Interim Custody Orders: Compensation

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?

The Government are currently considering the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the representations made to it.

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.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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 Although the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was not obviously asked to rule on that, because we had withdrawn the appeal, it did comment unfavourably on those provisions.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.