An IRA abuse victim says there must be no immunity for those responsible for serious sexual offences in London’s Troubles legacy Bill.
fter concerns that the Government could dilute the legislation, Mairia Cahill said she was hopeful the Government will on Monday ensure abusers will not benefit from the controversial amnesty.
Ms Cahill said she still opposes the Bill, saying London’s approach has been “disrespectful” to victims.
She added: “Not only does the Government need to show respect for victims of Troubles-related sexual abuse crimes, they need to show a commitment that those involved in committing them, and those who covered up for them, will not be given an escape route.”
The NI Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill seeks to establish an independent information recovery body. Immunity would be offered to those deemed to have cooperated with it. But Labour warned previously the Bill did not stop anyone who covered up acts of sexual violence during the conflict from seeking immunity.
Last week it tabled an amendment to ensure certain offences of sexual violence, including rape, must not be treated as within the scope of immunity.
Mr Burns then told MPs the Government would accept the amendment, but “will work over the coming days to see if we can find a refined wording that we can bring back to the House”.
That caused concern as did the suggestion which had been floated that criminals such as rapists could benefit from the immunity.
Writing in the Sunday Independent, Ms Cahill said: “That’s not what Mr Burns wrote to me just nine days earlier when he stated: ‘I want you to be in no doubt that this Government, and I personally recognise that any sexual crimes — including those committed during the Troubles — cause very serious and lasting harm to victims. Please be assured that the Government is in no way suggesting that such victims aren’t Troubles victims. Nor are we suggesting that serious harm could not have been caused by such actions. This Bill sets out a definition for Troubles-related conduct and it is for those applying the relevant provisions to determine whether a specific offences are Troubles-related’.”
She added: “It’s frustrating that the minister privately stated one thing to a paramilitary victim of rape and cover-up, and appeared to suggest something different publicly.”
It has now emerged Mr Lewis wrote to all MPs over the weekend in a bid to clarify the position, stating: “In light of concerns raised by Members... we have taken the decision to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it will not be possible to grant immunity for Troubles-related sexual offences.”
Ms Cahill, who came to public attention in 2010 by alleging she had been raped as a teenager by a member of the IRA, said the Government must now fulfil that promise.
A Government spokesperson said: “This Government recognises that any sexual offences — including those committed during the Troubles — are extremely serious, and cause very serious and lasting harm to victims. The amendment the Government is bringing forward will make it explicitly clear that the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery cannot grant immunity for any sexual offences.”