Ms Gr?inne Teggart:

I will start with the first point on why the UK Government is proceeding with this Bill. It has not shied away from setting out very clearly the driver of this Bill, that is, to achieve impunity for state actors. We have seen myth peddling and an inaccurate narrative around a witch hunt against soldiers. Let me be clear that there is not, nor has there ever been, a witch hunt. There are victims who have waited for decades for the truth, justice and accountability to which they are entitled. The UK Government has frustrated that at every opportunity. When the New Decade, New Approach agreement was published, the commitment to legislate within 100 days for the Stormont House agreement gave some of the victims we work with considerable hope, only for that to be very cruelly removed a mere six weeks later when Julian Smith was removed from his post. We had a new Secretary of State and then a statement was made to the House of Commons to signal the UK Government's departure from that. The UK Government's drive is impunity for state actors.

The Bill, through proposals for an the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery and the very concerning extent to which the UK Government and the Secretary of State in particular would have control over the various mechanisms proposed, is effectively trying to rewrite history and curb the truth relating to some atrocities and what took place during the conflict coming out. While the inquest process is not a perfect system. We have some mechanisms that have delivered for victims. The Ballymurphy inquest is a more recent example. The official state narrative had been that the use of force was justified until that was determined otherwise. It is very clear why the UK Government is doing this. It has not shied away from it. I have noticed in the conversations I have been having with the US State Department that the spin the UK Government puts on this Bill varies depending on the audience. That is obviously incredibly cynical. We all see this Bill for what it is, namely, a de factoamnesty with a very clear intent to close down all paths to justice for victims.

With regard to the Senator's question on the ECHR challenge with regard to the inter-state case and the remedies, there is a question as regards interim measures and special measures. They will not have the effect of stopping the Bill. The Bill will become law and then we will get a binding judgment from the ECHR that the UK Government will have to address. The judgment will set out very clearly where the Bill breaches rights under the ECHR. The UK Government is bound to respond to, address and provide remedy to the judgment against it. This is not like deportation cases, as I understand it, such as those relating to Rwanda, where there is a threat of an imminent human rights violation in that a stay can be put. We need a very clear judgment from the ECHR that the UK Government will be bound to address and make remedy and reparations for, which would lead to a change of the Bill or its being scrapped.