Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First, I would be very happy to meet the Ballymurphy families again. In fact, I enjoy that interaction. I recall the last time we met.

There was such a sense of injustice and frustration among them in the context of their pursuit of justice. If we met again now, we could talk in a very different context. That is something I would really like to do. If there are others who Mr. Maskey believes it would be helpful for me to meet and hear their stories in the context of the legacy work we are trying to do, I would be very happy to do so, whether that is the Springhill group or any others. I am not a Minister who hides himself away. I am happy to meet and hear people's stories. In fact, I would very much welcome that.

Mr. Finucane made some comments and asked three questions. Why do I feel the British Government pulled back? I would like to think we had some part to play and also that the British Government weighed up the consequences of legislating in a way that may have resulted in a political outcome in Westminster but could have caused huge tensions in Northern Ireland. I hope it reflected on why it should not legislate unilaterally to get something done and out of the way before the summer break in a way that would have very negative and significant fallout in Northern Ireland among political parties and victims' groups in particular. To be honest, that just was not part of the deal. The point of the Stormont House Agreement and the public consultation process around taking the legacy forward was about listening. It was also about trying to accommodate people's different perspectives to find consensus and trying to move forward on the basis of that consensus, while legislating unilaterally under pressure from people who are focused, perhaps, on the politics of veterans as opposed to the politics of Northern Ireland. It would have been very problematic.

I was very blunt and direct, both privately and publicly, about my concerns on that issue. To his credit, Brandon Lewis listened to that and we are now pursuing a different path. This does not mean that the outcome will be the same, however. I want to emphasise that point. Just because we have agreed to a consultation does not mean we have agreed to the approach it seems the British Government would like to take. We have not agreed, and I have been very clear about that. We believe there needs to be a route to legal justice in terms of people taking cases to court when there is still a chance and a desire to do so. Others do not necessarily agree with that opinion and this is what we must now discuss.

I will take Mr. Finucane's other two questions around the commitment of the Irish Government. He asked whether we are for the Stormont House Agreement. If we take that approach, this process will go nowhere. At the moment, the British Government's position is that it is not going to implement the Stormont House Agreement because it believes that there is another approach it should take. If we simply take a stubborn position that we believe the Stormont House Agreement is the only way forward and say "That was agreed and you must implement it", then I believe this process will stagnate and families will have to continue to wait. We have agreed to a process. This has resulted in the avoidance of unilateral action and the introduction of legislation at Westminster, which is a good outcome.

I have made it very clear that our approach to this process of discussion and dialogue is that we believe the Stormont House Agreement can work. We would like to have it implemented. If Mr. Finucane believes changes should be made to the agreement, then he has an opportunity to explain why and see if he can build consensus around that. That is what is driving this. The Irish Government has not looked for this process. We have been asked if we will be part of it and I believe that it is the best way of trying to find a way forward on legacy issues. Otherwise, if everybody just holds their position and nothing happens, we will be here this time next year having the same conversation.

Am I committed to the Stormont House Agreement? Yes, I am. Would I like it to be implemented? Yes, I would like it to have been implemented years ago in terms of the structures being set up and funded. Do I recognise that at the moment there is a lack of commitment to the Stormont House Agreement and that, as a result, it is unlikely to progress? Yes. That is the reality. We have to meet, therefore, to try to find a way forward. That is what I meant when I said that this is a discussion on an evolution of the Stormont House Agreement. We are happy with the agreement. We believe it is about as balanced as we can be. Others are not. They are an important part of the picture and they happen to be members of a Government that needs to legislate in order to move the legacy process forward.

As I said, we will approach these discussions with an open mind but also with a pretty strong view as to what the outcome should look like. We have quite a lot of conviction in that regard. I hope the conversations we have had with different political parties on this call will have reinforced that with our teams.

We can focus here on trying to isolate and call people out for not following through on political commitments that were made in the past, which I have done. I do it in the context of the protocol and I have done it with regard to Brexit, the New Decade, New Approach agreement and so on. My job, however, is to try to find a way forward with everyone present in respect of the most sensitive issue in politics on this island, which is how we deal with the legacy of the past and how we can move forward on a journey of reconciliation. That is where we are.

To reassure the committee, when I talk about an evolution of Stormont House, I am not talking about an amnesty or doing away with an opportunity for families to pursue justice. As I was speaking about Article 2 compliance earlier, one of our team handed me a note in which it is correctly stated that in developing jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights is tending, very clearly, against amnesties. We also see the same in UN policy in terms of post-conflict peace processes and so on. In general, the recommendation is to move away from amnesties to try to ensure that truth and justice are part of reconciliation and recovery. That is the perspective we come from as well.

As already stated, if I wanted to make this political, I could do so. I could be critical and I could grandstand. We have decided not to do that. We have decided to engage with all the parties, let all of those involved have their say and then try to find a way forward based on the closest outcome to consensus that we can create. I suspect those discussions will be difficult-----