Government’s Legacy Act Repeal Elicits Mixed Reactions from Victims

The government’s proposals to revoke the contentious Legacy Act have been met with criticism from some victims’ advocates, who argue the measures are insufficient. This act, enacted by the Conservative government, provided conditional amnesties and prohibited inquests and civil lawsuits concerning the Troubles. Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn initiated the formal repeal process for the act on Wednesday, labeling it “completely wrong”. The legislation, introduced by the Conservative government, had imposed a prohibition on inquests and civil proceedings stemming from Troubles-era incidents. Nevertheless, certain campaigners continue to advocate for the abolition of the ICRIR, the organization established to probe Troubles killings. The act also extended a conditional amnesty to individuals suspected of Troubles-related offenses, contingent on their cooperation with a new information recovery body. The act generated significant controversy in Northern Ireland, encountering resistance from victims’ organizations and major political factions. The Labour party had committed to repealing it should they win the election. During a House of Commons session on Wednesday, Benn announced his intention to introduce a “remedial order” designed to officially eliminate the act’s conditional immunity provision and the prohibition on new civil lawsuits. Benn characterized the conditional amnesty as “deeply offensive to many people in Northern Ireland” and noted “almost universal opposition” to the legislation. Speaking on Good Morning Ulster on Thursday, he asserted that it was indefensible that “there is one part of the United Kingdom where people are denied their right to bring a civil case or to have an inquest”. Nonetheless, a Sinn Féin MP stated that the government’s repeal efforts do not align with a commitment previously made by Sir Keir Starmer. John Finucane remarked that it was not “repeal as people understood it when Labour first made that commitment prior to the election”. Finucane expressed apprehension regarding the announcement, indicating he would be “slow to describe this as repeal in the way in which it was described by Keir Starmer when he spoke in Belfast”. The MP, whose father was fatally shot by loyalists in 1989, further noted that despite the restoration of the capacity to reopen civil cases, the process for inquests remained “very staged and deliberately slow”. He explained that Benn’s proposals for consulting on new legislation implied that some families “who have been waiting 50 years for an inquest… are hearing that ‘there needs to be further delay’.” Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Gregory Campbell acknowledged the initiative as a step or two forward but cautioned that “an awful long marathon journey ahead of us” remained. He stated, “We want to see more meat on the bones of yesterday’s statement,” and suggested that former security force members would still be concerned about potential investigations “and face the potential of a court case that will probably end up nowhere”. Speaking on Radio Foyle’s North West Today programme, he remarked, “We are going to have to try and tease out as much information as we can following yesterday’s statement.” He concluded, “He has moved on but at a very slow pace and with a very long way to go.” Tánaiste (Irish deputy prime minister) Micheál Martin expressed his “fully” shared hope with Benn that inter-governmental discussions would persist, leading to an agreed path forward “underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House Agreement”. He identified the primary criteria for the Irish government concerning the Legacy Act’s reform as “compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights, and the ability to command the confidence of victims and survivors”. Addressing the Lords, Lord Elliott, former leader of the Ulster Unionists, stated that he had “served in the security forces in Northern Ireland for 18 years and saw some of those people murdered”. He continued, “I visited and continue to visit their families. They say to me – for example, the victims of the Enniskillen bomb – ‘Where is the public inquiry? Where is the equality for me?’ ” He concluded by asserting, “Until the minister and her government get some equality into dealing with the legacy and the victims in Northern Ireland, there will never be agreement or support for that process”. Finucane additionally criticized the secretary of state’s proposal to keep the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), a new body established by the Legacy Act to investigate Troubles killings, claiming it was “permanently tainted and damaged”. He argued that “cosmetic” alterations would be insufficient to salvage the ICRIR, and that a “completely changed” organization was necessary. On Wednesday, Benn confirmed that the ICRIR would be preserved and reformed rather than abolished. He further stated that he would introduce legislation to address recent court rulings, ensuring the body’s adherence to human rights law. Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MP Claire Hanna expressed her welcome for Benn’s statement on Wednesday, but highlighted ongoing challenges, such as ensuring the ICRIR’s compliance with human rights law. She asserted, “Failing to deal with the past properly limits our ability to have a different and shared future”. Sir Declan Morgan, Chief Commissioner of the ICRIR, emphasized the necessity of prioritizing families who have been “shamefully treated in this process”. He also affirmed the ICRIR’s “committed” dedication to uncovering “the unvarnished truth for all of the victims”. Regarding the acquisition of all pertinent case information, he stated that the ICRIR possessed powers granted by the high court and the court of appeal to obtain such data. Speaking to Radio Ulster, he declared, “We have the power to go into these agencies and take this information ourselves.” He further elaborated, “The first duty that we have is to ensure that information that the government might want to prevent, which is embarrassing, and existing from something that requires to be preserved for national security, that information is disclosed and if it is not disclosed to call it out”. Sir Declan explained that national security matters are handled judicially, employing a closed material procedure in civil cases and a ministerial direction procedure in public inquiries. Martina Dillon, whose husband Seamus was fatally shot in 1997 during a loyalist assault in Dungannon, County Tyrone, characterized Benn’s statement as “a lot of spin”. She asserted, “The secretary of state is wrong not to bring back inquests at the first opportunity.” She added, “All I want is the answers I’m entitled to; I deserve the truth.” Mrs Dillon, a participant in a group of families who legally challenged the Legacy Act, conveyed her message to Benn: “we’ve waited long enough, everyone entitled to an inquest should have one”. Sandra Peake, chief executive of the Wave Trauma Centre North West, described the initiative as “a positive first step”. She commented, “It is positive they are going to reinstate inquests and civil actions, that is most important for families going forward, but for many families where they will rest in relation to the ICRIR – that really is a fundamental issue we need to get right.” KRW Law, a firm representing numerous families affected by the Troubles, reported having the “welcome task” of notifying over 100 clients that their cases would now proceed. The government enacted the legislation with the aim of “draw[ing] a line” under the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Former prime minister Boris Johnson initially put forward the proposal in 2021, presenting it as a means to halt what he termed “vexatious prosecutions” of ex-soldiers; it was subsequently passed in 2023. The act established a new legacy organization, the ICRIR, tasked with assuming responsibility for all Troubles-era cases, including those held by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), starting from 1 May 2024. It also terminated all historical inquests and provided conditional amnesty to suspects. A judicial decision determined that the act’s conditional immunity provision conflicted