New Conservative leader unlikely to reverse legacy proposals: DUP leader

The UK Goverment’s controversial proposals to deal with the legacy of the Troubles are unlikely to change under a new prime minister, according to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

As five remaining hopefuls battle it out to be named as Boris Johnson’s successor – Kemi Badenoch, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Tom Tugendhat – the DUP leader said he has no reason to believe any one of them would come out strongly against the new legislation.

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill had its third and final reading in the Commons on July 4 and has now progressed to the House of Lords.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If approved by the Lords in its current form, the bill will offer immunity from prosecution to people who cooperate with the proposed information retrieval body (Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery or ICRIR).

DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.
DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.

However the Bill has been opposed by the majority of victims’ groups and all of the main political parties in Northern Ireland.

As well as offering an effective amnesty for Troubles-related offences, the bill will also end the vast majority of Troubles-related claims being pursued through the civil courts.

DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said: “It is not clear at this stage if any of the remaining leadership contenders would drop the bill, or seek to amend it in the House of Lords, and therefore we are planning on the basis that we will continue to oppose the bill in the House of Lords.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“And we don’t anticipate any significant change of heart at this stage by the government, but we will be seeking an early meeting with whoever is the new leader of the Conservatives and prime minister to discuss with them their plans for Legacy Bill, and also crucially the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as well, and what direction they intend to take both these pieces of legislation.”

The bill had its second reading on May 24 when Liz Truss, Tom Tugendhat and Penny Mordaunt voted in favour. Kemi Badenoch and Rishi Sunak did not record a vote.

Last month, the government won a Commons vote (273 to 205) – successfully rejecting an attempt to have the amnesty clause removed from the legislation – despite all of the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in the Commons voting against.

When the bill had its third and final reading on July 4, both Penny Mordaunt and Kemi Badenoch voted along with the majority of MPs (282-217) in favour of its passage to the Lords.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

On that occasion, neither Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss or Tom Tugendhat registered a vote for or against.

Ahead of the bill’s second reading, the DUP, Alliance and the SDLP all spoke out against it proceeding.

DUP MP Gavin Robinson said the legacy proposals do not protect victims’ rights to seek justice, and Mr Robinson that there “can be no moral equivalence” between those who perpetrated violence and those who tried to bring it to an end”.

He said: “If this bill undermines access to justice for innocent victims then it will be a further corruption of justice. Victims and their families must be at the heart of any new legacy structures. The right to seek justice must be protected.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, Northern Ireland minister Conor Burns has described the legislation as a necessary “compromise” to address the past.

Setting out its reasons for drafting the Legacy Bill, the NIO said the legislation will address legacy issues “in a way that supports information recovery and reconciliation, complies fully with international human rights obligations and responds to the needs of victims and survivors, and society as a whole.”

Commenting on the Tory leadership contest, North Antrim MP Ian Paisley said on Friday that unionism needed “someone in Downing Street who actually understands and recognises that the unionist people have very valid concerns about their place in the Union”.