Louise Haigh
MP for Sheffield Heeley · Labour · United Kingdom
“For far too long, the state has found itself reaching for the comfort blanket of consultation, review and process. To deliver change at the pace and scale the public expect, my Department is stripping out needless bureaucracy.”
“My hon. Friend, with her considerable experience in this area, is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that no amount of money will make up for the impact that this terrible tragedy has had on countless victims and their families, but we are determined to deliver justice as swiftly as possible.”
“I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend on his many years of campaigning on this terrible issue. He will know about the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in and commitment to this issue, about his personal experience of campaigning alongside the victims, and how important he and the Department consider the matter.”
“I am incredibly sorry to hear about the experience of Stan and the death of his family member. Unfortunately, that experience has been shared by too many people, and the Government, including my predecessor as Minister for the Cabinet Office, have done considerable work to improve the scheme, setting out a number of reforms and new statut…”
“I will explain it to the shadow Secretary of State. There is a difference between rebates and grants. The mayor does not have the ability to provide rebates now and is unlikely to in the future, because it would involve getting data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and having the ability to set income tax thresholds, which we will o…”
“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has asked 6,321 people to start their claims. I am sorry to say that the horrible nature of this awful scandal means that there is inherent uncertainty about the number of eligible people, but we are deeply committed to ensuring that everyone eligible receives the compensation they are due.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Louise Haigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“It is striking that the Secretary of State made scant reference to the Government’s obligations under article 2 to conduct effective investigations. If his proposals are not legal, they will be tied up in the courts for many years to come. The work of Operation Kenova is demonstrating that even now, many years on, important new evidence can be retrieved. The case for a comprehensive legacy process, as outlined in Stormont House, through investigations with full police powers, remains strong and compelling. It is totally wrong to abandon it. The Secretary of State’s deliberations concern the most shattering moments; the midnight hour of some of the darkest days seen on these islands. They concern whether families for whom the violence was so intimate will have the chance to come to terms with what happened to their loved ones.”
“As veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment I met in Cookstown told me, “We have nothing to hide. We were there to protect the rule of law. If we broke it, use it against us. If we didn’t, defend us with it.” Ministers today appear to have concluded that the rule of law no longer applies—an amnesty for the republican and loyalist terrorists who tortured, maimed, disappeared and murdered men, women and children. Addressing the toxic legacy of the past in this way—through unilateral imposition by Westminster without the support of any political party in Northern Ireland—is foolish and unsustainable. A way forward has to be found—one done with people, not to them, which genuinely prioritises reconciliation and upholds the rule of law.”
“We cannot impose reconciliation and the truth will never out with an amnesty in place—because at the heart of these proposals is an amnesty in all but name, which is profoundly offensive to many. No wonder the five main political parties in Northern Ireland have objected to the proposals, as have victims’ groups right across the spectrum, including South East Fermanagh Foundation, WAVE and Relatives for Justice. Crimes committed in the United Kingdom, the vast majority of which relate to republican and loyalist murder, closed for good; no justice for the Bloody Sunday families whose cases remain live; no justice for the 21 innocent people murdered by IRA bombs on a November night in Birmingham in 1974—the deadliest act of terror in Britain until 7/7. Their families have said today that such an amnesty would be abhorrent.”
“It is little wonder that many have greeted today’s proposals with deep scepticism and question whether this is more an exercise in shoring up narrow party support than in delivering the reconciliation that the communities in Northern Ireland crave. We must not forget that this Government gave victims their word. Just 18 months ago, they promised to legislate on the Stormont House agreement in New Decade, New Approach. These proposals are a seismic departure from that promise. If the goal is reconciliation, why would the Secretary of State begin by taking a sledge- hammer to promises made by his own Government? I am afraid that to dress this up as truth and reconciliation is deeply disingenuous. As they stand, these proposals will deliver neither.”
“More than 3,000 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured—in a place of fewer than 2 million people. Society and the peace process in general remain so fragile precisely because the pain runs so deep. It is why any proposal to deal with legacy must have victims and the communities of Northern Ireland at its heart, and that requires real care from the Secretary of State. It is therefore deeply regrettable that his approach has already seen trust among victims reach rock bottom. Victims have been treated appallingly over the last 18 months: promises made torn up; gaslighted by the Secretary of State at this Dispatch Box.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but share your frustration, Mr Speaker, that the Government have repeatedly chosen to brief newspapers rather than to respect this House, and more importantly the victims whom these proposals concern. In debates about Northern Ireland’s past here in Great Britain, it is all too easy to forget the victims of the conflict—people such as Brian Service, who was just 35 years old when he was shot in the head by loyalist paramilitaries in a random sectarian attack just weeks before the Good Friday agreement. After his death, his mother said she felt: “It was as if he never really existed as a person and that his life and death did not matter.” The deep pain of that conflict was the proximity of the violence and the absence of justice.”
“Can he explain the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not call an election, even in the absence of sufficient cross-community support?”
“There is a difficulty quantifying absolutely what would constitute sufficient cross-community representation in circumstances where, for example, the Deputy First Minister resigns and Ministers withdraw. The common-sense view is that it would be sufficient if either the Ulster Unionist Party or Social Democratic and Labour Party stayed on. I concede it is difficult to quantify in legislation, and would be grateful if the Minister could expand on that. At a basic level, the safeguard could be strengthened by saying that the Secretary of State “will” rather than “may” call an election if there is not sufficient representation in the Northern Ireland Executive to command cross-community confidence in the Assembly. Is the Minister comfortable that the Bill reads the Secretary of State “may” rather than “will” call an election?”
“That leaves open the possibility that all the Unionist parties or all the nationalist parties refused to continue as caretaker Ministers, but that there would not be cross-community support in the Assembly to call an election, so the caretaker Executive could limp on with only one community represented for the six months before an election had to be called, subject only to the judgment of the Secretary of State. It would of course be open to the parties to ensure representation by staying in the ministerial roles as caretakers. However, it is clearly a dilution of the safeguard and places it as much as possible in the hands of the Secretary of State.”
“Clause 3 gives effect to a point that was of some debate during the NDNA talks in late 2019 and early 2020: paragraph 3.15 of the sustainability annex to the agreement. It was aimed at ensuring that a caretaker Executive that might be in place for up to six months had “sufficient representation to command cross-community confidence in the Assembly.” That finds expression in the Bill at clause 3, with the authority for the Secretary of State to call an election “if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to do so in order to give effect to the purpose underlying paragraph 3.15 of Annex C of Part 2 of The New Decade, New Approach Deal”.”
“The ministerial code is clear that Ministers are required to attend the north-south institutions, so I will be grateful if the Minister confirms that that would remain the case and that strand two of the Good Friday agreement would be respected equally in such a period, while the Assembly is up and running. The clause also excludes the possibility of a six-week extension period for filling the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister if the Assembly passes a resolution to stop that extension. It further states “without cross-community support”. In evidence, concerns were expressed about exactly what cross-community support looks like in that scenario. What is his definition of “sufficient”?”
“The reality is that what we are constraining them with is potentially extremely limited. We might be in exactly the same situation as we found ourselves in during the three years of collapse, with Ministers able to take very few decisions. I will be grateful if the Minister explains how he envisages that working. In the evidence session, Mark Durkan expressed concerns about the possibility of the Assembly being up and running for 24 weeks during this period, albeit a caretaker one, but with potentially no protection for the operation of the north-south institutions.”
“On the courts being able to step in to hold Ministers to account, exactly what would they hold them to account on—on what point of law, or on what code? Will he clarify that? How exactly do we stop Ministers taking decisions that are significant, controversial and cross-cutting in the absence of an Executive in that scenario? In evidence, Professor Jon Tonge posed questions that need an answer today. What ministerial decisions will be taken that are not significant, controversial or cross-cutting? Will the Minister give us examples of what does not fall in that description? In a caretaker capacity, will Ministers be able to take decisions with financial implications? The reality is that few decisions will fall outwith those scopes. On Second Reading, we discussed the possibility of Ministers going beyond their mandate and their remit.”
“I want to tease some of that out, not to put it in statute but to make it clear on the record. On Second Reading, the Minister said that there were well-defined limits for caretaker Ministers and explained that they would be constrained by the ministerial code. Will he confirm that only the ministerial code constrains Ministers in that regard, and not the programme for government? It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that at the moment, there is no programme for government, so if there were to be an election and this scenario envisaged, in that situation there would be no programme for government to constrain Ministers. Also, the ministerial code is silent on powers in that situation. I will be grateful if he could make it clear which section of the ministerial code would constrain Ministers.”
“As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I appreciate the Minister laying out clauses 1 to 3 and his exposition of some of the issues raised on Second Reading, in particular on caretaker Ministers. As I made clear on Second Reading, we welcome these limited attempts to safeguard power sharing and to improve the sustainability of the Executive and the Assembly, which reflect commitments made in New Decade, New Approach. We believe that all parties to that agreement, including the UK Government, should fulfil all the commitments made in it. That is the basis of amendments that we will come on to. On clause 1, I appreciate the Minister’s description of the safeguards to ensure that caretaker Ministers do not step beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.”
“Will the Minister confirm that if a programme for government is not in place, as is the case in the current mandate, Ministers will not be able to take any decisions?”
“I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 4, page 5, line 23, at end insert “in accordance with the current Programme for Government drawn up in accordance with section 20(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and paragraph 20 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement,”. This amendment requires Ministers to pay regard to the statutory duty under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement for the Executive Committee to seek to agree each year, and review as necessary, a programme incorporating an agreed budget linked to policies and programmes, subject to approval by the Assembly, after scrutiny in Assembly Committees, on a cross-community basis.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why he chooses not to accept it, if indeed he does not. I will allow my colleague to speak on amendments 17, 18 and 19 more comprehensively, but the broad thrust of them is absolutely right and we wholeheartedly support them. Agreements made must be honoured, and too often elements of agreements made in the past—from the Belfast agreement through to the St Andrews agreement and, indeed, too much of New Decade, New Approach—have not been honoured. That has damaged trust in the operation of the Assembly and the perception of its ability to effect change. The amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Foyle and for Belfast South simply codify agreements that have already been reached. For that reason, we are very happy to support them.”
“Since New Decade, New Approach, that mechanism has been used on at least six occasions. Despite the draft programme for government having been published in New Decade, New Approach, no programme has been adopted in the current mandate. The amendment would make Ministers accountable under the code of conduct for agreeing a programme for government, providing an additional layer of accountability. It would also be important for sustainability. In the absence of the powers of a caretaker Executive being codified in the Bill, the Committee is being asked to rely, in essence, on a programme for government to limit those caretaker ministerial powers. The amendment is therefore an additional safety mechanism, requiring Ministers to agree a programme for government.”
“I shall speak to amendments 4 and 3, and in support of amendments 17, 18 and 19 that appear in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South. Amendment 4 seeks to address an issue that was discussed in the earlier debate—an issue that we see with the current absence of a programme for government. As hon. Members know, the programme for government is drawn up in accordance with section 20(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and paragraph 20 of strand 1 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It provides Ministers and the public with a clear mandate and agenda and a basis for decision making. As we have discussed, any issue that a party in the Executive deems significant or controversial that is outside the programme for government can be referred for approval by the full Executive.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for placing it on the record that the provisions in the pledge of office will constrain Ministers. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.”
“We have made it very clear that we are prepared to do anything we can to help speed up the passage of the Bill and would welcome movement from the Minister on the commencement date.”
“I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Down. Recent events could scarcely have proven more how important this legislation is. Because it is clearly the will of this Committee and the House to support the measures in this Bill, it is important that they commence as soon as possible. It is baffling that it has taken 18 months to get here. As I said on Second Reading, covid is not a good enough excuse for why it has taken this long. If it progresses as quickly as it has so far, it will still not be in place until Christmas, which would be two years since NDNA was signed. That is just not good enough, as that will be approaching the end of the mandate for the May Assembly elections.”
“The new clause is important because it requires the Government to report on which aspects of NDNA have yet to be delivered, especially when there is little time left of this mandate. It would provide an important parliamentary mechanism for Members across the House to keep to their side of the bargain, just as we ask all Northern Ireland political parties to keep to theirs.”
“The Prime Minster, who could not build a bridge when he was Mayor of London from one side of the Thames to the other, seems more concerned with one that will not be built from Scotland to Belfast, than delivering commitments the UK made just 18 months ago on urgent infrastructure requirements. The Stormont House agreement, recommitted to New Decade, New Approach, seems further way than ever, with the Government unilaterally rewriting it in briefings to newspapers. The establishment of a Northern Ireland hub in London is nowhere to be seen, neither is the connected classroom initiative. Little wonder that the NDNA review panel has met just twice, as the Minster confirmed on Second reading, when it was supposed to meet quarterly. The Government would clearly rather not review their progress on their commitments.”
“Much of that has still not been delivered, by the Government’s own admission—£1.5 billion of the funding set aside has yet to be delivered. I know the Minister will have figures on how much has been given for covid, but it still remains that much was promised to be delivered on public policy to support the mandate set out in NDNA. The standstill budget for Northern Ireland when covid support is removed means the 7,500 police officers promised is little more than a pipe dream. Indeed, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has confirmed that it will cut numbers if that budget remains at a standstill this year. That also apples to the investment in transforming public services, such as the health service, which has been repeatedly mentioned because of the appalling waiting times in Northern Ireland, and infrastructure delivery.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I thank you, Mr Stringer, for chairing us through the speedy but proper scrutiny of the Bill this morning. On Second Reading and this morning, the importance of all political parties abiding by commitments that are made in forming the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive has been discussed at length. The Government have made that very clear on important elements of NDNA. If it is true for the Northern Ireland political parties, it must be true for the UK Government as well, as one of the co-signatories, just as it holds true for the Irish Government. The provisions of annex A of NDNA outline a financial commitment that the Government were prepared to provide about 18 months ago.”
“Will the Minister confirm that £1.3 billion has still yet to be made available to the Northern Ireland Executive to fulfil the Government’s NDNA commitments? Can he confirm when the annual report will be published?”
“(5) For subsection (5) of that section, substitute— “(5) The nominating officer of the second largest political party shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the deputy First Minister.”. (6) In section 16C (Sections 16A and 16B: supplementary), omit subsection (6).”— (Stephen Farry.) Brought up, and read the First time.”
“On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Appointment of First Minister and Deputy First Minister “(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows. (2) In section 16A (Appointment of First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers following Assembly election), in subsection 4, omit the words “of the largest political designation“. (3) For subsection (5) of that section, substitute— “(5) The nominating officer of the second largest political party shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the deputy First Minister.”. (4) In section 16(B) (Vacancies in the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister), in subsection (4), omit the words “of the largest political designation“.”
“We are very happy to support the SI, on the basis that, as the Minister outlined, it will bring greater transparency in relation to election material in Northern Ireland, and bring the regime into alignment with the rest of the UK. Given the assurances that he made on digital literature, I am happy to leave it there and offer our full support.”
“We absolutely support this limited reform, which will return the mechanism to its original intention, but the Bill is silent on the other effective vetoes that have been used to block agenda items from reaching the Executive or to prevent discussion on cross-community issues of concern. If the petition of concern reform was intended to prevent it from being misused by a single party to block progress, it would be a mistake to allow other vetoes to persist that allow for much the same outcome. Finally, we hope to see some movement from the Government on dual mandates to allow for greater flexibility, potentially on a short-term basis. I reiterate our support for the limited measures in the Bill, but I make it clear that this is only a start. There is much, much more work to do.”
“First, on the provisions allowing for a caretaker Administration following an Assembly election or the resignation of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, the scope of statutory powers was recently significantly expanded. Although the Government talk about caretaker Ministers being able to operate only “within well-defined limits”, those limits are in no way outlined. That leaves open a broad statutory remit and does not provide the necessary safety catch to prevent caretaker Ministers from exercising powers not envisaged in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point or if we could address it in Committee. Secondly, the Bill deals with the petition of concern and its use and misuse.”
“We do not believe that the instability that we see can be separated from the failure to deliver on such commitments. Above all, the way to guarantee stability is to demonstrate that commitments made will be honoured and that Westminster is still prepared to step up and honour our side of the bargain. We will further seek to tighten up the provisions on the caretaker institutions to prevent misuse and promote good governance. With that in mind, we have concerns about what might be described as some of the constructive ambiguities in the Bill and some of the unintended consequences that may follow. Our concerns fall into two categories: those relating to a caretaker Executive and those relating to the vetoes available within the Executive.”
“Although Labour supports the Bill, we believe there are several missed opportunities for the Government to refocus on delivering on the promise of peace, which they have allowed to stall. We will seek to bring amendments to push for the full implementation of the Government’s commitments under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which, like the Bill, have been delayed for too long. The same principle is true of the undelivered promises of the Good Friday agreement on a Bill of Rights, integrated education and housing, women’s rights and giving communities a real say in decision making. They were the essence of the Good Friday agreement and the shared future that it imagined, but progress on them has been virtually non-existent over the past decade.”
“He was repeatedly warned of the consequences for the fragile peace process of his Brexit deal and he chose to ignore those warnings. There is a direct line from his dishonesty over the deal to the instability we see in the institutions today. It would be foolish to assume that the provisions of the Bill alone can guarantee stability. They cannot. To do that, Ministers must address the effects of their own actions, which have shaken faith in Northern Ireland. Progress has stalled and instability has grown. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement has been treated as a crisis management tool rather than as the vehicle through which lives and communities can be transformed.”
“The instability we have seen in recent months, which the Bill in part attempts to address, has not emerged out of thin air. I fear the delay in bringing forward the Bill is symptomatic of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland. Too often over the past decade, Northern Ireland has been an afterthought here. As the consequences of decisions taken by Ministers have played out in Northern Ireland, the Government have frequently behaved as though they have found themselves at the scene of an accident entirely beyond their control. Too often, Northern Ireland has been overlooked and the work to deliver on the promise of peace allowed to stall. Nowhere is that more striking than in the Prime Minister’s actions.”
“Recent events could scarcely have provided a clearer example of why the provisions contained in the Bill are necessary. Precisely because we support the provisions in the Bill, which were agreed through New Decade, New Approach more than 18 months ago by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), I want to make clear the mistake I believe the Secretary of State has made in leaving it until now for this crucial piece of legislation to be considered. It is simply not credible that this was the first moment that parliamentary time allowed for the Bill to be considered, and it is unclear why we are debating these measures only now, in the midst of political turmoil in Northern Ireland.”
“They need a stable, functioning Executive to meet the enormous health and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland—a third of the entire population languishing on health waiting lists; nearly 300 children without a post-primary place for next year’s term; and, of course, recovery from covid. For all political leaders in Northern Ireland, that must be the priority in the coming days and weeks. It is partly for that reason that the Labour party supports the Bill before the House today. We welcome attempts to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive and the Assembly. Although we will suggest amendments to tighten up provisions in the Bill, the lessons from the past should offer a clear warning to all of us. Institutions are much easier to collapse than they are to get back up and running.”
“I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his appointment as leader of the DUP and I also look forward to working with him. I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill and for the regular updates he and the Minister have provided to me and my office over the past few weeks. The instability in recent months has been unsettling for all of us who cherish the Good Friday agreement and who believe that its institutions and the principles that underpin it represent the best way forward for Northern Ireland, but, as ever, that instability has been most keenly felt by the people of Northern Ireland.”
“Northern Ireland does not have any more time for bickering or blame games, so is it not time to get serious and commit to a veterinary agreement that would eliminate the vast majority of checks down the middle of our Union?”
“I join the Secretary of State in sending all our love to Jo’s family on this very difficult day, and in paying tribute to the outgoing First Minister, Arlene Foster, for her many years of public service and for the lesson she has treated all of us to in recent weeks on how to do politics with dignity, even in difficult times. I support the Secretary of State in his efforts to ensure that there is a strong, stable, functioning Executive in the current negotiations to meet the enormous challenges facing Northern Ireland, and one that respects all existing commitments. However, it was an extraordinary diplomatic failure for the Prime Minister to spend a crucial summit on home soil being rebuked by our closest allies.”
“We need to see the details of that veterinary agreement in order to ensure that it really would eliminate the vast majority of those checks. A significant part of the problem is that people in Northern Ireland feel that these changes have been imposed on them—that they have been done to them, not with them. So how is the Secretary of State going to ensure that representatives from politics, business and civil society in Northern Ireland are brought meaningfully into the negotiations, not just engagement, so that any solution is sustainable and permanently eases tensions?”
“Ministers should bear in mind the words of one victim I spoke with yesterday, as they worked through the next steps of legacy: “I just want to know what happened. I want to know my dad’s life meant something. I just want the truth.””
“It would make reconciliation harder, and it would not achieve what the Government claim they want. Any process that remains open to legal challenge will invite test cases and bring more veterans back through the courts. I will finish with a comment on the Prime Minister’s actions—or lack of them—over the past two days. In the aftermath of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, David Cameron came to this House and apologised in a statement. He did not brief apologies from disputed calls with politicians. He took full responsibility. Where is the Prime Minister today, and why has he not publicly apologised to the Ballymurphy families and to this House? Will he take responsibility as Prime Minister and show the victims the respect they so obviously deserve? Victims like those who lost loved ones at Ballymurphy have been let down for far too long.”
“Through the Stormont House agreement, they promised to establish a comprehensive system to look at all outstanding legacy cases through effective investigations and a process that would, where possible, deliver the truth and the prospect of justice. Yet last Wednesday night, victims found out on Twitter that the Government intend to tear up that plan and provide an effective amnesty to those who took lives. The statement today brings us no closer to understanding the Government’s policy to deal with the legacy of the past. The lessons of the past are clear: addressing the legacy through the unilateral imposition of an amnesty from Westminster, without the faintest hint of consultation with victims or the support of communities or any political party in Northern Ireland or the Irish Government, would be impossible to deliver.”
“They include Cathy McCann, who in 1990 was the sole survivor of a Provisional IRA bomb in Armagh in which a nun and three policemen were killed. Twenty-one years earlier, her father had been killed by the auxiliary police force, the B Specials. This ongoing failure to find the truth is an open wound that ties Northern Ireland perpetually to the past. Burying the truth and refusing to prosecute or investigate crimes has not worked in the 23 years since the signing of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, so how can anyone in this House look victims like Cathy in the eye and tell her she must move on? The Government gave victims such as Cathy McCann their word.”
“Who cannot be struck by the dignity and tenacity of those families who, in the face of those obstacles, have fought for the truth and finally, this week, have been vindicated? The conclusions of Justice Keegan are clear and irrefutable: those who lost their lives were posing no threat; their deaths were without justification. They were Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Eddie Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr. An 11th man, Paddy McCarthy, a youth worker, died from a heart attack. That families have had to wait for so long to clear their name is a profound failure of justice and one we must learn from, because, as the Secretary of State said, many more families are still fighting for answers.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As the Secretary of State has outlined, in five separate shootings across three days in August 1971 in the Ballymurphy estate in west Belfast, 10 innocent civilians were shot dead, nine by the armed forces, with evidence unable conclusively to determine in the tenth case. Among them were a priest, a mother of eight and a former soldier who had fought and was injured in world war two. Fifty-seven children were left without a parent—their lives for ever changed. Yet the trauma of the murders was undoubtedly compounded by what followed: families prevented from finding comfort by lies told about their loved ones that have haunted them down the decades, and a fight for the truth hampered by entirely inadequate investigations and wholly unjustifiable obstacles.”
“The Secretary of State bears a responsibility to help stabilise the situation, so will he ensure that the British-Irish Council is urgently convened to give Northern Ireland representatives a voice in discussions around the protocol and huge decisions about their own future?”