Mr. Daniel Holder:

We have been the first to point out how some of the existing mechanisms for dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, such as the inquest system, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and police investigations, etc., have been weakened through the years, largely through limitations imposed by UK state agencies. It is notable, however, that these mechanisms, having overcome many of these significant barriers, are currently delivering information recovery with teeth, and historical clarification in particular, as never before. It is at this juncture that the UK is moving swiftly to close down these existing mechanisms, thwart their work and replace mechanisms relating to independent judicial and investigative processes with mechanisms that are under direct UK Government control. There has been no due process in the production of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, the contents of which were not even disclosed to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is a core Good Friday Agreement institution precisely with a mandate of advising whether the contents of a Bill are human rights compatible. It saw the Bill at the same time that it was published in the UK Parliament.

Our conclusion has been that the Bill is unworkable and in breach of the Good Friday Agreement and binding international law and will not deliver for victims and survivors, many of whom have waited decades for truth and justice. The breaches of the Good Friday Agreement relate to the way the agreement guaranteed the specific incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, as well as issues relating to the devolution settlement. There are specific issues under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR that require independent and effective investigations into certain deaths, including those with potential state culpability. There are similar obligations with regard to torture and serious injury.

In addition to shutting down all existing investigative mechanisms, the Bill will, for a very limited period only, permit reviews into certain cases. These are reviews, not investigations, that, in our view, will not meet the standards for independent or effective investigations, which renders the Bill domestically unlawful as well as in conflict with the ECHR. We consider that the immunity provisions, which are broad and based on a subjective test where the person seeking immunity only has to think they are telling the truth to get immunity, are also unlikely to be compatible with the ECHR.

The extensive proposals in the Bill on oral history memorialisation and academic research on the conflict would appear to be designed to provide legal and political cover for what many rightly regard as an indirect route to impunity. We consider the Bill to be irredeemable and unfixable. Notwithstanding what else is happening today, it appears, nevertheless, that the Bill will proceed through the UK Parliament. It has already gone through the House of Comments. We recognise that the Irish Government has already raised clear concerns about the UK Bill. If and when the Bill becomes law, a clear option for the State, not least as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, would be to challenge the UK over the Bill through an interstate case to the ECHR.

The onus to do this has to be said in the context of the UK not being the only state in Europe showing contempt for the international rule of law at present. There is a very complex situation within the European context and the consequences of the Bill would reverberate well beyond the island. There is a real risk that authoritarian regimes around the planet will be licking their lips at the precedent this type of Bill will set. My colleagues have already raised in media pieces in The Irish Timesand Business Postthe prospect of the Government taking an interstate case against the UK if the Bill proceeds. It would be very welcome if the committee would consider raising this matter with the Government.