1. If he will take steps to ensure that compensation is not paid to people detained using interim custody orders during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
This issue arose following the Supreme Court judgment in 2020, which found certain custody orders to be unlawful. The amendment to the legacy Act to try to deal with that has also been found unlawful by the Northern Ireland courts, so the Government are carefully exploring how to lawfully address this complex issue, alongside our commitment to implement legacy mechanisms that are fully compliant with human rights. I will, of course, keep the House updated.
Will the Secretary of State withhold the remedial order until he is certain that he can deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge to prevent Gerry Adams from receiving compensation?
I am a veteran, as many Members know, and lots of my colleagues served in Northern Ireland. I was based in a barracks in Germany that was attacked by terrorists, so I get it, but the last Government’s legacy Act offered a path to immunity for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no surprise that the legislation was so widely opposed and has been found to be unlawful?
I thank my hon. Friend for his service in our armed forces, alongside all those who served. He is absolutely right about the flawed piece of legislation that this Government inherited, and we are working hard to put that right.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State left out one crucial detail: the truth is that the last Government did legislate with cross-party support to prevent people like Gerry Adams from receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. The High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that that was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Conservative Government then appealed that judgment. When the Labour party came to power last summer, it dropped that appeal. Will the Secretary of State please set out why the Government decided to drop that appeal?
As I told the House a moment ago, the courts found that clauses 46 and 47 were unlawful. Although the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was not obviously asked to rule on that, because we had withdrawn the appeal, it did comment unfavourably on those provisions. We supported clauses 46 and 47 at the time, but they have not worked, and that is why we have to find an alternative way forward. I just say to the House that the main issue here is the Carltona principle, which the last Government argued meant it was lawful for junior Ministers to sign ICOs. The amendment to try to deal with that failed, and we need to find another way of reaffirming that principle. That is at the heart of this case.
The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State not give a reason why the Government did not continue the appeal. Government lawyers told the last Government that there were grounds for appeal. Policy Exchange, in a report in January written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, said that the High Court had almost certainly been “mistaken” in its judgment and that there were strong grounds for an appeal. Why did the Government drop it, and why have the Government not yet brought forward their own legislation to clear this mess up once and for all?
The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020, and the last Government could not find a legal solution in almost three years. I am committed to finding one, and I promise that I will update the House when we have found it.
New Decade, New Approach: Addiction Services Funding
2. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on funding for an addiction treatment centre in Derry, in the context of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, published on 9 January 2020.
With New Decade, New Approach, the UK Government committed to make funding available for a range of projects aimed at supporting community and reconciliation initiatives. My officials regularly discuss these commitments with their devolved counterparts. On addiction services, it is now for the Northern Ireland Department of Health to consider how best to use this funding and bring forward a business case to the Government on that basis.
Economic growth is this Government’s priority, and our industrial strategy is central to that. It will be published in June, and will support the Executive’s plans for growth. The latest figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency show that Northern Ireland experienced stronger growth than the United Kingdom as a whole last year.
Veterans: Legal Protections
Good Friday Agreement: Lessons Learned
Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls
US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal: Northern Ireland
Strengthening the Union: GB and NI
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
The people of Derry were made a promise during the NDNA negotiations. I remember, because I negotiated that particular part of it. They were promised that the Northlands addiction treatment centre would be given £1 million for the development of a brand-new addiction centre. The Northlands organisation has saved countless lives in Derry, but it has now been told by the Department of Health in Stormont that its core funding has been cut, and that the promised money is not guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that the Department of Health is in no position to undermine an international agreement?
The hon. Member is a powerful advocate for his constituents, for the Northlands centre, and for the need for services to tackle the scourge of addictions. I join him in recognising the need for support for people with addictions, but given that this matter is devolved, it is now up to the Department for Health to present a business plan, based on its review of addiction services, for the services that will provide the best support for the most people.