New legacy plans for Northern Ireland ‘night and day improvement’ on Tory law, Irish deputy PM says
Lisa O’Carroll
Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent.
Plans to repeal to the controversial Legacy Act brought in by the Conservatives in 2023 have been described as a “a “night and day improvement” by Ireland’s deputy prime minister.
The package of measures, to be unveiled in a joint British-Irish press conference with Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn in Hillsborough this afternoon (see 9.52am), involves five new measures, with an additional package south of the border on witness and investigations.
The package is being described by diplomats as “a return to partnership” after years of disagreement and an interstate law suit launched by Ireland.
Simon Harris, Ireland’s tánaiste (deputy PM) said:
Once faithfully legislated for and implemented, it will fundamentally reform legacy processes, bodies, and outcomes. It is a night and day improvement on the 2023 act.
That act closed the pathway towards truth and accountability.
The Irish government launched legal action against the UK goverment over the original legislation. That case was paused when Labour were elected pledging to repeal the act, but it is likely to remain pending until these measures are fully implemented, Irish sources have said.
The main elements of the new deal are
-
public hearings, akin to public inquiries, involving families and witness will be facilitated and overseen by independent judges.
South of the border, a legacy unit will also be established by the Gardai, and a €25m (£21m) fund set up to help witnesses deal with the legal process.
Key events
MoD tells veterans they are being offered ‘6 new protections, rights and safeguards’ under new Troubles legacy plan
The last government passed the Legacy Act because Conservative MPs were furious about the fact that dozens of veterans were at risk of criminal prosecution in relation things they did when they were serving in Northern Ireland, particularly in the 1970s and 198os. A trial is taking place at the moment in relation to Bloody Sunday. Some Tories felt all prosecutions of this kind were wrong, because they involved events that took place many decades ago and because the army was fighting terrorists at the time.
The Tory legislation in effect gave veterans immunity from prosecution. But it was opposed by all the parties in Northern Ireland, for two main reasons; because former terrorists were also offered immunity on the same terms (they had to cooperate with the commission set up to find the truth about Troubles killings), and because closing down potential investigations into unsolved murders was deemed a breach of human rights.
In an effort to persuade veterans that these new plans are reasonable, the Ministry of Defence has issued a statement saying they are being offered six key protections. It says:
You will now have 6 key protections:
1) Right to stay at home. You cannot be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the Commission or to an inquest.
2) Protection from repeated investigations. The Legacy Commission won’t needlessly duplicate previous investigative work you may have already participated in, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, and you won’t need to explain historical context that’s already known.
3) Protection in old age. Your health and wellbeing will be taken into account by Commissioners and Coroners. You may not need to give evidence at all.
4) Right to seek anonymity. You can request anonymity when giving evidence.
5) Protection from cold calling or unexpected letters. You’ll only be contacted through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support.
6) Right for your voice to be heard. Veterans’ representatives will be part of the statutory Victims and Survivors Advisory Group to ensure your perspectives are considered.
The MoD also says:
The government recognises the difference between those who served to keep the peace and protect life, as opposed to terrorists who set out to kill people. This new approach ensures:
-veterans who properly carried out their duties are protected from endless legal challenges
-terrorist acts are not granted immunity
Here is Lisa O’Carroll’s explainer on what the new Troubles “legacy framework”.
Benn says this legislation will be dealth with “in the normal way”.
And that is the end of the news conference.
Q: Can you be more specific about when this will happen, beyond as soon as possible?
Harris says the Irish government will be moving “very efficiently”.
Benn says he cannot give a date, but the government is drafing the legislation now. And it will legislate “as soon as we can”.
Q: You say veterans will be protected from cold calling what does that mean?
Benn says this means, if the commission wants to speak to veterans, it will contact the MoD first. They will be able to provide pasteral care. There won’t be cold calling.
Here is a statment on the new legacy plan from Micheál Martin, the taoiseach (Irish PM).
Q: How long will it take before the commission is operational? And will you change the people running the commission?
Benn says the current commission is working on more than 200 cases, and it will carry on with that work.
But there will be a new oversight board for the new commission. That means the current commisisoner posts will come to an end.
He says he hopes the new body will command more trust than the current one.
Benn says these plans will be human rights compliant. The Tory Legacy Act wasn’t, he says.
And he says, since these plans are human rights compliant, the Irish government’s legal case, which is based on plans not being human rights complaint, automatically falls.
Back at the press conference Harris says the Irish government never wanted to launch legal action against the UK over the Legacy Act.
He says if this agreement is put into legislation, the Irish government will “revisit” the legal case (implying it will be dropped).
Here is the news release from the government about the new “legacy framework” for dealing with the Troubles. It will replace the Legacy Act passed by the Tories, that gave immunity to prosecution for former soldiers, and former terrorists, if they cooperated with a commission investigating killings during the Troubles.
Hilary Benn rejects suggestion new legacy plans will give veterans de facto immunity from prosecution
Q: Does the Irish government need a reset when it come to trust with the unionist community? And is your commitment to legislate cast iron?
Harris says the Irish government’s commitment to legislate is cast iron.
And some of what it is proposing will not require legislation.
He says he spoke to the DUP and UUP leaders yesterday. He values those conversations.
But he would make the point “politely” that it was not the Irish government that put in unilateral arrangements on legacy that caused so much upset.
Q: This includes protections for the military. Is this about making prosecutions of veterans difficult, if not impossible? Is this a de facto immunity?
Benn says the immunity provisions in the Legacy Act were widely opposed.
On veterans, he says this is about treating people “fairly”. If asked to give evidence, they will be able to do so remotely.
And if the commission wants to take to veterans, it will approach the MoD first. Veterans will not get letters summoning them to a hearing arriving on their doormat out of the blue, he says.
Q: But the references to age sound like immunity?
Benn says courts already take into account whether people are too old or immune to be tried.
Benn says criticism is easy. Trying to fix problems is hard.
There is nothing in the document that justifies some of what the unionists have said about it, he says.
Hilary Benn and Simon Harris hold press conference on new Troubles ‘legacy framework’
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, and Simon Harris, the Irish deputy PM, are now holding a press conference about their plans for a replacement for the Tory Legacy Act.
There is a live feed here.
Q: Is this the last roll of the dice for dealing with this problem. And unionists have said it is outrageous that the Irish government is involved. How do you respond?
Harris says the unionists should have waited until the plans were published.
This is not about dual control, he says.
It is about recognising that the Irish government cannot impose ideas on the British government, and vice versa.
If the unionists want the Irish government to do more on legacy, they should welcome this.
On the other part of the question, he says he does not see this as the last roll of the dice.
But he thinks it is the best option available.
Assisted dying bill ‘legislative embodiment of suicide influencer’, peers told
Here are quotes from some of the speeeches in the House of Lords debate today on the assisted dying bill. I am using the reports from PA Media.
From peers opposed to the bill, or at least critical
From Luciana Berger, the former Labour MP
Assisted dying, if introduced, would not only exist as a choice for us and other comparatively fortunate people, it would also enter the lives of those most at risk – people already overlooked, unprotected and vulnerable at the end of life.
It was a privilege to be a member of parliament for almost a decade, and I have so many fond memories of my former constituents, but some of the most searing moments that I experienced as a member of the other place came at my weekly surgeries.
The first time I heard someone speak openly in the most unsavory terms about wanting a family member dead, I shook, I was appalled, and I could not believe what I was hearing. I was naive to think that this would be an isolated case.
From Thérèse Coffey, the Tory former deputy PM
[The] clinician-patient relationship can be frighteningly coercive … This indirect coercion is real, the feeling of being a burden, knowing you could save money for the NHS if you went that bit earlier, knowing you might be able to leave more money to your children rather than paying care home fees.
From Lord Deben (John Gummer), a former Tory cabinet minister and former chair of the Climate Change Committee
I was an MP for 40 years, and I met wonderful people in both my urban constituency and my rural constituency, but I also met people who felt that their old relations were a terrible burden and were spending money which would be much better left to them …
Many families who have never seen any real money now see an aged relative who has a house, which is now worth £200,000 and more, the temptation for those people that I know and have met to say to that person ‘you really have a duty to save this money for your family’.
From Claire Fox, the former Brexit party MEP
[The bill] rebrands assisting someone to die as a medical treatment, upending its understood meaning. The bill rewrites the role of doctors, they will no longer be guided by the ‘do no harm ethos’.
When we debated the censorious Online Safety Act, those of us who raised its negative impact on free speech were metaphorically slapped down – hectored that one indisputable reason for that law was to close down suicide sites, and we had to protect the young from malign online suicide influences.
But I worry this bill that we are debating today is the legislative embodiment of a suicide influencer.
From Lord Frost, the former Tory Brexit minister
For the first time ever, this bill seeks to give a person of sound will and mind the right to act contrary to a fundamental element of the ethical tradition that’s been fundamental to this country …
In such a society, none of us are really safe. The only protection for any of us then is the collective wishes of society, whatever they are at any given moment. In such a society, the rights of those who are ‘inconvenient’, the disabled, the ill, the elderly or maybe those who are just unpopular, have no robust defence and are potentially vulnerable.
From Martin Warner, bishop of Chichester
This bill takes from them the law’s protection of their right to life; it’s a fundamental assault upon their dignity.
From Lord Curry of Kirkharle, a crosbencher
There’s absolutely no question that this Bill if passed will devalue the importance of human life and economics will become part of the decision-making process – the NHS will save money and families will protect their inheritance.
From peers in favour of the bill, or at least supportive
From Labour’s Lady Thornton
I think it’s important that we remember that this Bill came to us from the Commons, has undergone significant amounts of scrutiny and change, and our job is to scrutinise it further and improve it, if we need to do so. It is not our job to kill this bill.
I was saddened last week by [Theresa] May speaking about this being a ‘suicide bill’.
People have written to me in the last week, very distressed, and they say, ‘we are not suicidal, we want to live, but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that’. Assisted dying is not suicide.
From George Carey, a former archbishop of Canterbury
It is right that the [Church of England] bishops have spoken so powerfully and well in this debate but the irony is that they are not representing their own Church in this matter …
My Lords, may I add, with temerity, a rhetorical question addressed to the bishops’ benches – but I think to us all. Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill? It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.
Both this house and the church are in the midst of renewed public debate as to our role in society.
And I pray, indeed pray, that both these institutions, which I hold so dearly for the importance of our role in public life, do not risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public and the other place [the Commons].
From Jan Royall, a former Labour leader in the Lords
I was dismayed at the conflation made by some of suicide and assisted dying.
This isn’t just about careless language. It is actively damaging to people who are already suffering.
Let’s be clear, people who choose assisted dying are not suicidal, they are dying and they want to regain some control.
From Jo Johnson, the former Tory universities minister
People who suffer from an incurable condition should not be forced against their will to endure intolerable suffering.
I think it’s worth us debating carefully whether there isn’t a case instead to have a test based on clinical progression, so that assisted dying is available to adults with a progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unlikely to recover and which can be reasonably expected to cause their death.
Johnson was arguing of the bill to make assisted dying to people with an incurable condition, not just for people with a terminal illness and judged to have less than six months to live.
New legacy plans for Northern Ireland ‘night and day improvement’ on Tory law, Irish deputy PM says
Lisa O’Carroll
Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent.
Plans to repeal to the controversial Legacy Act brought in by the Conservatives in 2023 have been described as a “a “night and day improvement” by Ireland’s deputy prime minister.
The package of measures, to be unveiled in a joint British-Irish press conference with Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn in Hillsborough this afternoon (see 9.52am), involves five new measures, with an additional package south of the border on witness and investigations.
The package is being described by diplomats as “a return to partnership” after years of disagreement and an interstate law suit launched by Ireland.
Simon Harris, Ireland’s tánaiste (deputy PM) said:
Once faithfully legislated for and implemented, it will fundamentally reform legacy processes, bodies, and outcomes. It is a night and day improvement on the 2023 act.
That act closed the pathway towards truth and accountability.
The Irish government launched legal action against the UK goverment over the original legislation. That case was paused when Labour were elected pledging to repeal the act, but it is likely to remain pending until these measures are fully implemented, Irish sources have said.
The main elements of the new deal are
-
public hearings, akin to public inquiries, involving families and witness will be facilitated and overseen by independent judges.
South of the border, a legacy unit will also be established by the Gardai, and a €25m (£21m) fund set up to help witnesses deal with the legal process.
David Lammy, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, has echoed Peter Kyle in brushing aside Donald Trump’s suggestion that the government should deploy the military to stop the small boats. (See 9.50am.) Asked if the government would consider this, he told broadcasters:
We’ve got amazing border control … I’m also very pleased Ministry of Defence colleagues are working closely with the Home Office as we look harder at a new group of accommodation on some of those sites where we can accommodate those who are waiting for their asylum applications.
(Using the military to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was not quite what Donald Trump had it mind.)
Keir Starmer has welcomed the release of an elderly British couple who have been held in detention for seven months by the Taliban.
Starmer said:
I welcome the release of Peter and Barbara Reynolds from detention in Afghanistan, and I know this long-awaited news will come as a huge relief to them and their family.
I want to pay tribute to the vital role played by Qatar, including the Amir, His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, in securing their freedom.
Green party says its membership has reached 75,000
The Green party of England and Wales says its membership has passed 75,000. It was 68,000 at the start of the month, when Zack Polanski was elected leader. Commenting on the increase, he said:
Hitting 75,000 members is more than just a milestone; it’s proof that people are hungry for bold politics. While the old parties tinker around the edges, the Green party is growing fast because we are unapologetic about demanding real change: taxing the super-rich, funding our NHS, and tackling the climate crisis head-on.
Mandelson not likely to retain Labour whip if he returns to Lords, senior peer suggests
Peter Mandelson is not likely to remain a Labour peer if he returns to the House of Lords, a senior member of the party has predicted.
Lord Foulkes, a former MP and minister who has been a member of the House of Lords for 20 years, made the prediction this morning in an interview with Sky News, where he was responding to a suggestion from Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, that Mandelson should be banned from the Lords.
Harman, who is also a peer, is a presenter on Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast and in a recent episode she said she thought Mandelson should be banned from returning to the Lords. Mandelson took leave of absence from the upper house when he was appointed ambassador to the US, but last week he was sacked from that post for not having disclosed to No 10 the full extent of his friendship with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Harman told her podcast that she thought there should be some means of excluding Mandelson from returning following his leave of absence. She said:
I think there should be a process, but actually I don’t think he enhances the reputation of the House of Lords.
I think he would damage it. I think he’s got a talent of reinventing himself and reappearing after scandals. But I think this time, that’s got to be it.
Asked to comment on his colleague’s proposal, Foulkes said he did not think it was realistic to remove Mandelson entirely from the Lords. He said a peerage could only be taken away by an act of parliament, and that had not been done since 1917.
But Foulkes said it would be possible to remove the Labour whip from Mandelson. He said that would be a decision for Roy Kennedy, the government chief whip in the Lords. “I think he knows exactly how to deal with it,” Foulkes said.
Asked if he personally favoured Mandelson keeping the Labour whip, Foulkes replied:
If he returns, that’s a matter for Roy Kennedy, who is a very experienced member of the Labour party … He will know how to deal with it and I’m sure he will make the right decision.
Asked again what his personal view was, Foulkes replied:
I would doubt if [Mandelson] would remain a member of the Labour group in the House of Lords.
