We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna ar Reachtaíocht a Gealladh - Questions on Promised Legislation

British soldiers immunity plans

Summary

Deputy Doherty condemned UK proposals to protect British soldiers and veterans from prosecution, including any extension to the North. The Tánaiste said the Government had sought clarification, reiterated that any wrongdoing should be pursued, and warned loose comments could damage trust in legacy processes.

Yesterday the British Secretary of State for Defence, Penny Mordaunt, announced measures to afford British soldiers and veterans protection from prosecution of crimes. Initial reports of this plan indicated that these laws would not be extended to the North but that has since changed. Speaking last night, Ms Mordaunt said that she thinks that the plans should cover the North. Any attempt to create immunity for British soldiers is wrong and unacceptable. No British soldier should be above the law and whether crimes have been committed by British soldiers in Ireland or Iraq by British, those crime should be fully investigated and those responsible held to account.

Sinn Féin has rigorously opposed any attempt to introduce a statute of limitations or immunity for crimes committed by British soldiers in Ireland and we have stood in support of victims and will continue to do so. Any attempt to extend immunity to the North is utterly unacceptable and will not be tolerated there. These measures give a real indication of the British Government's attitude to murder carried out by its forces and its proxies. Does the Tanáiste agree with me that any attempt to provide immunity to British soldiers for crimes committed in the North is completely unacceptable and that the Stormont House Agreement provides the best way forward for dealing with the past and that those commitments need to be honoured?

Comment on this
Simon Coveney The Tánaiste Fine Gael

I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to outline the Government's very clear position on the record on this issue. The Government has noted with some concern comments made by the UK Secretary of State for Defence, Penny Mordaunt, on Tuesday and is seeking clarification. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley, wrote in reply to me on 18 April and stated, in relation to the operation of the British Army in Northern Ireland, that where there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it should be pursued without fear or favour, whoever the perpetrators might be. Prime Minister May has indicated in her most recent comments that the measures being developed by the Ministry of Defence would relate only to overseas operations and not to Northern Ireland. The Government expects those assurances and commitments by the British Government on Northern Ireland to be fully upheld. The Government's position is clear. There should be effective investigations into all deaths during the Troubles, regardless of the perpetrator. That is what is provided for in the legacy framework of the Stormont House Agreement and it is imperative that we move forward with its implementation. There are no amnesties from prosecution provided for in the Good Friday Agreement or any subsequent agreements, including the Stormont House Agreement, and the Government has been clear that it would not support any proposal to introduce such a measure for state or non-state actors. We will continue to engage with the British Government on this issue but this is a sensitive time for legacy in Northern Ireland.

Comment on this

We cannot have a detailed debate on this issue, Tánaiste.

Comment on this
Simon Coveney The Tánaiste Fine Gael

We need to ensure that loose comments are not damaging in terms of trust and the willingness of all sides to co-operate to ensure that the legacy structures that have been committed to, agreed by both Governments, and supported by all political parties, move forward in the spirit that they were intended.

Comment on this