That will also relate to disclosure and national security, and we will have those conversations, because for some that will be at the crux. I reassure the noble Baroness that we seek to do nothing to the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of legacy; we want to do this with the people of Northern Ireland, to deliver for them and for victims. That is the approach this Government will be taking as we develop the primary legislation.

I welcome what the noble Baroness the Minister has said about the decision to appeal on the disclosure of sensitive information and in relation to the question on Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Minister in the other place spoke about seeking clarification of the legal position. Can she go further and say that, if this does not turn out as the Government expect, they will legislate to put matters right on both of those issues, in the unfortunate circumstances where the courts may rule against the Government?

On primary legislation, I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment to talk to victims and victims groups, as well as her commitment to this issue and to talking to colleagues here in this House. Will she ensure that there is proper redress for the innocent victims of the IRA, as it is not a one-sided process? Sinn Féin’s First Minister of Northern Ireland—a so-called Minister for all—continues to eulogise and support murder by the IRA against innocent victims. Will that be called out as well? The Irish Republic’s position has been outlined by the noble Lord on the Benches opposite. Will that also be brought into the discussions?

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned having consultations with the Irish Government. Will she commit to undertaking once again to follow the three-stranded approach, which is that the Government of the Irish Republic should be consulted only on matters that are outside the remit of Northern Ireland and only on matters that affect them?

I thank the noble Lord for his questions and his ongoing engagement, and for the support that he has given me in recent months as I have tried to get to grips with some of these issues. With regard to the Windsor Framework Article 2 appeal, he will know full well that I cannot speculate on what we would or would not do post any judgment, or what that judgment would be likely to do. But as and when—or if and when—that is the case, I will revert to your Lordships’ House, I am sure.

With regard to the victims of the Troubles and the perpetrators of some of the most vicious terror attacks that our country has ever known, there is no hierarchy of victim nor of persecutor. Those people who perpetrated these acts should be held to the same account, regardless of which section of the community they come from. We will do everything that we can to make sure that all partners who have a level of responsibility for next steps forward, as we work towards rebuilding and a genuine legacy process that works for the people of Northern Ireland, take full responsibility and fulfil all the commitments that they have made under a series of pieces of legislation. That includes the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

My Lords, I welcome the Statement on legacy from my noble friend, particularly in relation to the removal of the immunity scheme, the reinstatement of civil proceedings and the restoration of halted legacy cases. Undoubtedly, challenges remain so can my noble friend confirm that she will continue to work through the remedial order, the repeal legislation and the reform of ICRIR, already referred to, to ensure that confidence in the rule of law, policing, reconciliation and support for victims and survivors will be the prime objectives to achieve the shared society that we earnestly desire in Northern Ireland and the transformational change that is required in legacy?

I thank my noble friend for her support and for the question. We are clear that the remedial order tabled yesterday is a first step in delivering on our manifesto commitment but, more importantly, our promise to the people of Northern Ireland to deliver a pathway through on legacy related to the Troubles. Our next step will be to reform ICRIR to build confidence, which will require ongoing engagement with everyone in your Lordships’ House.

Last month, I was in Northern Ireland and met a youth group who were aged 18 to 25. They were exploring the Good Friday agreement and, for them, it was history; for them, it was the lived experience of every day in Northern Ireland that they contend with. I am delighted and so privileged to say that so many people in your Lordships’ House worked together to deliver a society where, for them, the Troubles were history. But we now need to make sure that we work with the families who were touched by the Troubles—the thousand cases—so that the next generation is not affected by intergenerational trauma and have answers about what happened to their families.

My Lords, the whole House will be in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for the way in which she has repeated the Statement. She is, palpably and demonstrably, personally invested in this process, and everyone owes her a debt of thanks. She will know that the primary responsibility for oversight of remedial orders falls to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At its meeting yesterday, it decided that it would look at this remedial order urgently, from a human rights perspective. It would help the committee if the noble Baroness could provide clarity on when she expects the Supreme Court to hear the Dillon appeal. If she does not have that information, will she be good enough to try to establish that, so that we have some idea of what the process will be and how long it will take?

Given the impact on grieving families—which, as she said, was raised yesterday in a very moving way in another place—and the effect of justice delayed inevitably being justice denied, can we be assured not just that it will happen “in due course” but that the primary legislation will be in this Session of Parliament? Given that the Government have to deal, 20 years later, with outstanding matters such as the McKerr group of ECHR judgments, will the noble Baroness undertake that they too will be dealt with in the primary legislation, when it is brought forward? Twenty years is a long time to wait to resolve issues raised by the European court.

I thank the noble Lord. I will write to him on matters pertaining to the Dillon appeal and the Supreme Court. Many things are in my gift, but that is not one, in terms of timing. On when the legislation will come forward, noble Lords will be aware of how busy the legislative agenda in this House is right now, and with forthcoming legislation. I assure noble Lords that we are making every effort, although the timing is not in my gift. We will bring forward primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows and I promise that appropriate representations are being made.

On what will be included in the primary legislation, we want to make sure that it is genuinely effective and has the confidence of the families, so of course we will work to try to address as many issues as we can. I look forward to engaging with the noble Lord on every specific case, if he would like to have those conversations.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this significant achievement. It puts into practice what we said we would do before the general election: repeal the legislation. Some of the problems we faced with the current legislation were that every single political party in Northern Ireland disagreed with it. So can she assure me and your Lordships’ House that there will be proper consultation with every political party and with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—as well as with the Irish Government, where appropriate—to ensure that we have the widest possible consensus on what is so very necessary? But I give many congratulations to her and the Government on this.