Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

47. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to comments made by various members of the British House of Commons regarding ongoing legal cases involving the prosecution of British soldiers over alleged criminal actions in Northern Ireland; if his attention has been further drawn to the fact that the Speaker has agreed that MPs should not make reference in debates to cases which are active in the British courts; and his views on British MPs abusing parliamentary privilege in comments regarding active cases in the British courts involving the deaths of Irish citizens, without commenting on the details of these cases due to ongoing legal proceedings. [25702/17]

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I tabled this question over my deep concern regarding comments of some members of the British House of Commons regarding two active cases in the British courts involving the unlawful killings of Irish citizens by British soldiers in the North of Ireland in the 1970s. I do not want to comment on the details of the killings and I am sure the Minister does not as well. The Minister will probably be aware that both cases have been heavily commented on in the House of Commons and in tabloids. Does the Minister share my concerns at how this clear abuse of parliamentary privilege might impact on these and future cases?

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the comments to which the Deputy refers, and I am concerned.

Dealing with long-outstanding issues relating to the legacy of the conflict in Northern Ireland is of the utmost importance to me, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Government. A Programme for a Partnership Government makes specific reference to the Government's commitment to the establishment of the legacy framework provided for under the Stormont House Agreement, placing the needs of victims and survivors at the core of these institutions.

In pursuit of this, I participated for the Government in recent months in the currently paused talks process in Belfast, where a critical element is to achieve a way forward on the setting up of the Stormont House legacy framework.

In the discussions on legacy issues, I have been very clear on the urgent need to achieve progress so that the institutions can be established and start working to meet the needs of victims and survivors and to support broader societal healing and reconciliation. I have also emphasised in discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties, the need to ensure that legacy inquests are properly resourced, and urged all with responsibilities in relation to the legacy inquests to move forward as quickly as possible to implement the helpful proposals of the Lord Chief Justice.

The talks in Belfast will resume after the UK general election.

In light of the speculation around the issue raised by the Deputy, it is worth stating clearly that there are no amnesties from prosecution provided for in the Good Friday Agreement or any subsequent agreement, including the Stormont House Agreement. The Government would not look favourably on any proposal to introduce such a measure, for State or non-State actors.

The Government’s position is that the rule of law, including the requirement under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights for effective investigations of unlawful killings, must be upheld by all responsible authorities. In this regard, comments which effectively propose a selective approach to upholding the rule of law are not helpful. I have made clear that the legacy process is not about seeking to find an artificial balance or equivalence in investigations but about ensuring we have a comprehensive approach. That means looking at all Troubles related deaths, regardless of the affiliation of the perpetrators.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a clear abuse of parliamentary privilege. Those who remain without a voice, namely, the families of the victims, have an expectation that those elected to any parliament will respect the rule of law. In response to concerns raised by the Pat Finucane Centre on behalf of the families, the Speaker's office confirmed that the House of Commons had a long-standing resolution that references should not be made in debates to cases which were active in the courts. Does the Minister share my deep concerns about the underhand and devious attempts to undermine the rule of law and the independence of the prosecution service using the cover of parliamentary privilege? The concern is that this will prejudice the trial process. Does the Minister believe this is a crude attempt to try to collapse the trial process? I am sure he is aware that this is the first of many similar cases. The two cases involved go back 43 and 45 years, respectively. Those involved have been waiting a long time for justice and should not have to deal with comments made in the House of Commons and the British tabloid media.

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very concerned by the issue raised by the Deputy, but I repeat that the Government is fully committed to the architecture set out in the Stormont House agreement which provides the best framework for dealing comprehensively with the legacy of the past. There is no provision in the Good Friday Agreement for an amnesty from prosecution and the Government would not look favourably on any proposal to introduce such a measure. The rule of law, including the requirement for effective investigations of unlawful killings, must be upheld by all responsible authorities. In this regard, it is important that, as soon as practicable after the UK general election, all parties in Northern Ireland, including Deputy Crowe's party, sit around the table and ensure we will have a functioning Executive and that the institutions will be up and running in Northern Ireland, as per the wishes of the people expressed as far back as 2 March. It is regrettable that the parties have not reached agreement. I assure all parties involved that my Government colleagues and I will ensure we will take our responsibilities, obligations and duties very seriously under the Good Friday Agreement, of which we are co-guarantors and subsequent agreements. I look forward to a resumption of the talks, in a positive frame of mind, at the earliest opportunity.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share the Minister's concerns about the Northern Ireland Executive which I also hope to see up and running and doing its work soon. My concern about this case is that it is a backdoor to providing immunity for British soldiers. We know that throughout the history of the conflict only four British soldiers were convicted of shooting civilians while on duty and that all four were freed within five years of beginning their life sentences through the use of the royal prerogative. The families are concerned that this is an attempt to try to collapse the cases in an underhand and devious way. They are also concerned because these are the first cases of many in a queue. I ask the Minister to relay his concerns on this matter to his British counterpart and write to the new Speaker of the House of Commons about same following the general election.

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me make it clear that I have already raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire. I will also raise it with important elected representatives as soon as the talks get under way again.

I acknowledge the many men and women on both sides of the Border who performed their official duty to protect the public with honour, dedication and diligence throughout the Troubles. Their service has not been and must not be forgotten. There is no contradiction between this acknowledgement and the need for a clear-eyed holistic approach whereby wrongdoing and those responsible for such wrongdoing will be identified and pursued in accordance with the rule of law. That is the approach reflected in the Stormont House agreement and the one I will pursue.