Seanad debates
Thursday, 24 November 2022
Gnó an tSeanaid - Business of Seanad
Northern Ireland
10:30 am
Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and call on Senator Currie to raise her Commencement matter.
Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I appreciate the Minister coming in today. I watched with interest last night the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill in the House of Lords. Lord Caine gave an overview of the British Government's amendments that will be brought forward on Committee Stage. As the Minister will be aware, the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, of which I am a member, last week visited Westminster and we had the opportunity to meet Lord Caine. The committee, which is chaired by our colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, met Lord Caine and the North Ireland Affairs Committee representatives from the Labour Party and the Conservatives to impress upon them our opposition to this Bill and the importance of legacy, which was definitely top of the agenda. I was interested to hear Baron Murphy of Torfaen, a former Secretary of State, last night say that, of all the speakers who spoke last night, he counted that 19 were against it, four were for it and four were in between.
The House of Lords does not have the capacity to reject a Bill.It is more about oversight and scrutiny. However, it can send out a very strong message about whether a Bill is workable or if it fulfils the rule of law, or about the impact it has on Northern Ireland. There were some very powerful contributions last night. It is no secret that I fear the impact this Bill will have on Northern Ireland. I think it is just as important as, if not more important than, the protocol Bill. I think common sense will prevail on the protocol but I worry that common decency will not prevail on this Bill. It continues to hurt people profoundly - victims and survivors. It re-traumatises them. They feel robbed of their opportunity for justice, having dedicated their lives to getting justice for their loved ones. There is such strength of feeling that this allows the baddies to win; it legislates for people to get away with murder. When we say the rule of law does not matter, we also say that the truth does not matter, and we then allow statements to come out like, “There was no alternative to what happened”, and we end up in this moral lawlessness.
The trauma has highlighted to us the impact this could have in terms of the taunting of victims and survivors. That still happens, and we saw it ourselves this weekend, when a survivor of the Troubles - a victim of the Troubles in regard to her father - was taunted with chants at an event. We can see the repercussions now of that moral lawlessness, so where would the introduction of this legislation bring us?
The amendments that were highlighted last night include strengthening the review process so it would be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights, ECHR, and there would be criminal investigations, if appropriate. There was reference to independence. There would have to be consultation with individuals before the Secretary of State would appoint the chief commissioner, although I do not know what that means, and there would be consequences for a lack of co-operation. However, there is not a lot of faith in those amendments.
I want to hear a statement from the Minister today and to give him the opportunity to restate our opposition to the legislation. Nothing is off the table when it comes to how we proceed or react to this legislation going forward.
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Senator Currie for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Seanad but also for her ongoing work in regard to campaigning for change in this area and on the approach the British Government has decided to take in recent months.
The Government has been clear from the outset that the UK legacy Bill, as it stands, is not fit for purpose and it represents a unilateral move away from the Stormont House agreement. We also have serious doubts about whether the Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Overall, we are deeply concerned about the impact this Bill, if enacted, may have on the fragile process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
There is near-universal opposition to this Bill in Northern Ireland, including from the five main political parties and those representing victims and their families. This opposition was echoed by the UK Parliament's own joint committee on human rights, which has urged the UK Government to reconsider its whole approach. The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords yesterday and opposition to it has become more vocal. This week, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all-Ireland and the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all-Ireland stated jointly that this Bill will deepen division and further demoralise all but a tiny minority of those it purports to help. It seems almost as though it has been designed to fail.
I raise our concerns about the Bill regularly in my contacts with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have also had discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties, with victims and their families, and with senior US politicians in recent weeks. Thanks to the Senator, I met with the Truth and Justice Movement in Leinster House. Following that meeting, I urged the Secretary of State to engage directly with victims to get their perspective on this legislation. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is open to considering amendments to the Bill. However, I have been very clear that any amendments would need to be radical and fundamentally change the substance of this Bill for it to meet our core concerns around immunity, compliance with human rights obligations and victims' participation. The Government cannot support a process which is not compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.
I am aware of increasing calls for Ireland to consider the initiation of an inter-state case at the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the Bill. The Government's current assessment is that such a step would be premature for now. The Government's approach to legacy and reconciliation has been always that it should be victim-centred, taking the Stormont House agreement as its starting point. We will continue to use all avenues, bilaterally and multilaterally, to effect change to this legislation. I welcome the Senator's continued engagement on the issue.
On a matter as sensitive as how we deal with the legacy of the past, of all things in Northern Ireland, it is the area where we should try to seek accommodation of each other's views and try to put in place a collective approach that communities, political parties and both Governments can buy into, support and advocate for, and ensure is a success. The idea that anyone would take the direct opposite approach on something as sensitive as legacy, with all of the trauma, hurt and really difficult memories that families are trying to cope with, and act unilaterally against the advice of virtually everybody in Northern Ireland, seems to me to be extraordinary. That is why we continue to urge the Secretary of State to reconsider this approach.
I have to say I have had good conversations with the Secretary of State on this. We have not agreed to a new approach but, certainly, I think he is listening, and it is important to say that. However, we have a long way to go, I am afraid, and we do not have much time to get there, given the movement of this legislation through Westminster, potentially, in the coming months. What we hear has got to be based on what is good for Northern Ireland, its communities and the families that have been traumatised by violence and brutality at times in the past. That has to be the only and primary consideration. If we do that, the two Governments, working with parties and, in particular, with victims groups and their families, can find a way forward that we can all support, but the current approach of the British Government and the legislation it has advocated for is not the way to do this.
Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the intent of a Bill is rotten at the core, then the Bill, even with amendments, remains rotten at the core, and I personally do not believe there are any amendments that would fix this. I think the only way to proceed is to bring people with you, and for the Irish Government, the British government, all the parties and the victims to work together and to learn that lesson that you have to bring people with you. All of the parties are against it, as well as NGOs such as Amnesty International, our Government, the human rights commissioner and victims. It is important that we are clear that nothing is off the table if it comes down to this legislation proceeding, and it is important for us to say we are looking at all options if the legislation does proceed.
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a requirement for any process dealing with the past to be credible and to be effective. Victims must be at the centre. The current UK proposal lacks that credibility and runs the risk of being more perpetrator-focused than victim-focused. The Government is using all avenues to try to effect change to the UK Bill. My Department raised the legacy Bill at the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier this month, which I think is an indication of how concerned we are in terms of the direction of travel. We have also drawn particular focus on this issue at the Council of Europe. The decision by Committee of Ministers' Deputies in September, reflecting the views of member states, noted concerns about the lack of formal consultation and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.The committee urged the UK to reconsider the unconditional immunity scheme, which is the essential problem with this approach. My focus on the human rights aspects arises from the fundamental importance of human rights to the settlement reached in Northern Ireland and in the Good Friday Agreement.
Among other things, what is proposed in the UK Bill could amount to immunity for gross violations of human rights and a low bar to achieving immunity. I remain open to engaging and considering options, but I will remain guided by fundamental human rights principles and the needs of victims and their families. The UK Bill does not meet either of those tests at the moment. We will work hard to continue to try to engage with the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State and between the Taoiseach’s office and the Prime Minister’s office, where there have been conversations on this issue. I hope the British Government will see sense and engage with us. We will be constructive in trying to find solutions, compromises and middle ground positions, where appropriate, should the opportunity arise, and I hope it will.
Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I support the Minister in what he has been doing. The legacy of hurt and pain will never be healed and those wounds will never clear up if we allow the British Government to pass this Bill. I support the Minister in all of his work in bringing it further to the UN and to the Council of Ministers. I thank the Minister for his work on this and we support him.