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

I am happy to do so if that is okay with the Chairman. I agree with Mr. Molloy on the need for a victim-centred approach. This is what we must manage to achieve. I used the word "we" in that regard. While I was not the Minister at the time the Stormont House Agreement was agreed, I can remember what happened well. The idea was that we would try to have structures agreed that would allow families to fit into different elements of that structure depending on their stories, what they were looking for, and what they wanted, whether this was establishing the truth, pursuing a case for investigation or being part of an oral history.

If a new approach is being proposed by the British Government, I point out, first, that this has not been published yet, even though many of us have a pretty good idea what is in it, and, then, that the onus is on the people who are proposing a new approach to explain why and to make a convincing case in order that consensus can be built. Many times, privately and publicly, I have said that I do not see the case for a statute of limitations, which many will regard as a simple amnesty, adding to the challenge of legacy and reconciliation in a positive way. This is why I have not been supportive of that. In many ways, introducing an amnesty or statute of limitations will be seen by many victims as a hugely disappointing and traumatic ending to a very long wait for justice where the hope of taking a case successfully had been there and would be removed.

I have spoken to many of the victims' families. They are very realistic about what is possible and what is not it with regard to having a successful case in court. That is different from actually legislating to prevent them having the opportunity at all, which is what a statute of limitations would do. Many of the victims' families will accept that their cases will be unlikely to be able to contribute to a case file that can successfully result in a prosecution. There may well be some cases that can do that, which is very important, but in many cases, it may not be possible. We have to have other mechanisms that can allow for evidence to be built up, for the truth to be told and for families to be given as much of that truth as is possible to put together often decades after the events took place.

I take the point about the 120 victims referred to by Mr. Molloy in the part of Northern Ireland he comes from. Mr. Molloy makes the point, as I have also, that many victims and victims' groups, including the Ballymurphy families, have expressed real concern at a move away from the Stormont House Agreement structures and process. They felt that was a credible way to pursue cases. A question was asked as to whether the UK Government is just delaying. No, I do not think it is. To be fair to the British Government, it wants to move this issue on. The problem is that how we do so matters. One does not move on legacy by unilaterally passing legislation in a way that has not achieved consensus as being the best way forward. If this is tried then one damages rather than builds relationships in the context of true reconciliation. Whenever there have been suggestions about a different tiering of blame or prosecution, depending on who the people were who broke the law and were involved in violence, it has created extraordinary division, and understandably so. In my view, this is why a court process and an investigation process where evidence is put together and cases are made for and against is still a very important part of the legacy process for many families.

I shall turn now to the question on whether the Irish Government is in possession of papers relating to the Glenanne gang. I have a note on Glenanne gang and the wider question. The announcement by the PSNI on 30 November 2019 that former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher would lead an independent police team to conduct an analytical report on collusion into the Glenanne gang series of cases was very welcome. During the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, I raised the issue and underlined the importance of this process being supported in bringing the team's work to a successful conclusion. The Government is supportive of facilitating this investigation, subject to the requirements of the law, as we have other investigative processes in Northern Ireland. Mr. Boutcher is in a position to seek the co-operation of An Garda Síochána through the framework of the mutual legal assistance that underpins the excellent co-operation that exists between the Garda and the PSNI more broadly. It is welcome also that Mr. Boutcher has already met with many of the victims' families and that he has confirmed he will conduct his work in ongoing liaison with them. It is hoped that the report being conducted by Mr. Boutcher will contribute to the long process of justice, truth and acknowledgement of what happened in many of these awful cases where collusion was undoubtedly a feature.

We have a process there that I think people have increasing faith in, which is good.

Senator Conway-Walsh referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. We raise cases relating to the convention all the time through the Council of Europe, with the Committee of Ministers that meets there, and at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That is where I suspect any approach on legacy in the future may be tested to ensure it is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is where I think the right to the pursuit of justice for victims and their families would be a pretty important consideration. I cannot give a definitive view in advance, but, from our experience, we understand the bar would be quite high to justify introducing a broad amnesty for an entire period of Northern Ireland's history that was very brutal and violent and in circumstances where so many families have been attempting to pursue a course of justice and truth recovery for a long time. Let us wait and see where that goes.