Keir Starmer vows to prevent Gerry Adams from claiming compensation

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The UK government is seeking to find a legal way to block former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams from claiming compensation for imprisonment in the 1970s during Northern Ireland’s Troubles conflict.

“We will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases claiming damages,” Sir Keir Starmer told the House of Commons on Wednesday, referring to Adams and hundreds of others who were interned over the period.

Opposition Conservatives hit out at government plans to repeal provisions of the Legacy Act that would open the door to paying damages to “terrorists”. Sixteen peers criticised Labour’s proposals in a paper on Wednesday published by think-tank the Policy Exchange.

Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn last month formally began the process of overhauling the previous Conservative administration’s Legacy Act, which has been rejected by political parties in the region, victims, rights groups and the Irish government.

Benn said Sections 46 and 47 of the act — relating to the orders for the detention of Adams and others arrested under internment, or detention without trial — needed to be repealed because they had been found in court to be unlawful.

But the Policy Exchange argued that Labour had not previously opposed the provisions and such compensation payments would be “a very poor use of scarce public funds in a time of national economic crisis”.

Speaking at prime minister’s questions, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch blasted such a prospect as “shameful”.

Tory MP Julian Smith, former Northern Ireland secretary, urged Benn “to return to the previous cross-party position that we have to block compensation payments to terrorists”.

Adams led the republican party Sinn Féin when it was the mouthpiece of the IRA during the three decades-long Troubles involving republican paramilitaries in the IRA, pro-UK loyalists and British security forces. He has always denied having been in the IRA himself.

Adams blasted Starmer’s comments. “No one should be surprised by a British government seeking to dodge its lawful and human rights responsibilities,” he said in a statement.

He said the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2020 was “explicit”.

“Interim custody orders not authorised and approved by the secretary of state are illegal. The British government has accepted this. It is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

But he added there would “almost certainly” be further legal challenges when the legislation was changed.

The row erupted the day after a date was set for Adams, 76, to stand trial next year in England as part of a civil action brought by victims of IRA bombings who are seeking a symbolic £1 in damages in a case alleging he was an IRA leader.

One government official called the row over Sections 46 and 47 “hypocritical” since the Act would scrap such civil actions along with inquests. Labour has vowed to restore them.

Adams’ legal team in the case, scheduled to start on March 9 2026, is led by Richard Hermer, UK attorney-general.

The dispute over possible damages arose after Adams in 2020 successfully appealed convictions for trying to escape internment in 1973 and 1974.

The Supreme Court ruled that the interim custody order (ICO) used to jail him was invalid because it was not signed by then secretary of state Willie Whitelaw. Some 300-400 people are believed to be in a similar situation.

Nevertheless, former Northern Ireland minister Lord Caine told BBC Radio Ulster that the practice of allowing junior ministers or very senior officials to sign such orders dated back to the 1940s under the Carltona doctrine.

“In a sense, it’s not really about Gerry Adams, it’s about restoring clarity to the law and ensuring that something that was well-established in our government procedures and constitutional practices is restored,” he said.

Starmer defended plans to repeal the Legacy Act saying it was “unfit”, not least because it would have provided “immunity to hundreds of terrorists . . . We will put in place a better framework.”