UK and Irish governments ‘working intensively' to find agreement on legacy
Tanaiste Simon Harris was commenting after a round of meetings with political leaders in Belfast on Monday.
Mr Harris said he was engaging with Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn to see if it was possible to deliver a 'joint framework agreement' in the coming weeks.
Since taking office last year, the Labour government in London has pledged to repeal and replace some of the provisions of the contentious Legacy Act that was introduced by the last Conservative government.
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 halted scores of civil cases and inquests into Troubles deaths and also offered conditional immunity to perpetrators of conflict-related crimes in exchange for their co-operation with a new investigatory and truth recovery body.
The Act was opposed by all the main political parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish government and many victims' representative groups.
Mr Harris said the ongoing work with his UK counterpart was an attempt to move 'beyond the dark shadow and the huge pain caused by the Legacy Act'.
'I wanted to meet all of the political parties to get their sense of the way forward on legacy issues,' the Fine Gael leader said after Monday's meetings at Parliament Buildings, Stormont.
'I'm conscious this is an extraordinarily sensitive area, but I have been working intensively with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in recent months really to see if it is possible to find a landing zone that can allow the two governments to agree a framework in terms of legacy issues in the coming weeks.
'Listening to the parties today, of course, people have different perspectives, people come at this from different viewpoints (but) I do think they're all united in wanting to see a way forward for victims and their families. I think that's very genuine across all the parties.
'And I now, on the back of this, intend to continue to work with the Secretary of State, but also intend to continue to meet with and listen to victims groups. I met a number last week. I'll be meeting a number in the weeks ahead.'
He added: 'I … want to move to an infrastructure around legacy that can provide all families with truth and justice in a way that simply hasn't been forthcoming so far.
'I'm very conscious when I meet with victims' families – and people are getting older now, I mean, you're talking to people who are in their 80s and their 90s – and they're desperately looking for answers and information that has been withheld from them or that they have been deprived of to date.
'This process, this peace process, has always worked best when the two governments pull together as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement.
'And that's really where my focus is – on trying to see if there is a way to move beyond the dark shadow and the huge pain caused by the Legacy Act as it currently is, to a much higher terrain where there's an infrastructure around legacy that's human rights compliant, that's victim-centred, and that can provide confidence across the communities in Northern Ireland and across the island of Ireland.'
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Hilary Benn and Tanaiste Simon Harris (PA)
In 2023, the Irish government initiated an interstate legal case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming the Legacy Act breached the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The case remains active, with ministers in Dublin wanting to see how Labour resolves its concerns over the legislation before any decision is taken to withdraw the action.
Commenting on the case on Monday, Mr Harris told reporters: 'The Irish government never wanted to be in a position where it had to take its nearest neighbour to an international court.
'We did so more out of sorrow than anger, because we could not find another mechanism to address issues.
'We explored every diplomatic and political channel available. And human rights matters, international law matters, and we felt it was important in support of victims and their families to take that case.
'Of course, if we get to a point of agreement – and we're not there – in terms of a framework, and if that agreement is then faithfully translated into legislation, of course, at that stage, I will engage with government colleagues in terms of deciding if the time is right to take a different course of action in relation to the interstate case.
'But the priority right now and the focus right now is to intensively engage with the Secretary of State to see if it's possible to have a joint framework agreement in the next number of weeks.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Startling sum North missed out on for transport in 'decade of deceit'
Analysis by think-tank the IPPR found the North of England would have had an extra £140billion in transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories The North of England would have had an extra £140billion of transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories, damning figures show. New analysis reveals the Government spent £1,183 per person in the capital between 2010 and 2023 - compared to just £486 in the north. And it was even worse in the Midlands, where the figure was £455. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at think-tank IPPR North - which crunched the numbers - said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. "We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign – yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her reign – while our transport chasm widens. This isn't London bashing - Londoners absolutely deserve investment. "But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right." The data shows £83billion of Government cash was spent on transport projects in the north since 1999/2000. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Last week Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands. This cash is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. There will also be a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Labour's Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood said: 'This report lays bare the way in which successive Conservative governments have short-changed areas outside of London and the south east, denying millions of people access to jobs, education and opportunity. ' Labour promised we would bring growth to every part of the country and we've put our money where our mouth is. As part of our Plan for Change we've announced more than £15 billion for local transport in England's city regions, delivering the biggest ever investment in buses, trams and local rail."
Daily Mirror
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Disability cut impact could be even worse than expected warns food bank charity
Research commissioned by food bank charity Trussell found that 340,000 people in disabled households will be pushed into severe hardship by benefit changes being brought in by the Government Tens of thousands more people will be pushed into poverty by the Government's welfare cuts than previously feared, a major foodbank charity has warned. Trussell has claimed that 340,000 people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer faces a rebellion from his own party over a string of measures, including cutting access to the personal independence payment (PIP) and sickness-related elements of Universal Credit. The Government's assessment found 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will fall into relative poverty in England, Scotland and Wales after housing costs are taken into account. But Trussell's analysis said the true picture is even worse, with 440,000 likely to need a food bank - although an increase in the basic rate of Universal Credit will move around 95,000 people out of severe hardship. Helen Barnard, director of policy at Trussell, said: 'This UK government was elected on a promise of change, and with a commitment to end the need for food banks. If the government goes ahead with these ill-considered and cruel cuts to social security, this promise will not be kept – and instead, they will risk leaving behind a legacy of rising poverty and hunger. "Tackling fiscal challenges should not be done at the expense of people already facing hunger and hardship. These cuts will force 440,000 people in disabled households into severe hardship and leave them at risk of needing a food bank. "We urge the government not to continue down this damaging path." The PM faces fierce opposition from Labour backbenchers, dozens of who say the proposals - expected to save £5billion a year - are "impossible to support". Charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has backed Trussell's calls for the Government to rethink the disability benefit cuts. It said: "This analysis shows they are likely to create more deep poverty and hardship than even the bleak forecast from the Government's own limited assessments." Trussell has also demanded the Government brings forward the planned increase to the basic rate of Universal Credit to April 2026, instead of waiting until April 2029. A Government spokesperson said: "This Government is determined to change people's lives for the better, helping them out of poverty and tackling the unacceptable rise in food bank dependence in recent years. "We will never compromise on protecting people who need our support, and our reforms will mean the social security system will always be there for those who will never be able to work, and that their income is protected."
Daily Mirror
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Farage's 10 most public spats as he faces 'serious lack of leadership' jibe
There are fresh questions over Nigel Farage's leadership skills following the Zia Yusuf saga, with the Reform leader having got in a number of public spats over the years The latest Reform UK drama shows it's "Nigel's way or the highway" amid growing questions about Nigel Farage's leadership ability, Labour says. Last week the party was rocked when chairman Zia Yusuf stood down hours after accusing Reform's newest MP of asking a "dumb" question at PMQs. But in a round of 'humiliating hokey-cokey' he later announced his return, despite saying getting Mr Farage into No10 was no longer a "good use of my time". The debacle was seized on by Mr Farage's ally-turned-nemesis Rupert Lowe, who said it showed the Reform leader "must never be Prime Minister". The former Reform MP, who now sits as an independent, has previously accused his old boss of running Reform like a "cult". Labour has said Mr Yusuf's brief exit highlights Mr Farage's "inability to maintain good relations with any of his colleagues". Here we look at some of the best-known cases that raise questions about his leadership skills as he tries to convince the country he can run the country. Zia Yusuf: the Reform chairman initially resigned after suggesting Reform's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had asked a 'dumb' question at Prime Minister's Questions. Mr Farage's response suggested Mr Yusuf didn't have the mettle for the 'highly pressured and difficult' political world. Humiliated Yusuf now says he 'made an error. It was a function of exhaustion' Rupert Lowe: Reform's fifth MP was expelled and reported to the police by the party. The explosive row that followed saw Mr Lowe accuse Mr Farage of running a 'cult', said he was 'messianic' and 'must never be PM', and said the Reform leadership had 'zero integrity'. Mr Farage, in return, suggested he'd 'rather eat razor blades' than allow Mr Lowe back to Reform Elon Musk: Mr Farage fell out with Elon Musk after criticising his support for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. In response, Musk suggested he 'doesn't have what it takes' to lead Reform Gawain Towler: Mr Towler was sacked by Mr Farage after two decades with various Eurosceptic outfits. He suggested Reform infighting was 'sub-optimal' Ben Habib: Mr Farage called Mr Habib 'bitter' and 'twisted' after he was passed over for Deputy Leader. Mr Farage suggested Mr Habib leaving the party was 'a huge relief'. In return, Mr Habib called the Reform leader a 'coward', accused him of 'childish behaviour' said Reform was a 'cult' and 'unfit to govern' Douglas Carswell: Mr Farage accused former UKIP MP Douglas Carswell of blocking efforts to give him a peerage and called him a 'Tory party posh boy' who should be expelled from UKIP. Mr Carswell resigned UKIP and blamed Mr Farage for the party's decline saying that 'Far from having a strategy, we seemed to be driven by whatever came out of Nigel's mouth" Dominic Cummings and Vote Leave: Mr Farage said Vote Leave top brass were ' cretins' just a month before the referendum. Suzanne Evans: Former UKIP Deputy Chairman Suzanne Evans said Mr Farage was 'very divisive' and suggested 'somebody else' should front the Brexit campaign. She was dropped as a party spokesperson Patrick O'Flynn: Mr O'Flynn called Farage 'snarling, thin-skinned, and aggressive' and stood down as UKIP's economics spokesperson Alan Sked: The founder of UKIP called Mr Farage a 'silly bugger' for focusing on immigration Ellie Reeves, Labour Party Chair, said: 'Zia Yusuf's humiliating hokey-cokey in recent days might be laughable but it just goes to show that the party revolves around just one person who clearly has a problem with working relationships. For Farage to fall out with one colleague might be an accident but to feud with everyone you've ever worked with suggests a serious lack of leadership. Nigel Farage is only happy when he's in total control. 'It's Nigel's way or the highway. How on earth would he run a country if he can't manage a handful of politicians without sparking chaos every few weeks? Reform are just not serious. They've pledged £80 billion in unfunded spending, would put up every single mortgage in the country and hammer family finances, while forcing them to buy private healthcare. Working people simply can't afford the risk of Reform UK.'
