Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Currie, in particular, and other Senators for bringing this motion on the British Government’s legacy proposals to the attention of this House, and for their strong and emotive engagement on the issue.

It is clear this House shares the unanimous view of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Government that the British Government proposals cannot be the basis of a way forward on the legacy of the conflict. It is an issue which we know to be of profound personal importance to many families across this island - North and South - and has touched the lives of many more, and continues to impact us deeply as a society. I am pleased to respond, on behalf of the Government, and speak to the importance of this motion.

It has been the consistent position of the Government since 2014 that the Stormont House Agreement is the way forward in addressing the painful legacy of the Troubles. It was agreed by the political parties in Northern Ireland and both Governments after intensive negotiations, with exception of the Ulster Unionist Party which did not support it at the time and gave its reasons. It set out a fair and balanced framework for addressing these deeply sensitive and complex issues. That agreement allowed for proper independent investigations and prosecutions, where possible. It also proposed the establishment of an independent international mechanism so that people could come forward and say what they knew, without that information being used against them in court. It also allowed for oral history initiatives and acknowledgement in an effort to move reconciliation forward. Crucially, it is built on the core principles of the pursuit of justice and information recovery and support for the rule of law.

In July, the British Government published a command paper, which proposes the introduction of a general statute of limitations, an immediate end to criminal investigations, the removal of the prospect of prosecutions and the end of all judicial activity in regard to Troubles-related incidents, including current and future civil cases and inquests. It is a proposal that has caused understandable shock and upset. It is important to be absolutely clear that this is not a proposal the Irish Government can support, and this has been communicated directly to the British Government on many occasions by me and the Taoiseach.

Victims, survivors and families from all communities have spoken out in the wake of these proposals. Their message has been passionately clear: this cannot and must not be the way forward. The proposal has also been opposed across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. This rejection was confirmed in a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 20 July, which unanimously called on the British Government to withdraw its proposals. Families have had to wait too long for progress on this. Society has had to wait too long. It is vital that we collectively find a path forward and implement it in a way that meets the legitimate needs and expectations of victims.

We have always been clear that, where people have concerns about the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, we are ready to engage seriously to help address those concerns, but any such changes must be discussed and agreed by the parties and both Governments.

At the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 24 June, we agreed to begin, with the British Government and the Northern Irish parties, a process of intensive engagement on legacy.This process continued through the summer and is still ongoing. It has involved meetings of all the parties with a wide range of those most affected by legacy issues, rightly prioritising the voices of victims, families and survivors. It has also met with criminal justice practitioners, civil society and human rights organisations to hear their views. It has been unmistakably clear throughout this process to date, that the British Government proposals are opposed across the board, very nearly universally, and have generated significant concern internationally.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that the proposals are "indistinguishable from a blanket unconditional amnesty for those not yet convicted" and "would undermine human rights protections and cut off avenues to justice for victims and their families". The relevant UN special rapporteurs have also expressed their concern regarding the proposals, which in their view would place the United Kingdom "in flagrant violation" of its international obligations. A recent paper published by Queen’s University also concluded that the British Government amnesty proposals are without any parallel or precedent internationally, exceeding any international model in the impunity it would offer.

Our proposal now is that the British Government needs to take all of that concern and criticism on board, here and internationally, and step back from the possibility of unilateral action. That has been my consistent message to the Secretary of State as late as today. That has been our clear position put to the British Government in all our contacts at every level, and it will continue to be. A proposal as sweeping and as problematic as this will not work if it does not have the support of all, or at least the majority, in Northern Ireland.

I have been privileged to meet with many families and victims' groups across the years. On my most recent visits to Belfast I met again with a wide range of victims' representatives. They have spoken with great dignity and determination, but also in frustration, about their search for justice for those they have lost. Sometimes that criticism, as some in this House have said, is also directed at the Irish Government, in respect of the search for truth. For many families, even when a prosecution may be an unlikely prospect, for all hope to be taken away, and for due process and rule of law to no longer apply, is an unimaginable blow. So, too, is the prospect of years more of legal challenge. Undoubtedly, that will be the direction of travel if the British Government proceeds with its proposed paper.

Every family bereaved in the conflict must have access to an effective investigation and to a process of justice, regardless of the perpetrator. Many of the families that I have spoken to understand that the likelihood of prosecution is extremely slim in many cases, but they want to keep that possibility alive. Often, it is what keeps them going. That goes for the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy families, the Kingsmill families, the Dublin and Monaghan families and the Birmingham families. It should be the case for all families.

A way forward on legacy is long overdue and urgently needed, and so we must continue to do everything we can to find a collective path through these challenges and agree a fair and comprehensive approach that can work in both jurisdictions. Those who say the Stormont House Agreement is not working and therefore needs to be scrapped also need to acknowledge that there has been no effort to set up the structures and institutions that were promised in the Stormont House Agreement to give them a chance to work. I say to this House that the approach we are taking is that while we support and endorse the Stormont House Agreement and still believe that it is the best way forward, we are certainly willing to talk about alternatives with the British Government, all political parties in Northern Ireland and victims' groups. That is what we are doing. We are trying to pursue, if necessary, a new way forward, but one that respects victims and their families first in the context in the pursuit of truth, justice and most importantly, a process of reconciliation.

As a Government, we will, and do, have a responsibility to play our part fully in that, as we committed to do at the time the Stormont House framework was agreed. In my meetings with victims and survivors groups and with political parties, I have welcomed their active work, not only in responding comprehensively to the command paper’s approach, but in putting forward practical and positive alternative approaches to deal with these issues, building on the framework of, and the principles behind, the Stormont House Agreement. My fear, if I am direct and truthful to this House, is that we will continue this process but will not be able to find an agreed consensus around a way forward that both Governments, victims' groups and political parties in Northern Ireland can support. In the absence of that agreement, we will see the British Government drawing the conclusion that no consensus can be reached and therefore there is a justification for the approach that it outlined at the start of this consultation process. I believe we all have an obligation to ensure that that does not happen. On the record, I must say that there are alternative approaches. There is no perfect approach to legacy. However, there are alternative approaches that I believe can be the basis for at least consensus in terms of a principled way forward that does not involve a statute of limitation that is seen as, and is, effectively an amnesty, but instead can perhaps provide a different but similar approach to that of the Stormont House Agreement that can pursue, in a structured and well-funded way, the truth and offer justice and the potential for prosecutions where the possibility allows in individual circumstances.

We will not advance reconciliation by moving away from a commitment to accountability or shying away from difficult truths. The motion before the Seanad today adds an important voice to the call for truth and justice, and I welcome it. I thank Members for their continued focus on this issue, and for their work on behalf of victims and survivors. In particular, I thank Senator Currie for the way in which she has approached this, in the context of approaching all of the parties in this House and indeed, Independent Members, persuading them to come on board for what is a difficult, emotive and sometimes divisive issue on which people have strong views. The idea that this is not going to divide the House is a reflection on the work, preparation and approach taken by the Senator on an extremely sensitive issue. I hope it will certainly help me in the case that I make to my colleagues and counterparts in the British Government, but in particular, the work that I intend to do with the Secretary of State, political leaders and victims' groups in Northern Ireland as we make an effort in the weeks ahead to try to find consensus in this space.

The idea that the British and Irish Governments would take a radically different approach on an issue as sensitive as legacy in the context of moving this issue forward, in my view, would be an extraordinary political failure on my behalf and that of the British Government. From my experience, when the British and Irish Governments work together and try to find consensus on controversial and difficult issues, it reduces the polarisation of politics in Northern Ireland. When we fail to do that, it has the opposite impact. That is happening in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol, legacy and a series of other issues, but not with the same consequences as Brexit and legacy issues. I hope that the efforts today of the European Commission, in particular, can perhaps change the direction of travel on the protocol and move towards a consensus-based approach where partnership delivers acceptable results that everybody can live with. Likewise, the process that is still under way which, I must say, some are starting to lose faith in, in the context of legacy, can also take a turn in the right direction in the weeks ahead. Certainly, I think this motion will help us to do that and I thank the Senators for it.