PSNI: Legacy cases could have been settled sooner, says lawyer
Civil cases related to the Troubles that have led to a £25m bill could have been settled sooner, at a lower cost, by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), a lawyer has said.Padraig Ó Muirigh was responding to comments made by PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher to MPs on Wednesday, in which he said lawyers had received almost £18m of the £25m the PSNI has paid out to settle claims.Mr Boutcher described legacy cases as "a green field site for lawyers" due to an "attritional approach by all security agencies around information disclosure".However Mr Ó Muirigh told Good Morning Ulster he believed that many of the cases he had been involved with "could have been dealt with much earlier".
He said the PSNI's approach "is to settle cases at a very late stage".Mr Ó Muirigh added that this was "to the detriment of families, who have been waiting decades - that is the key issue here". He told the programme the cases often involve "protracted discovery processes" and other legal applications, which "rack up costs" and appear to be down to "a policy of defending the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) at, literally, all costs". The RUC were the police force that proceeded the PSNI and existed during the Troubles, Northern Ireland's 30-year period of conflict.BBC News NI have contacted the PSNI for comment.
Why are Troubles legacy cases a big issue in Northern Ireland?
The question of how to deal with criminal and civil cases related to the Troubles - known as legacy cases - has been a major political issue in recent years.The UK government has begun the process of repealing the controversial Legacy Act, legislation introduced by the previous Conservative government that was opposed by political parties and victims groups in Northern Ireland.The PSNI is currently dealing with 1,100 civil actions - in 2014, the figure was 150. On Wednesday, Mr Boutcher told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster that the PSNI was not properly funded for legacy issues and that the costs it was paying out could pay for hundreds of extra officers."We are spending just over £20m a year. That would be about 400 police officers," he said."But we've been left with this millstone, this anchor, that holds the PSNI back."It is a considerable burden on us."The PSNI's costs cover not just court cases, but also operating its Legacy Investigations Branch (LIB).Mr Ó Muirigh said that "legacy matters" and that it should not impact on the police's budget."We had a Stormont House Agreement over 10 years ago, a political agreement, which has been failed to be implemented by successive British governments, which envisaged that legacy be removed from the PSNI."He added that it falls on the UK government to address the issue, saying that "legacy is toxic for everyday policing".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints
Dame Caroline Dinenage has proposed letting decision-makers take into account existing properties, when they grant or refuse permission for new projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman warned that 'live music's in crisis, the Government needs to be listening' as she proposed a new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Dame Caroline, the Conservative MP for Gosport, told the Commons: 'It isn't about venues versus developers. 'It's about making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we're building keep the things that make life worth living. 'In Westminster and our constituencies, everyone agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it's vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities, the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.' Dame Caroline called on the Government to let town halls and ministers rule on plans 'subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development'. A similar principle already exists in national planning rules, known as the National Planning Policy Framework, to ease pressure on existing businesses which 'should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result' of newer builds. But the Music Venue Trust's annual report last year warned that, in 2023, 22.4% of venues closed as a result of 'operational issues', compared with 42.1% of its members reporting 'financial issues'. The Trust identified noise abatement orders or other neighbour disputes as being among the issues which have resulted in permanent closures. 'Consistent application of the 'agent of change' principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development,' Dame Caroline told MPs, and added that her proposal was 'good for venues' and 'good for developers and new neighbours'. She said the law change could help authorities stop 'expensive and often pointless bun fights' when neighbours complain about noise. She continued: 'It'll make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and it will save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line.' Dame Caroline said music venues 'are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities', and that they had been placed 'under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime'. The Commons select committee recommended last year that the 'agent of change' principle should be put on a statutory footing, to protect grassroots music venues.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Major predictions what will and won't be in Rachel Reeves' Spending Review
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will on Wednesday announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for future years - here's everything you need to know Rachel Reeves will this week announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for the next three years. The Chancellor will take to the despatch box in the Commons at 12:30pm on Wednesday, after Prime Minister's Questions. She will set out how much each department has been allocated in her spending plans over the next few years. Billions of pounds will be splashed on the NHS, schools and tech, but some areas are expected to face painful cuts. Negotiations went down to the wire, with Cabinet ministers battling it out for bigger allocations of cash from the Treasury. Downing Street said the Spending Review was finally "settled" on Monday, just two days before Ms Reeves's big statement. No10 said tough decisions had to be made in the first few months of the Labour Government, but claimed the economy was on a firmer footing after the mess the Tories made of the public finances. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the PM's official spokesman said: "The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change." Here's everything you need to now about the Spending Review. What is a Spending Review? The Spending Review is how the Government hashes out departments' budgets. Ms Reeves will set out detailed plans for day-to-day spending over the next three years and for capital budgets for the next five years. Day-to-day spending refers to funding for resources, including salaries and supplies, for areas including the NHS, the armed forces, the police, prisons and other public services. Capital spending involves the investment allocated for long-term projects like infrastructure and buildings, such as new roads or hospitals. Ms Reeves launched this phase of the Spending Review in December. She ordered Cabinet ministers to go through every single pound the government spends to find savings and efficiencies in their budgets. It is the first time in over a decade and a half that government departments have been asked to take such an approach. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones earlier this year embarked on a tour of nations and regions to shadow doctors, nurses and police officers to learn how taxpayers' cash is being spent across Britain. He spent time on the frontline observing public sector workers to review what money is spent on but also how public services can be modernised so money is spent more efficiently. What is the process of a Spending Review? The Spending Review was only settled on Monday - two days before Ms Reeves will announce the plan in Parliament. Negotiations went down to the wire, with multiple members of the Cabinet said to be dissatisfied with the level of funding proposed. Fears have been raised in recent weeks that the Government's key pledges - such as to hire 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs or to build 1.5million new homes - will be put at risk if not enough funding is allocated to those areas. Deputy PM and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper were the last two Cabinet ministers to agree a deal, with both said to be unhappy with the amount of money offered to their departments. The Spending Review process is competitive, with departments being forced to go head-to-head to win funding from a limited pot of money. Advisers have been keeping their cards close to their chest, remaining tight-lipped about how much their department has been offered. One source said: "You take the best deal you can get." What will be in the Spending Review? There will be a £190billion increase in funding for day-to-day spending over the period, funded partly by tax hikes in the Budget in the autumn. A shake-up of borrowing rules has also freed up around £113billion for capital investment for big ticket items like homes, transport and energy projects. One of the biggest winners of Wednesday's Spending Review is expected to be the science and technology sector, which will get an £86billion package of funding into research areas, including into new drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries. The health service is also expected to be a big winner, with a 2.8% hike to the Department of Health's annual budget - amounting to around £30billion in additional funding by 2028/29. The Mirror understands schools will also get a major boost to per pupil funding, with £4.5billion extra for the core schools budget. This includes a major expansion of free school meals to 500,000 more pupils. The Ministry of Justice, which was one of the first departments to settle its budget, will see a £4.7billion funding injection to build three new prisons amid an ongoing overcrowding crisis in jails. The Ministry of Defence also already had a clearer idea of its funding settlement, with the PM having earlier this year announced plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an aim to get it to 3% by 2034. Some £15.6billion will also be handed to mayors for major transport projects across the country. This will go towards plans to improve trams, trains and buses in the North and the Midlands. While huge amounts of cash will be announced in the Spending Review, departments are also expected to face deep cuts. Ms Reeves last week admitted not every department will "get everything they want". "I have had to say no to things that I want to do too," she said. "That's not because of my fiscal rules. It is a result of 14 years of Conservative maltreatment of our public services, our public realm and of our economy." What won't be in the Spending Review? Unlike Budgets, Spending Reviews have no legal basis. Instead, they set out what the Government intends to do with its spending plans over the following years. There will be no tax changes in the Spending Review as these require new legislation. When the Chancellor presents the Budget, all the measures on taxation are contained in an annual Finance Bill. Parliament debates the Budget and scrutinises the Finance Bill. This does not happen with a Spending Review. It means some announcements - including the winter fuel payment U-turn - might be mentioned at the Spending Review. But details on exactly where the money will come from to pay for the policy are not expected until the Autumn Budget later this year.
