Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.

It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that

“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”

I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.

As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]

Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.

The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.

If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal

“has been determined or abandoned”.

It has been abandoned by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.

Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.

I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.

Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.

Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.

I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—

Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.

I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.

I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?

I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.

I call the Father of the House.

A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.