Why is the Legacy Act being abolished and what does it mean for Northern Ireland?

Hilary Benn is scrapping a brand new law. Sean O’Grady explains why, and looks at what it could mean for UK and Ireland relations

Without anyone much noticing, the government is to abolish one of the most controversial pieces of legislation passed by the last government: the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, commonly called the Legacy Act.

It was deeply resented by many in Northern Ireland, who saw it as denying them justice for loved ones killed or injured in the Troubles, but supported by others who felt that old soldiers doing their duty decades ago were being held to unrealistic human rights standards in what was in effect a theatre of war. Hilary Benn, the secretary of state, is thus facing some criticism as well as support for his actions. It is proving divisive and adds to the under-reported tensions in the province...

What was the Legacy Act for?

It aimed to “draw a line” under the remaining outstanding legal actions, and any future ones, arising from offences committed in the Troubles. It thus covered the period from the outbreak of violence and deployment of troops in 1969 until 1998. The law covered terrorists and crown forces and sought to replace public prosecutions, civil actions and inquests with a “truth and reconciliation” process analogous to that used after the fall of apartheid in South Africa. Some high-profile cases involving aged British veterans, in particular, motivated the Sunak government to end the prospect of any more former service personnel, and terrorists for that matter, worrying about their futures. In short, the act was designed to “make the Troubles history”.

What’s the problem with that?

For many families in Northern Ireland still grieving the loss of loved ones, including the “disappeared”, with no remains ever found, justice has been delayed and they find it intolerable that it is to be forever denied. They resent the fact that whoever was involved should now be able to get away with it just because they’ve volunteered to own up in a truth and reconciliation process, run by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

All of the main parties in Northern Ireland and Ireland opposed the Legacy Act, albeit for different reasons. Nationalists and Republicans found it repugnant that there’d be an effective granting of immunity to British forces who’d abused their power. Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party, for example, objected to British forces being treated in the same way as terrorists. Last December, the Irish government felt sufficiently strongly about the Legacy Act that it took Britain to the European Court of Human Rights over it.

So, the Legacy Act was, well, troublesome, and the “conditional immunity” and inquest clauses are now being gutted out of the law, with complete repeal and a new law promised.

What will happen now?

Labour obviously has a huge majority in the Commons, and a clear manifesto commitment to abolishing the Legacy Act. The move has already been welcomed by most parties, but the DUP and some other unionist and loyalist voices oppose the move because it will mean ex-service personnel can be pursued again. Such cases will undoubtedly attract much coverage and criticism for Benn and his party, the charge being that the Labour government won’t stand by those who put their lives on the line for the UK.

What does the official opposition say?

A young squaddie who served in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s would usually be expected to stand trial and face the consequences if found guilty of an offence. It is just such a prospect that compelled Tory ministers to pass the Legacy Act in the first place. Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Alex Burghart says the Tories legislated “to try and protect some elderly people, including servicemen, who were being brought before inquests to discuss events that may or may not have happened very many years before... this was a process inevitably weighted against the police and the armed forces, who kept records and whose servicemen were easily locatable and contactable.” He adds: “I know the government are taking a different approach, but I do ask them to spare a thought for those men… and to think very deeply about what they can do to support them and what help they can offer them.”