Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Currie on tabling this motion. I am pleased to be a co-signatory, along with all my party colleagues. While I welcome this debate, it is sad that we must have it. We were all shocked on 14 July when we saw the proposals published by the British Government for a statute of limitations, which would effectively end criminal investigations and prosecutions in the case of incidents relating to the Troubles, as well as inquests and civil litigation. It has caused significant distress, disquiet and alarm right across the island, but it has impacted most deeply on the families of victims. What the British Government proposed represented a fundamental departure from the Stormont House Agreement. We cannot accept that. I thank the Minister for the firm stance he has taken on this issue, and the Taoiseach as well.

Fianna Fáil subscribes fully to the view that the Stormont House Agreement provides a balanced and comprehensive framework to address the painful legacy of the Troubles, based on the principles of truth, justice, the rule of law and reconciliation. The whole world agreed with us and still agrees with us. It is also fair to say that progress on its implementation has possibly been slow. The agreement is crucial, though, for families, victims and society in general. It was agreed to in 2014 by both Governments and the political parties after exhaustive negotiations and the agreement should now be implemented. One part of the agreement stipulated that when either Government put something forward that differed from it, that such changes would be discussed and agreed by both Governments and the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. It was accepted then, as it is now, that we can only hope to deal with these issues fairly and comprehensively through a collective approach.

Many contributors have spoken about personal experiences or of knowing victims and their families. That is what this issue is about. It is concerned above all with looking at how victims and their relatives and families have been and will be treated. They are the people who must be at the centre of this debate and anything that happens. The rule of law and the protections afforded by the ECHR must apply equally to everyone and it must be upheld. It is that principle that is at the core of the Stormont House framework. Only a joint approach that has the support of both Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland and that is in line with international human rights obligations will be workable at any level.

For the bereaved and their families, it is immaterial whether someone was killed by a soldier or a paramilitary organisation. Every family that suffered a bereavement must have access to an effective investigation and to a justice process, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. That must be the fundamental point of where we are and where we need to go. It is the case for the families mentioned, and for the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy families, the Kingsmills families, the Dublin and Monaghan families, the Birmingham families and all the families that we represent.If the UK Government legislates for a unilateral approach, it would be politically and legally unsustainable and would damage relationships and trust critical to the protection of the achievements of the peace process.

I have to hand a letter written by the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of Europe to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is a well thought out and detailed three-page letter in which the Commissioner disagrees entirely with the stance taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Westminster Government and she shares her observations in regard to the proposals. This follows the work done by her and her office on transitional justice over the last two decades, including in Northern Ireland. She expresses her strong concern about the proposals which bring the United Kingdom into conflict with its international obligations, including, notably, the European Convention on Human Rights. I will afford her the last word on this. She stated:

In conclusion, I am concerned that key elements of the command paper would not bring progress on legacy issues, but would rather represent significant steps backward. Crucially, an approach that would undermine human rights protections and would cut off avenues to justice for victims and their families, thus leading to impunity, cannot be the foundation on which transitional justice is built. Rather than upending previously agreed approaches, I urge your government to focus on taking concrete action to remove barriers to a human rights compliant implementation of such approaches, with a view to delivering justice across all communities without further delay.