I would not have set up a Pat Finucane inquiry, says Tory Northern Ireland spokesman

​Alex Burghart MP was speaking to the News Letter from this week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham.

We asked his thoughts on legacy, a matter on which he has diverged from the new Labour Party secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn.

Mr Burghart pointed out that he had asked Mr Benn in Westminster how he could justify a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane when he announced that probe to MPs recently on the grounds that it was “exceptional”.

"Obviously if it is not exceptional there are perhaps thousands of other families who will ask for a public inquiry too.”

He noted that Mr Benn had answered that it was unique on the basis of a promise made by the UK government in 2001, during multi party talks that also involved the Irish government.

"I didn’t find that answer satisfactory. I think a great deal has changed in the interim, including the establishment of the ICRIR (Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery), which is deemed competent to conduct Article Two compliant investigations.”

Article Two of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the right to life, is often cited to explain investigations into the state, which unionists believe has led to a disproportionate legacy focus on claims against police and army.

Mr Burghart continued: "The point I made to the secretary of state was that if this isn’t an exception, and it does not seem to be an exceptional case, then really it should be treated as other cases are. That is to say put through the ICRIR. Now that that hasn’t happened, we have subsequently seen other families very upset that their case is being treated differently. It is not the decision I would have made. I would have put the Finucane case through the ICRIR.”

The commission, which is headed by the former lord chief justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, is controversial because it is a product of the last government’s legacy act, which allowed for amnesties for Troubles killings in certain situations.

A number of complicated court rulings have made rulings against that act, and against aspects of the ICRIR. But some critics of legacy, such as the Malone House Group led by the human rights activist and unionist politician Jeff Dudgeon, say that scrapping the ICRIR would be an attempt to resurrect the 2014 Stormont House legacy deal, and a return to even more unbalanced legacy probes into state forces, not terrorists.

Mr Burghart said: “I have been very pleased that secretary of state has said that the IRCRIR and Sir Declan Morgan have his confidence. Now that being the case it is very important I think that the secretary of state challenges the judgement of September 22 so that we can see the ICRIR carry on with its work without any ambiguity.”

That appeal court ruling in Belfast ruled unlawful government powers of veto over what the legacy commission can reveal to victims’ families.

Mr Burghart said: “If that is not possible or the secretary of state doesn’t want to do that I would strongly suggest that the government re-legislate for the ICRIR to make sure it has the powers necessary to conduct its work while at the same time preserving national security.”

By challenge did Mr Burghart mean appealing the Belfast appeal court ruling to the UK’s highest court, the Supreme Court?

“Yes, absolutely,” he replied, “Going to the Supreme Court.”