Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The UK government is seeking a legal way to prevent former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams from claiming compensation for his imprisonment in the 1970s during the Northern Ireland conflict.
“We will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases where compensation is sought,” Sir Keir Starmer said in the House of Commons on Wednesday, referring to Adams and the hundreds of others who were interned during the period.
Opposition Conservatives have attacked government plans to scrap provisions in the Heritage Act that would open the door to compensation payments to “terrorists”. Sixteen peers criticized Labour’s proposals paper published on Wednesday by the Policy Exchange think-tank.
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Hilary Benn last month officially began the process of reviewing the previous Conservative administration Law on Inheritance, rejected by political parties in the region, victims, human rights groups and the Irish government.
Benn said sections 46 and 47 of the law – which deal with orders to detain Adams and others arrested during internment, or detention without trial – should be struck down because they have been found in court to be illegal.
But Policy Exchange argued that Labor had not previously opposed the provisions and that such compensation payments would be “a very poor use of scarce public funds at a time of national economic crisis”.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called such a possibility “disgraceful”.
Tory Julian Smith, the former Northern Ireland secretary, called on Benn “to go back to the previous cross-party position that we must block compensation payments to terrorists”.
Adams he led the republican party Sinn Féin when it was the mouthpiece of the IRA during three decades of trouble involving republican IRA paramilitaries, pro-UK loyalists and British security forces. He always denied being in the IRA himself.
Adams condemned Starmer’s comments. “It should come as no surprise to anyone that the British government is seeking to shirk its legal and human rights responsibilities,” he said in a statement.
He said the 2020 Supreme Court ruling was “explicit”.
“Decisions on temporary detention that have not been authorized and approved by the Secretary of State are illegal. The British government accepted it. This is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
But he added that there will “almost certainly” be further legal challenges when the law is changed.
The row broke out a day after a date was set for Adams, 76, to go on trial in England next year as part of a civil action brought by victims of IRA bombings who are seeking symbolic £1 compensation in a case alleging he was an IRA leader – eh.
One government official called the row over Articles 46 and 47 “hypocritical” since the Act would have abolished such civil suits along with investigations. Labor promised to restore them.
Adams’ legal team in the case, which is scheduled to begin on March 9, 2026, is led by Richard Hermer, the UK attorney general.
The dispute over possible damages arose after Adams successfully appealed in 2020 a conviction for attempting to escape from internment in 1973 and 1974.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Interim Custody Order (ICO) used to imprison him was invalid because it was not signed by then Secretary of State Willie Whitelaw. It is believed that around 300-400 people are in a similar situation.
Despite this, 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 dates back to the 1940s under the Carlton doctrine.
“In a sense, it’s not really about Gerry Adams, it’s about restoring clarity to the law and making sure that something that was well-founded in our governmental procedures and constitutional practice is restored,” he said.
Starmer defended plans to scrap the Heritage Act saying it was “inappropriate”, not least because it would provide “hundreds of terrorists with immunity . . . We will put a better framework in place.”
