The commitment in the king’s speech to the UK parliament to repeal the Troubles Legacy Act removes a significant obstacle to the “reset” in political relations between Ireland and Britain.
It makes good on a promise given by Labour in opposition and will presumably lead to the withdrawal by the Irish Government of the interstate case at the European Court of Human Rights challenging the act.
The king’s speech outlines the legislative programme for the incoming parliament and is light on detail. But Labour has made it clear that the conditional immunity scheme as the heart of the act will be axed.
This aspect of the Act is already in abeyance following a successful appeal to the High Court in Belfast by relatives of victims of the troubles on the basis that it violates the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lotus Eaters review: New Asian-inspired Dublin restaurant is likely to be a crowd-pleaser
In photos: Architect’s home, studio and gallery on Mountpleasant Avenue for €1.675m
Danny Dyer could play a flautist in wartime Budapest, Percy Bysshe Shelley or Jesus Christ. He’s just that good
It’s taken years of discrimination to start the fires in Coolock. It will take years to put them out
Repealing all or part of a discredited piece of legislation is the easy part. What is a far more challenging task for the incoming Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Ben is finding a workable replacement.
There is considerable support in Northern Ireland for some sort of truth recovery process and bodies such as the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (DIRER),established by the Legacy Act, have played a part in post- conflict settlements elsewhere, notably in South Africa. The dilemma facing Benn is that there is almost universal opposition in the North to issuing the sort of wide-ranging amnesty that make such bodies work.
Families, understandably, want information about what happened to their loved ones and, where possible, for justice to be served through the courts. Politically, both sides may have different priorities in this regard – but they appear to agree that the ICRIR structure, which is linked to a halt to civil actions and criminal investigations, amounts to a circumvention of their rights.
The amnesty is also tinged by a deep suspicion that the previous UK government’s motive was to cover up the actions of the British security forces in the Troubles and protect former members.
Benn has indicated that he will reinstate civil cases and inquests and also reform the ICRIR to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. Victim’s families will have the choice as to which route to go down. He says he will base his reforms of the ICRIR on the 2014 Stormont House Agreement which had some, if not complete, cross-community support. It is envisaged that separate bodies will exist for information recovery and investigation. He has been more circumspect about the role amnesties will play in the structure.
The secretary has a difficult task ahead and is deserving of support in tackling this issue from all sides in Northern Ireland and from Dublin.