To ask the Minister of Justice for her assessment of funding provision from the UK Government for the legacy system in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I propose to answer questions 2 and 7 together. Whilst I welcome progress on addressing legacy issues and firmly believe that victims are entitled to expect transparency, truth and justice via a process that does not introduce further delay, concerns remain about the feasibility of the current proposals with regard to the degree of legislative scrutiny afforded to the proposals and, crucially, how they will be funded. On 11 November, I laid a legislative consent memorandum (LCM) to advise the Assembly that I am not laying a legislative consent motion, at least at this time, as I cannot currently recommend that the Assembly provide consent for the transferred matters in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I did so on the basis that there has been a lack of meaningful engagement by the UK Government on the details. I do not have the departmental resources to implement a UK Government policy over which I have no control without abandoning our agreed legislative programme. I also cannot move an LCM without the consent of the Executive, which has not been achieved to date. However, the necessary engagement is under way. Furthermore and crucially, the UK Government have never adequately resourced legacy, and that has not changed with the introduction of the Bill. Indeed, there appears to be no additional UK Government funding proposed for the Northern Ireland Executive arising from the outworkings of the Bill, despite significant resource implications flowing from it. Given the potential implications for my Department and wider justice bodies and the fact that all Executive Departments are already under significant financial pressure, it is not reasonable to expect that additional costs can be met from existing Northern Ireland departmental allocations. I will, however, continue to engage constructively with the UK Government with a view to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are workable in practice, properly funded and resourced and that victims’ needs and rights remain central in any future arrangements.

Mr McGlone

I thank the Minister for her answer. I presume that it is not purely a resourcing issue. Does the Minister have any concerns, as the SDLP does, over elements of the proposal such as the retention of national security vetoes, disclosure to families, protection of hard-won inquests, human rights compliance, the strength of statutory oversight and the independence of the Legacy Commission and the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána?

Mrs Long

There are issues on which I would express some concern and some agreement with the Member at a party political level. However, at a departmental level, my main concerns are interference with judicial independence, which, I think, the use of the Advocate General as a backstop will do. There are also issues with the direction on how a coroner should run an inquest, which, again, for me, is crossing into issues of judicial independence. I have concerns about a number of elements of this, but, fundamentally, there is no point in raising expectations when it comes to victims: they have been raised and dashed repeatedly over many years. The only way that this will work, if it is to work at all, is if it is properly funded and resourced so that people can get the answers to the questions that they seek within a reasonable time frame. To under-resource it from the outset will simply ensure that it will not work; it will not be a success. As the Member has rightly said, there are other issues around independence and the engagement of the Irish Government, but those are issues that we will raise at a party political level, . At a departmental level, I am focused on the issues that fall within my remit.

Mrs Long

I absolutely agree with the Member. Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles has never been properly funded by the UK Government. No dedicated funding has been provided to the Department of Justice for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. No additional UK Government funding has been signalled to us either. It appears that the expectation of the Government is that any responsibilities falling to the DOJ, the PSNI, the Coroners Service or other devolved bodies should simply be met from existing budgets, which, as Members know, are under significant pressure. The absence of additional funding means that delivery would have to be prioritised against other statutory commitments and would inevitably affect the pace and scale of operational work, adding more distress and delay to victims wishing to avail themselves of the new arrangements and slowing down justice for the wider cohort.

Mrs Dillon

Minister, do you agree that, in the absence of the Bill, there is absolutely no reason why the British Government cannot fund the Office of the Police Ombudsman (OPONI) and the PSNI for legacy cases, so that the cases could be dealt with right now? The PSNI does not have the resource to fund them. That happened whilst there was direct rule, and the Government should pay for it.

Mrs Long

There is a significant issue with the remaining inquests, which do not fall within the scope of the legacy arrangements, and a significant burden that will be placed on OPONI and the PSNI to service the needs of the Legacy Commission. Whilst the Legacy Commission's costs will be met in full, the organisations that will need to adapt their practices in order to service that body will have no contribution made to their costs. That will come out of the same pot as all the other work that they do. That is not fair. Victims and survivors have already had to wait too long for answers. A lawful, workable legacy framework is essential. I welcome the efforts that have been made to improve on what the previous Government tried to introduce on information and accountability. However, I do not want further uncertainty around this, particularly when it comes to funding, nor do I want the police, OPONI, the Coroners Service and the courts castigated when they are unable to meet the expectations of people who are desperate for information and find that they do not have the funding to deliver.

Mr Kingston

Minister, given your public utterances on innocent victims and your party colleagues' adopting language such as "non-combatants" to describe victims of terrorism, will you take the opportunity today to repair trust with the innocent victims?

Mrs Long

Anybody who listened to exactly what I said about innocent victims will be well aware that I said that there is no equivalence between those who broke the law and those who were injured at the hands of those who broke the law; that having been a victim does not make you unaccountable for what you did; that you should still be held to account; and that it was not an excuse. Instead of twisting my words, the Member would do well to read the entire content of what I said in that interview. When it comes to repairing trust, I have already engaged with victims' organisations and individual victims. Much of the mischief-making that went on about that interview was wholly and utterly upsetting to those who were led to believe that I said things that I did not say.