Labour has opened the door for Gerry Adams and others suspected of being members of the IRA to get “meritless” compensation over their detentions in the 1970s, a report has warned.
Last month Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, quietly unveiled plans to change provisions in legislation that bars compensation payments to those who were interned without trial during the Troubles in the 1970s.
The Northern Ireland Office said the change was to ensure that the Northern Ireland Troubles Act, which was passed by parliament in 2023 under the Conservatives, did not breach Britain’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
However, a report published on Monday by Policy Exchange, a think tank, said the change could result in up to 400 civil claims from individuals who were suspected of involvement in terrorism during the Troubles, warning that this could cost the taxpayer millions.
The report, backed by 16 prominent lawyers, former judges and ministers, warned that the change would “reopen the door to a wave of meritless litigation” relating to events dating back more than 50 years. They said that hundreds of people who were lawfully detained for suspected involvement in terrorism could be paid compensation in an “unjust and wasteful use of public money”.
Adams has been pursuing compensation from the British government after a Supreme Court ruling in 2020 quashed his two historical convictions for attempted escapes from lawful custody while he was being held at Long Kesh internment camp, later the Maze Prison, in 1973 and 1974. Adams has always denied being a member of the IRA.
Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader, was interned without trial, a practice introduced to deal with spiralling violence in the early 1970s, as were another 1,900 people suspected of being involved with paramilitary organisations. Many were held based on flawed intelligence.
The Policy Exchange report pointed out that while other aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act were controversial, the ban on compensation was backed by all parliamentarians, including Labour when it was in opposition. It said the government had not explained why a change in the law was needed. It also said it was wrong to abandon an appeal against the High Court’s judgment that the legislation was incompatible with the ECHR.
The report has been backed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former director of public prosecutions, and Lord Hope of Craighead, the former Supreme Court deputy president, who accused the government of acting in a “wholly inappropriate” way.
Professor Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at the University of Oxford and the co-author of the report, said: “The government is running roughshod over constitutional principle, using ministerial powers to repeal legislation that was recently approved without division by the Houses of Parliament.
“The government’s decision to change the law will reopen the door to a wave of meritless litigation in relation to events more than 50 years ago, which may result in hundreds of people who were lawfully detained then for suspected involvement in terrorism now being paid compensation, which is an unjust and wasteful use of public money.
“It also needlessly puts the lawfulness of a host of ordinary government acts in doubt, which is contrary to the rule of law.”
Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney-general, said: “The government’s decision to repeal sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Troubles Act 2023 is inexplicable and unexplained. Policy Exchange’s compelling new paper lays bare the many constitutional and practical problems to which this decision gives rise.
“Parliament must now ask hard questions about why the government is determined to override parliament’s recent, unanimous decision to vindicate the Carltona principle and to block Gerry Adams from being paid public money. The government’s defence of its decision to abandon a winnable appeal — that this signals its “absolute commitment” to the Human Rights Act — makes no sense and warrants the sharp criticism that this paper ably provides.”
The Northern Ireland Office was approached for comment.
