Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 28 September 2023
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government intends to take legal action to the European Court of Human Rights in response to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill adopted by the British Parliament. [41427/23]
View answerOur first question is simply to ask the Tánaiste if he will give us an update on the Government's consideration of taking legal action on the British Government's so-called legacy Bill.
I thank the Deputy for raising the question.
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act received royal assent on 18 September. Amendments made in the course of its passage through the UK Parliament did not fundamentally alter the substance of the legislation. It is worth recalling that the new legacy Act represents a unilateral move by the UK Government away from the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, to which both the UK and the Irish Government recommitted in 2020. Such a unilateral approach is out of keeping with the spirit of partnership which underpins the Good Friday Agreement. This Act will not draw a line under legacy issues, but will instead ensure they remain a source of contention, suspicion and mistrust. The Government remains seriously concerned about the impact of this Act on the fundamental work of reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and about its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The incorporation of the European convention into Northern Ireland law was an explicit requirement of the Good Friday Agreement. I have made very clear to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the Government’s strong opposition to the Act and our concerns about its compatibility with the European convention. In particular, we are concerned about provisions granting immunity for crimes amounting to gross human rights violations, and the shutting down of all outstanding legacy inquests and civil cases. Similar concerns have been shared by international experts and observers, including the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Importantly, these concerns are also shared by those representing victims of the Troubles and their families, who stand to be most affected by this Act but with whom the British Government has not meaningfully engaged at any stage of the process.
My approach to legacy issues has always been victim-centred and that will continue to be the case. The Government is fully aware that the initiation of an interstate case would be a significant step which would have to be done on solid grounds, and is not one which can be taken lightly. As the Taoiseach and I have stated, the Government has sought legal advice on this matter from the Attorney General. I look forward to receiving that advice in the near future and when it is received the Government will consider what subsequent action will be taken.
I thank the Tánaiste for the answer. As he rightly says, this is one of the few issues now on which there is absolute political agreement across all political parties, not only in the North but across the island. The Bill clearly and very blatantly reneges on the commitment to implement legacy mechanisms agreed in the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, of which of course the Irish Government is a co-guarantor. While I welcome the very strong position the Irish Government has taken and the language used with the British Government in setting out very clearly the opposition by virtually everybody on this island to this Bill, it is also crucially important that we send out a signal that we will do whatever it takes. When the Tánaiste says he expects the legal advice from the Attorney General fairly shortly, does he have a definitive timeframe for what that will mean in terms of the number of weeks? If the legal advice, as I suspect it will be, is that this is clearly in breach of EU human rights law, will the Government be proactive in then pursuing the case?
I thank the Deputy. He is correct in saying there is unity of purpose in this House in respect of this Act. I would like to think I will have that advice within the next ten days. Any actions we take have to be based on very solid grounds. This has to be done robustly, rigorously and with due diligence. I do not believe in doing things on political instincts alone. It has always been our view that there are fundamental issues here as regards compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights; that is the bar. These are the issues on which we have to be properly advised by the Attorney General who has also secured additional advices on this. When I get the full legal advices from the Attorney General, I will then discuss this with the Taoiseach and with the wider Government. It would have to go to the Government if a decision was to be taken on a particular line of action following the legal advice. Those will be the procedures. Obviously, we will revert back to the House at a future date on this matter.
I thank the Tánaiste. This is not just about political instincts, although political considerations are important. It is crucial that the Irish Government sends a very strong message internationally as to the seriousness with which we take the British Government's actions. There are also practical rationales. As the Tánaiste will know, six families of victims have already initiated their own legal actions and the understanding is that other victims' groups and other victims' families are considering doing likewise. The process and the ordeal for them is much more lengthy and turbulent than for a sovereign government to take a case. Therefore, in setting out a very clear signal that the Irish Government continues to stand with all victims and in order to relieve them of the cost and the trauma that would be involved in those cases, one can understand from their perspective why it is optimal that the Irish Government would pursue a case. I ask the Tánaiste to inform this House as soon as the information returns from the Attorney General and to initiate whatever further actions are going to follow from that as quickly as possible.
As I said in my original reply, I have been guided by a victim-centred approach from the very beginning of this. I have met with many victims' groups regarding this legislation. We have also raised the issue effectively in multilateral forums such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe, both politically and at an official level, since the publication of the Bill in May 2022. Most recently, we did this on 13 September at the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council and very recently on 21 September at the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. The committee expressed for the sixth time its serious concerns about the United Kingdom legacy Bill and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout the UN General Assembly engagements last week in New York, I raised the issue of this Bill in all my discussions with our US partners and also with the officials in the state department and with members of Congress and the Senate, particularly during their recent visit to Ireland in August. We have worked hard to raise this issue at an international level and it has provoked a degree of concern all round. People genuinely have concerns about this Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
