Actually, those letters, which started before my time as Secretary of State, were not pardons at all; the so-called “on the runs” letters were statements that there was no evidence, to the best of the PSNI’s knowledge at the time, to bring a prosecution against them. However, in fact, a prosecution was brought against at least one of them afterwards, so they were not pardons—how could they be? If they were, that prosecution would never have been brought.
We are speaking about the current Bill, but I will pause since the noble Baroness raised a wider issue. All of us have tried to grapple with this terribly difficult and fraught issue of legacy. All of us, including me as Secretary of State, have tried to do this, but it is extremely difficult. I sympathise with the Minister, who is trying to get to grips with it, as he has done in serving as a special adviser in Northern Ireland over many years— I pay tribute to him for that. It is not easy to do. However, this Bill is not the way to do it.
I hope that the Minister will listen to all the victims and that the Secretary of State for Defence, who recently visited Belfast, will do too, because he referred to a
“merry-go-round of legacy inquests”.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge how deeply hurtful that comment was to victims and survivors. He will know, even if the Secretary of State for Defence does not, that the Ballymurphy families did not regard themselves as being part of a legal fairground entertainment as they listened to how their loved ones died and how their reputations were trashed and damned for 50 years. The Secretary of State for Defence also answered those crying out for the Government to abandon this ill-conceived legislation by saying
“give the legislation a try and see if it works.”
That casual dismissal of the pain of victims and survivors is disgraceful.
There is a second difference between what is proposed here and what has gone before: accountability. People who committed crimes were held accountable, even if the sentence they served was short. With this legislation, there is no accountability: they do not even have to pretend to express remorse or regret for their actions. They will, in effect, confess to having committed, or having been involved in the commission of, the most serious crimes—but, if their word is accepted as being true “to the best of” their “knowledge and belief”, as the Bill says, they must be granted immunity. As far as
the world at large is concerned, they would not have a stain on their character. They could have committed murder, but a future employer would never know it. If I have misinterpreted the outworking of the legislation in this specific example, I would very much welcome the Minister putting me right.
5.45 pm
Amendment 112 aims to make the granting of immunity more conditional and to give the ICRIR more discretion in granting immunity at the outset, along with the powers to revoke it once granted if the terms set out by it are breached, as set out in Amendment 124. If, in verifying whether the account given by the person seeking immunity is true to the best of their knowledge and belief, the ICRIR uncovers evidence or credible intelligence that the applicant is engaged in activities—I will set these out—that, if uncovered after immunity had been granted, could lead to revocation, it would have the discretion to withhold granting immunity. Thus, an applicant for immunity may have satisfied the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 18(3) but, if they are found to be engaging with a proscribed organisation or harassing a victim or victim’s family, for example, the ICRIR may withhold the granting of immunity.
The Minister has proposed that there is only one circumstance in which immunity could be revoked: if a person knowingly misleads the ICRIR. There must be more circumstances than that to hold perpetrators to account, in however limited a way—if not for what they have done, then for their behaviour in the future. This is the thrust of my amendments: they would put some conditions on the granting of immunity, much like those imposed on those released from prison on licence. If they reoffended, they would be locked up again.
Amendment 124 would grant immunity on terms set out by the ICRIR. Its purpose is to give the ICRIR some discretion in the terms on which immunity is granted. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (14A) are designed to do two things. One is to link a person who has confessed to committing a crime, but who will have no criminal record, to the criminal justice system. If they subsequently commit offences that are sufficiently serious to warrant the revocation of their immunity, having fingerprints and DNA on record would be appropriate.
Proposed new subsection (14B)(a) would see immunity revoked if the person granted that immunity is subsequently found to actively engage with a proscribed organisation. It may well be that the crime—I will call it that, even though, through this legislation, it would seem that no crime has been committed—that has been confessed to will have been carried out on behalf of a proscribed organisation. It would be outrageous if the person granted immunity could simply carry on with that association as if nothing had happened.
Proposed new subsection (14B)(b) stipulates that, if a person granted immunity is a danger to the public in the view of the police and if the ICRIR concurs, they should have their immunity revoked. If there is a counterargument to that, I would be interested to hear it from the Minister.
Proposed new subsection (14B)(c) stipulates that, if a person granted immunity harasses a victim or a victim’s family, the immunity would also be revoked. This is important: people who work with victims and survivors of the Troubles often talk of the intimacy of violence in Northern Ireland. This is not often appreciated by those who have not experienced it. Even today, before this amnesty legislation is in force, victims and families are stared at, winked at and smiled at by those who have wronged them.
I can give a living example. A woman who had just given birth to her son was visited in hospital by her husband, who was a member of the RUC. When he left, she heard gunshots: he was murdered in the car park. Years later, thanks to advances in forensic science, someone was prosecuted for her husband’s murder and found guilty. He went to prison, albeit for only two years. Associates of this individual would stand outside this woman’s place of work. One day they came in and asked her to make a donation to a hardship fund for the man who had murdered her husband. Surely, we must give some protection, however limited, to victims and their families, for instance in that case.
Proposed subsection 14B(d) would prevent someone using their immunity to benefit financially from the crime or crimes for which they have been granted immunity. Again, that seems to me to be self-evident. These amendments set out a range of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to either withhold immunity or revoke it, and I hope that the Government will adopt the amendments without dividing the House on Report—otherwise I would need to ask leave to do so. If there are technical issues associated with the phrasing, I would be more than happy to work with the Minister to suggest how those might be corrected. If not, then I must divide.
I will draw my remarks on these amendments to a close. We have to show victims and survivors that, in this House at least, they have not been completely abandoned. I strongly appeal to the Minister—and, above all, to the Cabinet Ministers behind the Bill—to think again. If they agree our Kenova Amendments 112, 124 and 72, including the ones on immunity, they will be able to deliver a Bill with cross-community support rather than the one we have before us—with or without his government amendments, which do not really address the substance—which has provoked near-universal cross-community hostility in Northern Ireland and, frankly, huge opposition across the UK, and this House in particular. I urge him to persuade his colleagues sitting above him in the Cabinet to think again and to engage constructively on this.