Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 28 September 2023
9. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has discussed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 with any of his counterparts in Britain; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41527/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra43. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the outcome of his most recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary concerning legacy issues, with particular reference to the totally unacceptable legacy Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41854/23]
Amharc ar fhreagra57. Deputy Jackie Cahill asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs what recent engagement he has had with the British Government on the legacy Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41707/23]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe British legacy legislation is a devastating blow against victims and survivors. It will give murderers an amnesty for the most vicious and heinous murders. The Government has depended on a policy of diplomacy to try to stop the British Government proceeding. Does the Tánaiste accept this policy of diplomacy has failed? Will he give hope to the victims and survivors by declaring today that he will bring the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 43 and 57 together.
I dealt with this issue earlier in reply to a question from Deputy Carthy. However, I will give the reply to this group of questions for the benefit of Deputies.
I meet regularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, to discuss issues relating to Northern Ireland. Most recently, I met with him at the Northern Ireland Investment Summit on 13 September in Belfast, and at the British-Irish Association on 2 September in Oxford. At every opportunity over the 18 months since the British legacy Bill was introduced unilaterally, the Government has been consistent in expressing to the British Government our view that the legislation is not fit for purpose and will damage reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The passing into law of the Act on 18 September is a deeply concerning and retrograde step, which I believe runs counter to the British Government's international human rights obligations. This is a matter of particular concern as the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law was an explicit requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is well aware of my strong view that the British legislation is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, I have highlighted our concerns around the granting of immunity for crimes amounting to gross human rights violations and the shutting down of all outstanding legacy inquests and investigations. I have emphasised the negative impact this will have on reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I repeatedly urged the Secretary of State to pause the legislation and return to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement, which were agreed by the two Governments, together with Northern Ireland leaders and with the support of victims, survivors and civil society. This is a message I have also conveyed to the Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, and, previously, as Taoiseach, to the Prime Minister.
A shared approach by the Irish and British Governments, which includes genuine engagement with people in Northern Ireland, has been central to all major successes of the peace process. That partnership approach remains fundamental to protecting peace on these islands. I greatly regret that the British Government has not engaged in a meaningful way with the many concerns expressed by victims. The amendments to the draft legislation introduced in June were an inadequate response to the issues raised, not only by the Government but also by victims and families in Northern Ireland and by international experts and observers. The voices and perspectives of those most directly affected by the Troubles were not heard and not reflected in the legislation.
The Government recognises that no perfect mechanism for dealing with the legacy of conflict exists, but one that was designed without taking account of the views and opposition of those who were most directly affected by the Troubles is illogical. Shutting down investigations and granting perpetrators immunity from prosecution without properly testing their account of events will not heal deep wounds in Northern Ireland. This Act will not draw a line under legacy issues but will instead ensure they remain a source of contention, suspicion and mistrust, undermining the reconciliation we have worked so hard to progress. It is a matter of deep regret that this is the space in which we now find ourselves. As I said earlier, the Government is awaiting legal advice from the Attorney General on what our next steps should be.
The Government has been consistent in talking, in giving its views and in diplomacy, but it has been completely opposed to action. In fact, this is a Government of inaction and inertia. It is a do-nothing Government when it comes to standing up for the rights of Irish citizens on this human rights issue. It is an incredible situation. The Tánaiste talked about a shared approach. There is no shared approach. The Tory party has embarked on a unilateral approach. It has given two fingers to the Government. Right through the process of the passage of the Bill through the Houses of Parliament in Britain, Aontú and I asked the Government at least to warn the British Government of an intention to take it to the European Court of Human Rights. We were told we must wait and, if the Bill goes through, then the Government will act. Here we are now, the Bill has passed, yet all we hear from the Government is talk of legal advice. Many people have had their loved ones heinously murdered in the North. They are entitled to the rule of law. They are entitled to justice and truth. Will the Tánaiste stand up for that and bring the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights?
I welcome the Tánaiste's statement on the total unsuitability of the British legacy Bill. It is appalling legislation. The only thing that can be done with it is to bin it in its entirety. It gives an amnesty to murderers belonging to the British state forces and to murderers from the paramilitary organisations. These people wreaked havoc on this island for too long. I said to the Taoiseach yesterday in the House that a further appeal must be made to the British Prime Minister, clearly stating that he must take cognisance of the united political view on this island, including from all political parties in Northern Ireland, from all in the Oireachtas and from human rights organisations nationally and internationally, that this legislation is absolutely reprehensible. It gives an amnesty to people who carried out vile and evil murders and other crimes. It will put an end suddenly to inquests and investigations. I have worked and campaigned with families who have striven for the truth for decades. The British Government is telling those people to forget about the work they have done and the very gracious and dignified way they have campaigned to get to the truth. I have said often in this House that the families I know and have had the privilege and honour to work along with are not looking for revenge and for somebody to be put in jail for years to come, if it were ever possible to get a prosecution. The minimum they want is the truth about who, in paramilitary organisations and in British state forces, carried out those heinous crimes.
As the Tánaiste knows, there is a unique agreement on this issue across all political parties in Northern Ireland, all political parties in this jurisdiction and all but one party in the UK. I cannot remember a time in my political life when there was such broad agreement on any issue pertaining to Northern Ireland as there is on this issue. It is unconscionable that the families who have campaigned for so long would be hurt in this way. The British Labour Party has committed to repealing the legislation. I hope it will be in government next year. Will the Tánaiste indicate the discussions he has had with Keir Starmer and the British Labour Party's new Northern Ireland spokesperson on this matter and what level of commitment he has that this awful legislation will be repealed?
I thank all the Deputies for their remarks. I do not agree with Deputy Tóibín's assertions, which are more in the realm of sloganeering, polemic and propaganda than a serious discussion of the issue.
We have been very clear as a Government. I support what Deputy Brendan Smith said in that this relates to all actors in Northern Ireland who perpetrated atrocities. Deputy Tóibín supported a party at a given time that committed the most appalling atrocities on people. The Deputy did, and through the Chair, I will not take lectures from the Deputy in respect of how I treat victims. I am very fair on these issues. As far as I am concerned I would be led in a victim-centred approach and we have always made it clear to the United Kingdom Government that the prospect of an interstate case was there but we sought that the British Government would pause the legislation. I met with the leader of the British Labour Party last year in my capacity as Taoiseach and we discussed the legacy Bill. He has made clear his position on the legacy legislation. Deputy Smith has raised a number of cases with me about victims of particular atrocities. Again, as a State we must do things with due rigour and diligence, which I am committed to doing. I would not be as dismissive as Deputy Tóibín about awaiting legal advice. If one wants to pursue a legal case of this significance it must be well grounded and there has to be significant due diligence done in advance. I do not believe in a sloganeering approach to these matters. These are very serious issues and matters of considerable weight. I will be guided in a victim-centred approach. I have met many victims of British state forces but also victims of the Provisional IRA and victims of loyalist paramilitaries. They have not got closure. This Act would end any chances of many of them getting closure, which is deeply regrettable.
Many victims of the Troubles will find it extremely sad that the Tánaiste has descended to whataboutery to defend inaction. On an issue where every single party on the island of Ireland is in unison we should have unity of purpose in relation to this. Aontú supports truth and justice for every single victim who has suffered wrong in the North of Ireland over that period of time. This legislation is the son and heir of the policy of cover up that the British governments were involved in right through the Troubles. The Act is a threat to what it means to be a liberal democracy, it is a threat to the foundation of law and it is a threat to the foundation of truth and justice. The Tánaiste said "if" the Government in the South should decide to challenge that threat. Where is the moral backbone in the Irish Government to ask the question "if" they should decide to put a legal case against the British Government in relation to the threat to the rule of law, in relation to the threat to justice, in relation to the threat to common decency? That should be something the Tánaiste is consumed with, and not considering for years whether or not the Government should do it. On this occasion will the Tánaiste give hope to the victims on both sides of the Troubles today and commit to bringing the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to make sure that this legislation is stopped?
I have outlined to the House the steps that I intend to take in relation to this. The only person attempting to shatter the unity of purpose in this House is the Deputy himself in the language he has chosen to use and with the assertions he has made around the bona fides of the Irish Government. We have been very committed. I belong to a political party that did its fair share in achieving peace on this island through the Good Friday Agreement.
We are not talking history here. We do not need a history lesson.
We managed to persuade people like your good self not to endorse violence on a continuous basis and which caused so much damage, destruction and loss of life. The Deputy asked for unity of purpose. I have outlined it to the House. I understand where people are coming from here. I have made it very clear to the British Government that we reject the unilateral approach in respect to the legacy Act and what it represents.
Only in words.
We do not operate or run the British Government or the British parliamentary system-----
You are only rejecting in words. We need actions.
-----that is a process in itself. We have raised this at international level with considerable impact and effect, as I outlined earlier in replies to Deputy Carthy and others.
It has failed.
