Legacy body focused on and capable of uncovering ‘unvarnished truth'
The leader of a new Troubles legacy body has insisted that it is focused on and capable of uncovering the unvarnished truth for victims and survivors.
Sir Declan Morgan, chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) also described a 'reset moment' to improve the 'imperfect' Legacy Act.
It comes after the controversial legislation was passed despite widespread opposition and concern from political parties in Northern Ireland and victims and survivors of the Troubles.
The Legacy Act halted scores of cases going through the courts and inquests concerning the Troubles.
Giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee over how the Government should address the region's past, Sir Declan said the ICRIR currently has 60 investigations ongoing, and has received more than 160 requests.
Those include the deaths of five people in the IRA's Guildford pub bombings in 1974, the death of Alexander Millar in Ardoyne in 1975, the death of Seamus Bradley shot by the Army in Londonderry in 1972 and the death of the judge Rory Conaghan killed by the IRA in 1975.
Sir Declan told MPs: 'Those would not have happened if we had not looked at the opportunities that this legislation has provided, and we can do all of those things in an Article 2-compliant way, and in a way which will eventually secure the unvarnished truth.
'By the end of this year we will have over 100 investigations in relation to probably more than 150 deaths ongoing, and by the time of the legislation we would expect that that number would have significantly increased, as would the number of people that we have been able to help.
'The choice was whether to help those people who were anxious to have an answer to what they wanted or stand back and say, this legislation is not perfect. I don't make any apology for the fact that I decided I wanted to help people.'
He added: 'I just wonder whether the approach to the work of the commission will be treated in such a negative light, particularly when the two governments reach agreement on what they want to do.'
Also giving evidence to the committee, ICRIR commissioner for investigations Peter Sheridan said he absolutely rejects that they are carrying out light-touch reviews.
'Let me assure this committee that it is absolutely not,' he told MPs.
He described the first stage of the process as being a cold case review which looks for new evidence, verifies old evidence, identifies investigative failures and re-examines forensics.
'That's going to be the key for us because witness evidence from the past is difficult, but new forensic opportunities, and I already see it in some of the cases … so we're examining that with the latest trace evidence that you can use,' he said.
'Looking at continuity of evidence in old cases, conduct fresh searches on data bases and use advances in digital forensics, so it is absolutely not a light-touch review.
'I am duty-bound under the legislation to look into all of the circumstances of the case, that's what we're doing.'
Sir Declan emphasised that the focus of the ICRIR is 'on finding a mechanism to ensure that we achieve the unvarnished truth for victims and survivors'.
'The High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have found that we are capable of doing this in an Article 2-compliant way in most if not all cases,' he said.
'The litigation that has occurred in Northern Ireland has been very hard on families and with hindsight I just wonder whether we could all as lawyers have done better in dealing with it.
'This is a reset moment, we need to make the changes to this imperfect legislation that will support the two governments and help us in the project of finding the truth.'
Asked about their communication with the Northern Ireland Office over reform of the Legacy Act, ICRIR chief executive Louise Warde Hunter said there has been 'ongoing cordial and robust conversations'.
'We are fully committed to the issue of reform, to strengthen in order to deliver for victims, survivors and families,' she said.
Steven Bramley, general counsel at the ICRIR, added that the areas they want to reform include greater independent oversight; a statutory voice for victims and survivors; statutory investigations, not reviews; a statutory conflict of interest policy; a self initiation power where there is a thematic link between different events; and 'a power for chief constables to refer cases directly to us when new evidence comes to light'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on child poverty: free school meals are a help, but not a panacea
It was Ellen Wilkinson, education minister in the Attlee government, who announced in 1946 that free school dinners would be introduced, along with free school milk, at the same time as child benefit. No doubt Rachel Reeves, who has a picture of Wilkinson on the wall of her office, is aware of this – and also that the Treasury subsequently decided the policy was unaffordable. The meals were subsidised instead. Despite these initial charges, and later price rises, poorer children did gain, and keep, an entitlement to free school meals. The announcement last week that this is being extended in England to all those whose parents or carers claim universal credit – rather than restricted to families with incomes lower than £7,400 – should be welcomed by all objectors to child poverty. Being assured of a hot lunch in the middle of the school day makes pupils' lives better. Children cannot be expected to learn when they do not have enough to eat. This might sound obvious, but is easily forgotten. Scotland and Northern Ireland already have more generous rules in place. Ministers clearly hope that this will be a popular policy, as they prepare for this week's spending review and the reaction to it. Hunger in schools is disturbingly widespread and the enthusiastic reception to Marcus Rashford's campaign on school food showed that this is a cause the public warms to. Long before last year's election, breakfast clubs were a flagship Labour policy. Now they are part of Bridget Phillipson's schools bill. But as with breakfast clubs, which some schools have said that they cannot deliver on the budget provided, good intentions must not mask inadequate finances. Already, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has challenged the government's claim that 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. It said this can only be expected over the long term. And some children already entitled to free meals do not receive them – prompting calls for auto-enrolment. Another challenge concerns food quality, which has been eroded by a series of below-inflation funding increases. Free lunches are already offered to all pupils up to the age of seven. But a recently announced 3p rise in the subsidy towards these (from £2.58 to £2.61 per meal), was rightly criticised for forcing school leaders to either reduce their lunch offer, or make cuts elsewhere. The average actual cost of a school lunch is £3.16. Twenty years after the Channel 4 television series Jamie's School Dinners turned kitchens' reliance on junk food into a national issue, it is depressing that resources remain so meagre. Childhood obesity and poor dental health are serious problems, particularly in poorer parts of the country where treatment is harder to access. Ms Phillipson and her colleagues should be more ambitious about quality as well as quantity. Improvements could contribute to children's overall wellbeing, as well as nutrition. Meals are social events, not just refuelling stops. But step back from the table and the bigger picture comes into view. Child poverty, of which poor diets are a symptom, cannot be tackled by schools alone. Reducing it means raising family incomes through the benefits system – as well as trying to boost wage growth. Earlier this year, some Labour MPs warned that school food risked becoming a sop. That danger has not gone away. The latest announcement on free lunches is good news so long as it does not distract from efforts to remove the two-child benefit cap, or weaken the wider campaign against child poverty.
BBC News
12 hours ago
- BBC News
Spending Review to include £86bn for science and tech
An £86bn package for the science and technology sector will help fund research into drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries, the government has said ahead of Wednesday's Spending package also includes up to £500m for regions across the UK with local leaders having a say on how it is spent, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) Rachel Reeves, whose review will outline day-to-day departmental and investment budgets over the next few years, said investing in the sector would create jobs and boost research backers have warned that the government needs to do more to secure the UK's reputation for science on the world stage. Reeves will set out departmental spending plans on Wednesday, with the package for science and technology expected to be worth more than £22.5 billion-a-year by said "every corner of the country" would benefit, with communities able to direct funding to expertise specific to their Liverpool, which has a long history in biotech, funding will be used to speed up drug discovery. Northern Ireland will receive money to develop defence equipment, while south Wales will use the money to design microchips used to power mobile phones and electric chancellor said: "Britain is the home of science and technology. Through the plan for change, we are investing in Britain's renewal to create jobs, protect our security against foreign threats and make working families better off." Tony McBride, director of policy and public affairs at the Institute of Physics, welcomed the funding but said the government would need to commit to a decade-long plan to train workers."This must include a plan for the skilled workforce we need to deliver this vision, starting with teachers and addressing every educational stage, to underpin the industrial strategy," he Rottingen, chief executive of Britain's biggest non-governmental research funder Wellcome, warned that visa costs for scientists from overseas, financial challenges at universities and a budget that was not adjusted for inflation could hamper the government's ambitions. "The UK should be aiming to lead the G7 in research intensity, to bring about economic growth and the advances in health, science and technology that benefit us all." Earlier this week, Reeves admitted that not every government department would "get everything they want" in Wednesday's review, saying she had turned down requests from ministers and argued a squeeze on funding was a "product of economic reality".Reeves said her fiscal rules on borrowing to pay for public services were "non-negotiable" and insisted they were necessary because of "Conservative maltreatment" of the Treasury said earlier this year that the chancellor's fiscal rules would ensure day-to-day spending was matched by tax revenues, meaning the government would only borrow to chunks will go to favoured departments, with suggestions of an extra £30 billion for the NHS over three insiders have told the BBC they expect the spending review will be "ugly", and that ministers have been fighting over winning small amounts of cash for their respective departments.
BBC News
14 hours ago
- BBC News
What will Spending Review mean for NI public services?
Next week the Chancellor Rachel Reeves will reveal the outcome of her Spending will allocate money to day-to-day public services for the next three will also set infrastructure budgets for the next four review will directly impact on what Stormont Ministers have to spend on public services in Northern Ireland. What do we already know? Last year Reeves set what is known as the "spending envelope" – the amount by which total government spending will change in a given spending is planned to grow by an average of 1.2% above the rate of inflation each year for the next three spending is planned to grow by 1.3% above inflation a year over the next four are much lower growth rates than this year and last year, reflecting the new government's "emergency" injection of cash into the health service and public sector pay Wednesday the Chancellor will break it down further, making allocations to each central government precise allocation of this money matters for Stormont's spending plans. Health vs Defence: Why it matters? More than 90% of what Stormont ministers have to spend comes from the Treasury through what is known as "the block grant."The increase in the block grant is worked out using a calculation known as the Barnett formula, which is based on the annual changes in UK central government departmental gives Stormont an equivalent spending increase for the size of the NI population, adjusted for the extent to which each service is services, like health, are almost entirely devolved but defence is not the government decides it is going to spend more on defence at the expense of other services that will have an impact on the amount of extra money in the Stormont simple terms: If the UK Department of Health sees its budget increase by £100m, then Northern Ireland would get approximately £3m the Ministry of Defence budget increases by £100m Stormont does not get anything extra. A bigger Stormont top-up? When devolution was restored in 2024 the government agreed a financial package which included an automatic top-up of any money awarded by the Barnett government was persuaded that the level of need in Northern Ireland means it requires spending of £124 per head for every £100 per head spent in Northern Ireland was funded below that level, the government said that in future every £1 that comes through the Barnett formula will now come with an extra will apply until the overall level of funding need is independent Fiscal Council has estimated that will be worth £815m over five government said the size of the top up could be reviewed if "independent and credible sources" provide that end the Executive commissioned a study from the economist Prof Gerry Holtham, an expert in the devolution of public BBC understands that his work has come back with a range of possible funding central estimates are £123 per head, for every £100 spent in England, if agricultural spending is excluded and £128 per head if agriculture forms part of the the Treasury is persuaded to accept the higher end of the range it will be worth tens of millions of pounds extra over the next five years. Softening the cliff edge? The devolution financial package also brought a large dollop of one-off UK government funding, largely to pay for public sector pay that creates a cliff-edge drop in Stormont funding of about £500m in 2026/27 when that short term money runs government committed to review "concerns about 2026-27 funding" at the Spending Fiscal Council has suggested options to tackle the cliff edge could include more one-off funding or setting a new, higher baseline for Stormont's it is also possible that the normal operation of Spending Review will allocate enough money to largely remove the cliff edge. Casement Park breakthrough? The Chancellor will be allocating trillions of pounds in the Spending Review but it is a tiny fraction of that which may have most political impact in Northern is a growing expectation that the UK government will come up with additional money for the construction of a new GAA stadium at Casement Park in project has been bogged down in labyrinthine planning and funding GAA official leading the project has told the BBC he is cautiously optimistic that the Spending Review will include a new financial contribution for the redevelopment project.
