Ms Gr?inne Teggart:

I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to be here to discuss these two matters of grave concern. I will discuss each in turn. As you have mentioned, Chair, for the discussion on the Troubles Bill I am joined by Mr. Michael O'Hare and Mr. Eugene Reavey. Mr. O'Hare is the brother of Majella O'Hare, a 12-year-old girl shot dead by a British army soldier in 1976. Majella was on her way to church with a group of friends in the Armagh village of Whitecross, and when they passed an army patrol, about 20 yd or 30 yd beyond it, a soldier shot Majella with his machine gun. In 2011 the Ministry of Defence apologised for the killing, but no one has ever been held accountable for it. Mr. Reavey is the brother of John Martin, Brian and Anthony Reavey, who were murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force, UVF, in 1976. The killings were part of a string of attacks on Catholics by the Glenanne gang, made up of members of the UVF, the Ulster Defence Regiment, UDR, and the RUC. I will make some introductory remarks before handing over to Mr. O'Hare and Mr. Reavey to do the same, and then we will be happy to answer any questions.

I wish to express Amnesty's grave concern about and opposition to the Troubles Bill, which would institute a de factoamnesty for grave human rights violations committed during the conflict.

The Bill fails to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations; it is a significant interference in the justice system; it undermines the rule of law; and it will set a dangerous precedent internationally, including by signalling to other states that they too can ignore their human rights obligations. This Bill cannot be amended to be human rights-compliant. We do not see this as a Bill which can be fixed. Amnesty calls for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill to be dropped entirely. Upon doing so, we urge the UK Government to revert to the Stormont House Agreement which, with some adjustments, offered a human rights-compliant way forward in dealing with the past. We view the Troubles Bill as a cruel betrayal of victims and one which clearly sacrifices their rights in favour of shielding perpetrators of serious human rights violations such as murder and torture.

As part of our ongoing work on these matters, we have been engaging with victims; UN special rapporteurs; and advisers in Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR; the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights; Department of Foreign Affairs officials; the US Congress; the US State Department, including the US Global Justice Ambassador; and our local US Consul General on these matters. We are also currently engaged in the UN universal periodic review of the human rights record, which takes place today, and have met with various states around our core recommendations, including on the Troubles Bill and on the threats to the Human Rights Act.

It is telling that since the publication of the command paper in 2021 we saw swift and important interventions by various international actors in clear recognition of the significance of the UK Government’s proposals, which are a flagrant breach of international human rights obligations, with a view to the precedent which would be set by a state such as the UK, which has the international standing that it does, seeking to introduce such a broad-sweeping amnesty. This followed the unequivocal rejection we saw from victims, victims’ groups, political parties in the North, Amnesty International and others.

Our analysis of the Bill, addressing its provisions under headings of review of deaths, conditional immunity and cessation of proceedings, is in the briefing provided the committee. Overall, I would highlight that the Bill is unworkable and in breach of binding international law and the Good Friday Agreement, including by denying remedies for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and denying direct access to the courts. Human rights-compliant investigations will be replaced by toothless, light-touch reviews which will not deliver for victims. The time-limited period given for reviews is also not ECHR-compatible. I am sure many before today's session will have mentioned the lack of meaningful consultation, including with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a Good Friday Agreement body with a mandate to advise on the human rights compatibility of legislation, from the UK Government prior to their unilateral departure from the Stormont House Agreement and the commitment to this as reaffirmed in New Decade, New Approach agreement and since. We share these concerns.

I also highlight the pace at which the Bill was progressed through the House of Commons stages before reaching the House of Lords. That was also of notable concern. The Committee of the Whole House stage in the House of Commons is not itself entirely uncommon when dealing with Bills deemed to be of constitutional significance, but the woefully inadequate two days given to this served to curtail the level of scrutiny needed for a Bill with such serious implications. We understand the Bill will receive its Second Reading in the House of Lords later this month on 23 November, where we expect it will be subject to greater scrutiny. However, parliamentary arithmetic being what it is, we can see that the current trajectory for this Bill is for it to be passed by Parliament.

This brings us to the point of seemingly inevitable legal challenge, should the UK Government fail to heed the warnings around this Bill and it is put on the Statute Book. We expect to see multiple legal challenges mounted. At Amnesty we will observe these closely with a possible view to intervention. It is important that the burden of challenge does not fall solely to victims who have already been impacted by the multiple decades-long failings of the state to deliver the truth, justice and accountability to which victims are entitled. Many do not have the years it will take to go through the domestic courts and eventually on to the European Court of Human Rights. Many will hold an expectation - it is our view also - that the Irish Government should commit to an inter-state challenge if the British Government continues with this unilateral action. The Irish Government has been clear in its opposition to the Troubles Bill, which is very welcome. With Second Reading in the House of Lords soon expected, the UK Government does not appear to be heeding the overwhelming opposition to this Bill across our society and internationally. We urge the Irish Government to commit to taking an inter-state case to the European Court of Human Rights if this Bill becomes law. This is not without precedent; we have seen this previously in relation to torture. Even now, it is not too late for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to do the right thing and vindicate rights rather than remove them and scrap the Troubles Bill.

On the Human Rights Act, Amnesty is deeply concerned by the UK Government’s threats to this Bill and to rights protections in the UK. The ironically-named Bill of Rights Bill, we understand, is now set for a return and would upend the UK’s existing model of rights. It seeks to heavily steer and control the approach that domestic courts would take to human rights issues. Clause after clause either imposed new definitions of rights, closed-off interpretive avenues from courts or sought to heavily tilt the scales of interpretation away from protecting individual rights and towards protecting Government policy and public authorities. It would also set a damaging precedent internationally, handing huge powers to Government to significantly limit the judicial protection of rights and protect Ministers and public authorities from accountability for human rights violations. It also undermined the principle of universality of human rights, further limiting access to justice for rights violations and breaching the Good Friday Agreement.

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, into Northern Ireland domestic law is an explicit commitment of the Good Friday Agreement. The effective delivery of ECHR rights in Northern Ireland domestic law is through the Human Rights Act, HRA, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, NIA. The HRA and the NIA have constitutional functions in Northern Ireland that are unique in the UK. Any amendment of the HRA necessitates a process of review between the British and Irish Governments in consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly parties. It is difficult to see how international and local agreement could be secured for the changes, particularly to those proposed. Reducing access to rights would breach a carefully-crafted peace agreement and upset the delicate balance that has been hard-won over the years.

While much is changing at a rapid pace in British politics at the minute, what remains constant is the reckless approach to undermining rights and unilateral action on a range of matters which has a destabilising effect on core safeguards of the Good Friday Agreement, toying with our delicate peace settlement and reneging on agreements made with the Irish Government and others. We expect the ironically-named Bill of Rights Bill to progress to Second Reading imminently. There is also a possibility that it could look slightly different and that we might see a different iteration of it. We urge the committee to closely follow developments in that Bill and would appreciate the opportunity to address the committee again when we see next iteration or if it is the Bill as was previously proposed.

I will hand over to Michael O’Hare and then Eugene Reavey to make their remarks on the Bill, after which we will be happy to take questions.