Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Tuesday 18th November 2025
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.
Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.
Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.
Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.
The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.
What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court?
Hilary Benn
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.
Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.
There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.
The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders.
Hilary Benn
I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.
If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.
Hilary Benn
I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.
These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?
Hilary Benn
I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will make progress.
There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:
“There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”
What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:
“As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”
I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:
“I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”
I agree.
Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:
“What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”
The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.
We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.
I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others—
Hilary Benn
And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.
I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.
Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.
Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as
“a direct threat to national security”?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.
Hilary Benn
No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.
Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.
The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.
I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.
The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.
Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.
Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.
I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.
We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,
“it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]
I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.
Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received
“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”
He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should
“get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,
and encourages all of us as parliamentarians
“to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”
It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.
I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask those on the Front Benches to keep their opening statements short, because it eats into the time for contributions from Back-Bench Members.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.”
I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace.
The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions.
We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further.
In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history.
The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. The Government are claiming that they have no choice but to legislate. They are making that claim for three reasons. The first is that they object to conditional immunity. The second is their belief that the legacy Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the third is the fact that the legacy Act lacked cross-party support.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recognise that the immunity that was promised never came into action because the British courts rejected it? Does he accept that we are not taking away immunity, because it was never possible in the first place?
Alex Burghart
It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly.
Alex Burghart
No.
Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information.
We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was.
Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.
Colum Eastwood
Let me take this opportunity to refresh the shadow Secretary of State’s memory. Sinn Féin actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams is on record as supporting that piece of legislation—I wonder why. Sinn Féin also supported, at one point, amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Féin, who in turn pressurised the Government, to drop it. That is what happened.
Alex Burghart
I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.
No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.
In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Even if the Supreme Court had opined on the matter and judged it to be incompatible, that would not have changed the law. This House is not required to respond in any way to a declaration of incompatibility by a court. This House remains supreme.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend says that it is highly likely that an appeal would have succeeded. In support of that, I cite the fact that the Defence Committee took evidence in great detail from four professors of law in 2017. They were not talking about that specific legislation, but they all agreed that it was possible and legal to combine a statute of limitation, providing that there was a truth recovery process. A range of people gave evidence, from Professor Richard Ekins on the right of centre, shall we say, to Professor Philippe Sands on the left of centre. It was possible, it was legal, and even if that law was struck down, something similar could have been put in its place.
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done.
The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.
That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks.
The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things. Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do.
The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in.
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Gentleman has talked about doing the right thing, but is not doing the right thing getting justice for over 1,000 families, including 200 veteran families, who have waited too long for answers about their loved ones? Putting victims at the heart of this process would be doing the right thing—getting on with legislation that will deliver the justice needed, instead of the delays and dithering that the Conservatives’ legacy Act provided?
Alex Burghart
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Burghart
I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are
“to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.”
I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans.
Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.
Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all.
Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.
Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Burghart
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the wrongs of the Bill so clearly. A number of veterans called my office yesterday in great distress. One of their concerns is what the Bill means for future recruitment to the armed forces, which so far has not really been covered in this debate. They believe that if people sign up willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, their country should stand behind them. Will my hon. Friend set out why the Bill risks so heavily future recruitment to the armed forces, and therefore why that is another reason that this Bill is absolutely wrong?
Alex Burghart
I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State?
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.
Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.
Colum Eastwood
Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House who is actually in Government in Northern Ireland and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all?
Alex Burghart
The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.
Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court?
Alex Burghart
I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.
Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.
In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that
“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”
When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The peace process in Northern Ireland was hard-won, and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, it did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the troubles—either by terrorists or by the security forces—and nor did it provide an amnesty for crimes that had not yet been prosecuted.
Let us also not forget that, according to data from the House of Commons Library, around 3,520 people lost their lives during the troubles. They included 1,441 British service personnel, 722 of whom died at the hands of paramilitaries. Three hundred RUC officers were killed, and 301 individual deaths were the responsibility of the British military. Of those, 121 were republican terrorists, 101 were loyalist terrorists, and the remainder were all civilians. We therefore have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the troubles are dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally.
The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found several provisions of that Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and should therefore be disapplied. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found additional aspects of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the ECHR.
There are many separate elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I will keep my contribution to two specific areas: immunity from prosecution for historical crimes, and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving forward under the new legislation. As a veteran, I have never sought or agreed that, as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service. We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols, whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in.
There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said:
“This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it”.
Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, said that the British Army is “not above the law.” Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is now chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said only last week:
“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”
We must also understand that it is not just British service personnel who were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation; it was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. More than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers were shut down upon the enactment of the legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers’ families.
Immunity from prosecution is dangerous, because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims’ rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law and undermines long-term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution. It sets an awful precedent. If it were to be implemented by foreign Governments currently in military conflicts, we would be rightly appalled.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Member have any views on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that did exactly that?
Mr Foster
I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers.
Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard.
Mr Foster
I am almost done.
Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Although I have not held this spokesperson role for long, I have met veterans, victims and survivors, academics and Members from across this House and the other place. Those conversations have been humbling and instructive, reminding me of the horror that Northern Ireland endured and the courage of those who lived through and served during the troubles.
I begin by recognising the Secretary of State’s work in bringing forward this Bill. Dealing with the legacy of the past requires legislation and practical action that the public can trust. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the intent to repeal and replace part 2, and certain aspects of part 3, of the Conservatives’ failed legacy Act. That legislation was a profound misjudgment. It commanded no confidence in Northern Ireland, was opposed by every major party and placed the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Not only did the Tories provide conditional immunity for serious troubles-related crimes, but they offended victims and—the shadow Secretary of State seemed to forget this—alienated veterans by appearing to equate them with terrorists.
This Bill rightly removes those provisions, ends immunity and restores the principle that no one is beyond the law. Clause 1 confirms that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery will continue under a new name—the Legacy Commission—with reformed governance and functions. That recognises the need to rebuild the process to have one that the people of Northern Ireland can trust.
We support the Government’s intention to reform the commission, but expectations are high and confidence is fragile. Any effective legacy process must also ensure that the narratives of the troubles remain accurate and that victims of terrorism are neither forgotten nor morally equated with perpetrators. At the same time, they were victims of lawful, and occasionally unlawful, acts by the state, whose right to truth is equally important. Only a system founded on transparency, independence and fairness can command confidence across all communities, which previous actions, such as the letters of comfort issued to paramilitaries in the past, did so much to undermine.
Clause 3 sets out the Legacy Commission’s structures and functions, including investigating deaths and serious harm, holding inquisitorial proceedings, producing a full record of deaths and securing public confidence—a requirement I strongly welcome. It also establishes an oversight board to provide strategic direction and scrutiny, but with a board drawn from within the organisation, the real test of its effectiveness will lie in the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead the commission in the first place.
Clauses 4 to 6 give the Secretary of State power to appoint commissioners, directors of investigation and judicial panel members. Even with the consultation requirements under clause 9, that concentration of powers risks undermining trust. Appointments through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission or a similar independent mechanism would surely strengthen public confidence. My concern is heightened as the Secretary of State also appoints the victims and survivors advisory group under clause 8. When one person controls both the commission’s leadership and its advisory body, independence is difficult to discern.
Turning to the fundamental issue of veterans protections under the Bill, those amount to the following. Unsolicited contact would be limited to official channels, which is clearly important. There will be an end to repeat investigations, but the undefined caveat of “unless it is essential to do so” leaves the scope unclear. Veterans will have the ability to seek anonymity, although a provision to that effect already exists under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. Veterans will have the right to give evidence remotely, but there will not be a default presumption to do so. Veterans’ welfare will have to be considered, which is at best vague, and veterans will be represented on the ministerial advisory group, which while welcome does not in itself offer protection.
Veterans are surely right in arguing that this is not enough. This has implications not just for them, but for our current service personnel and potential future recruits. As the nine four-star generals who wrote to The Times last week made clear, the provisions of the Bill have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
My family has served in the Army for many generations, including myself in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and indeed my son is serving now. We have seen and deeply admired the Army’s core values of courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Would my hon. Friend accept that the retired generals and the many serving friends of my son make an extremely pertinent point when they say that the Bill will negatively impact retention and recruitment in the British Army, and at a time when we are desperate to bolster our armed forces?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Mr Kohler resumes his speech, let me say that we must keep interventions short. Many Members wish to contribute.
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. The Bill will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly with respect to our special forces. That is why it must go further.
With more than 10% of the Lib Dem Benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks that veterans talk about and the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made. Our concern is fairness, not shielding wrongdoing.
Under this Bill, many veterans will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgment and scrutiny of sensitive personal data and service records. That concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. The actions of veterans were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. That results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is noteworthy that while the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State’s discretion over the handling of sensitive information, the Bill gives veterans no such safeguards.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The IRA’s campaign of terror against the British people was one of the darkest chapters in our history; the shields of Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry demonstrate that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the armed servicemen represented here today defended us, and it is the job of this Parliament to ensure that they are now defended?
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. We must never equate our armed forces with the paramilitaries and terrorists on both the nationalist and Unionist sides.
Veterans deserve assurances that their service rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately. That is why we call on the Government to come forward with binding statutory safeguards, including a clearer presumption against repeated investigations without objectively certified new and significant evidence; an expanded duty to consider operational context; strengthened welfare protections; and a presumption of remote participation.
It is important that the voices of not just veterans, but all victims and survivors are heard. Clause 8 does that by establishing a group to advise both the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State. However, its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its numbers limited to as few as three and no more than seven, which risks its voice being limited and its independence being compromised. By concentrating sweeping powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, the Bill risks creating an opaque system that offers little genuine parliamentary oversight or scrutiny.
As hon. Members are aware, there is already a Commission for Victims and Survivors, which has for almost two decades ensured that those most affected by the troubles are heard. There is a danger that the proposed victims and survivors ministerial advisory group, despite its separate function, might trespass into the existing forum’s domain, which, with its wide range of perspectives, including veterans from both Unionist and nationalist backgrounds and those who have served in the Crown forces, has the all-important cross-community legitimacy. Trust is so important.
Capturing that breadth and establishing that trust in the newly proposed and much smaller advisory group will be difficult. I therefore ask the Government to clarify how the new advisory group will interact with the existing forum. Will the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors have a formal role in the advisory group? Otherwise, how will the voices of veterans and former security personnel, who are both victims and key stakeholders, be heard?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and were then pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there deserve more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless “the duplication is essential”?
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. We must go further and do more for veterans. The Bill does not go far enough at this stage.
My party has always opposed the legacy Act, but we are clear that its replacement must address the legitimate concerns of veterans. As one can see from the joint statement issued last night by the veterans commissioners of the devolved nations, that is not currently the case. They have expressed concerns, which are shared on the Lib Dem Benches, that the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards for veterans, nor does it provide sufficient safeguards against lawfare, historical narrative revision or disparities between how ex-security personnel and others will be treated.
That is why my party has submitted a reasoned amendment, and will support the Conservative reasoned amendment, to deny Second Reading of the Bill until the fundamental issue of sufficient protection for veterans is addressed, along with enhanced parliamentary oversight, safeguarding of the independence of appointments, clarification on the role of the victims and survivors advisory group, and measures to ensure that no Government can use ministerial discretion to shut down the search for the truth. I realise that that will disappoint the Secretary of State, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party commends him for all his hard work in seeking to move on from the Tories’ failed legacy Act. Its successor, however, must command genuine confidence across all communities while ensuring our veterans’ peace of mind. I pledge on behalf of my party to do all we can to help him to achieve that goal.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
In December last year the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, launched an inquiry into the Government’s emerging plans. Since then, we have received nearly 80 pieces of written evidence; held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups; and heard twice from the Secretary of State—and I thank him for that. Importantly, we have visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from the people directly affected by the troubles. We met victims and survivors from all communities and none, hearing their concerns, their requests and, most movingly, their stories.
Because of the timing of the announcement of first the joint framework and then the Bill, we have been working apace to gather new evidence on the Government’s plans and have yet to consider and agree a report following our inquiry, but I hope we can do so shortly, and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. The points that I shall make in my speech are based on the evidence that my Select Committee has taken, but any conclusions I draw or recommendations I make about the Government’s proposals are my own.
One question that we consistently asked those to whom we spoke was, “Have the Government consulted you on their plans or proposals?” The answer from many was that they had felt listened to, but not heard. I know the Secretary of State’s response has always been to say, gently, “They will not know whether we have listened to them until they see our proposals,” but previous consultations—for example, the one on Stormont House—were much more comprehensive than this one. It now seems from many of the provisions in both the framework and the Bill that Ministers have indeed been listening, and I thank the Secretary of State for that. The fact remains, however, that if these proposals are to gain the confidence of as many communities as possible, including veterans, the Government will need to listen more, bring them along and enable them to take ownership of what is being put forward, and confidence will be key.
The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery has been unable to garner the kind of trust and authority across the communities that would enable it to carry out its work effectively. We have seen evidence of that, but it is no fault of the chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, or of any other senior commissioner or commission officer. We took evidence from ICRIR representatives in May and met them privately, and we became very aware of the professionalism, integrity and decency with which the commission has approached its work. Unfortunately, however, its roots in the legacy Act hampered it from the beginning. Some people thought that its investigations were too light-touch, while others thought that it was not doing, or able to do, enough to address potential conflicts of interest between investigators and their investigations. We heard that its investigations were rigorous and could lead to prosecutions, and that it was introducing its own robust conflict of interest policy, but we know how it is when trust is lacking: root-and-branch reform seems inevitable.
Many Committee members, including me, have been greatly moved by listening to the families we have met. I would personally urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the decision on the sensitivities and prejudice of documents held will be the decision of the Legacy Commission, and not that of the agencies who currently hold that information and need to pass it on.
In respect of case referrals, stakeholders have submitted supplementary evidence to us on many of the Government’s proposals. For example, the Government’s plan to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new Legacy Commission seems sensible, but there are potential changes that could be made to the definition of “close family member” which would make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life, and of the time that it has taken for some families to gain an investigation. As we know, trauma, and the search for truth, can be passed down the generations.
I have to skip a large part of my speech, but one of the things that I must address is resourcing. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand for its services—something that will only continue under the new commission. Given that it has greater responsibilities, including taking on coronial cases through its enhanced inquisitorial mechanism, its funding will need to be under continuous review. It is to be noted that the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others, which have new demands on their records, will also need to be considered.
I will draw my comments to a close. There is much to be commended in the Bill, but there is also much that still needs to be worked on. I look forward to bringing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s inquiry to a close.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This is a terrible Bill. Its central failing is that it will lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to the case of Soldier B and the judge’s dismissal of it as a “ludicrous” challenge funded by legal aid. I have known Soldier B for 30 years; I count him as a friend. He is tough and clever yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years and more, on what is effectively preparation for a murder charge, would have been unbelievably stressful. The point my hon. Friend made is that the process is the punishment: four years of stress and wear and tear.
In Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules, but in Northern Ireland the courts have sometimes interpreted those rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. To illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case that highlights what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances.
On 16 March 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving toward them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the mind of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. They made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death. It is a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, given that the soldiers could have been killed.
Today’s debate is actually about morality. It is about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The Government claim that today’s problems arise from legislation passed by the previous Government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts?
Labour, under Blair, effectively gave a de facto amnesty—maybe it is challengeable in law—to at least 650 terrorists, who had carried out more than 3,000 killings. Early release schemes, on-the-run letters and the royal prerogative of mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. It was secret because the Government knew that people would not accept it.
David Davis
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
People knew that the system would not be accepted, which is why Gerry Adams asked for an “invisible system” for dealing with on-the-runs. Why are they on the run? They are on the run because they are criminals, and this was a secret system to deal with it.
In contrast, 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, democracy and the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, whom we often forget in this. They acted as the direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised all communities in Northern Ireland. By the way, I mean “all communities”; remember that the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics to terrorise that community. Yet today those who upheld the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law received leniency, letters and legal shelter.
Let us not forget that the IRA are also protected by the fact that witnesses, or would-be witnesses, against them know that they risk murder if they turn up. I was in Omagh a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot—six times, I think—only a couple of years ago by the Real IRA, or the New IRA or whatever label they have today. Instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism. We should not treat them worse than the killers they defeated. This House must say, “Enough. Enough moral inversion, and enough rewarding of terror, while hounding those who defended the public.”
We are told that the Bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives, but when real leaders must choose between consensus and justice, they choose justice. This Bill must not rest on appeasement. The world watches while Britain chooses today. Its allies watch with concern, and its enemies with enthusiasm, as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer in future, and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Time is short, but I hope that we can consider why, as well as how, pain is to be addressed in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party approaches legacy from a basis that considers the rule of law, equality before the law, and the impact on reconciliation. We recognise that this is not a sterile debate, taking place only in this Chamber or in Committee Rooms, and it is not a knockabout for a headline or a tweet; it is a daily reality for many thousands of families. While the issue of legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland, shaping the tone of our politics, and affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing, and the ability of Government to deliver. This Bill is not perfect—legislation rarely is—but we cannot miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. This is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent and reconciled future.
It is positive that we are discussing a bilateral agreement between the Irish Government and the Government in London. This is a much-needed departure from the unilateralism pursued by the last Government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy Act, which was not only struck down by the courts, but rejected by every single party in the north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record. They exploited the fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working, while fighting and stalling the processes that were in place. The Conservative party’s approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities and, worse, wasted the time, the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors.
The joint framework allows both Governments to begin meeting their responsibilities for dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State and his officials. Although we will seek by amendment to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well-intentioned political oversight, I understand that people are working closely on this across the Irish sea, and that Dublin’s legislation will be published swiftly once this Bill has made its way through the House, so that its architecture is compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that these things be delivered in parallel, and right that it is a partnership. When people make lurid claims about what the Irish Government have or have not done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it, I can view that only as cynicism.
The SDLP does not pick and choose which victims we support. We do not pick and choose who we demand accountability from. Every death was a tragedy, and every murder was wrong. Publicly and privately, we will push Dublin, as we will push everyone else, on its obligations and its omissions from this framework, and on the Omagh inquiry. We will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism of those, including many on the Opposition side of this House, who attempt to draw an equivalence, from London, between the Government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement of paramilitaries.
From the early days of the conflict, victims have borne the most—including lacklustre investigations and the release of prisoners—and asked the least, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. To go far outwith the Good Friday agreement, they have had that compounded by an uneven transition for paramilitaries, on-the-run letters, decades of cynical memorialisation, and the immunity scheme that was in place under the previous Government.
Unlike others, the SDLP does not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of context, for military commanders and IRA commanders, violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice. Brushing all those crimes under the carpet, as the previous Government attempted to do, was also a choice.
The deaths of far too many innocent people were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth less, having been expended for a goal that could never have been achieved that way. That has never been properly acknowledged. The IRA has never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and it made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, and that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith that they were born into. They do not need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point. Likewise, the running of state agents by security forces was not a “necessary evil”; it was reckless and morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it, and those trying to pretend it did not happen.
Uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure in order to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. For many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claimed to defend.
Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on confidence in policing. There is no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there is not a pathway to justice, or even truth, for every family, but we have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years.
As for those who suffered loss, I hear daily their dignity, fortitude and the wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and heed those voices, and we should proceed with the Bill. I will finish with the words of a fine Ulster poet, John Hewitt:
“Bear in mind these dead:
I can find no plainer words.”
He asked us not to differentiate between people, depending on how they died, but to offer truth and justice for all of them.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). We do work with each other on these issues, although we do not always agree.
It is fair to say that our history is sorrowful. It is pitiful and painful, and grounded on a corruption of justice. While we listen to the politics and the back and forth between Labour and Conservative in this Chamber, we have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice: the release of prisoners, the litany of failures, and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our communities across society in Northern Ireland. The on-the-run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort; it was a royal prerogative of mercy, and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries. Only two weeks ago, a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office met 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party, was shot in 1981 in Aughnacloy by a member of the Provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland and Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and was arrested at the count. He was convicted for 20 years for the attempted murder of one of my colleagues. That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was brought into the political process.
The innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard the Government promise to repeal and replace, yet that is not what they are seeing. They have heard a promise to protect veterans; that is a mirage. There is no specific protection for veterans in this piece of legislation—none. Last week, when the Minister for Veterans was asked on the radio four times whether she could rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum, she could not. That the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to say that he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries from that advisory board is, I think, a shame, but shame runs throughout the legacy of our past, and Governments’ approach to it.
Does the Bill work for innocent victims? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people from across this Chamber—maybe even those on these Benches—pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true that some innocent victims want truth and to know what happened, but others want justice. They have not received it.
Does the Bill contain protections for veterans? No. Does the word “veteran” feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of the gaslighting and psychological torture of having their own beliefs, understanding and memory challenged and questioned to the point that they think they have got something wrong.
What about paramilitaries? Paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through. They will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour Government.
I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again his lamentable failure to support the commissioner for investigations, solely because he has a history in the RUC. What is the answer to that? The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. Even though the High Court has attested the independence of the commissioner for investigations and the ICRIR, the Secretary of State has decided at the behest of the Irish to create an equal position, for fear of contamination. That is outrageous. It is not legally sustainable or legally required, and it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and integrity of not only that individual, but all who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 302 of whom were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
We hear about protections for veterans, but what about those who served in the PSNI, or the RUC before them? What about those who served and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces? Where is their support, Secretary of State? It is not in this legislation. Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court, who paid its bills? It did. Retired police officers had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past and asserted “collusive behaviours”—a legal phraseology that does not exist. Those retired police officers have had to defend their honour by themselves, because no Government of any hue have stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, Secretary of State, and we should defend them.
The Secretary of State has sullied himself and this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic. I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic has cautioned against amendments to the legislation. The Irish Government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to mean that they would assist only in answering the question of what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity; they will not say what they could have done, yet for decades they harboured terrorists, refused extradition and supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Has the Secretary of State put them under any pressure? No, he has not. What legal obligation is there, if the Bill passes, to see that they adhere to the European convention on human rights? None.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.
The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.
I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.
Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan?
Colum Eastwood
I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.
A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day.
Jim Allister
Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?
Colum Eastwood
There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.
What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.
What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How many times do I have to remind colleagues about the use of “you” and “your”? There is not much time left.
Colum Eastwood
Why are those Members supporting people who, by their own admission, murdered innocent civilians—civilians who should be seen by anybody in this House as citizens of the United Kingdom? Everybody can see the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place many times. I know that many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well, there are lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and they are sick, sore and tired of this. If this legislation has any chance of giving people some truth and justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with the Bill. We have issues around the national security parts of it and around sensitive information, and we will table amendments in that regard in the process, but we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance, and all this—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the speech that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has just given, and the reason I welcome it is that he recognised correctly, fully and truthfully that almost all those who were victims in those terrible years of the troubles were UK citizens. They deserve the same recognition, respect and protection as any other citizen of the United Kingdom. One of the foundational reasons that I am a Unionist is that I believe that we are all equal on these islands—or rather, on that part of these islands.
I understand where we are, but we can look back a lot at history. We can look back a lot at what has got us to the position we are in, but if I may, I want to drag the Government’s eyes forward. The reality is that what we are doing here, in reopening and ending our own version of the South African truth and reconciliation committee—with all the problems, failures, lacunas and gaps that that necessarily has—is ending the opportunity to move on, with all the pain that that brings. We are reopening wounds that, sadly, we all know will never close.
I can look at the agreements that were made in the 1990s. I can speak about the deals that Tony Blair did, and like everybody here, I can be deeply critical about the injustices that he allowed, but I cannot then welcome the peace that he brought. I cannot welcome the peace if I am critical of the process that he and others needed to make it happen, so I am very cautious about those who would go back and criticise and call out. I understand the pain of so many, but if we want peace we have to move forward, and that is where this Bill is really difficult. It does not just affect the peace of these islands, important though that is; it also affects the peace of Europe and the wider world, because it is telling people across these islands that their service when they sign up will not be for five or 10 years, or whatever it says on the recruitment contract, but for as long as our enemies and those who seek to do us harm wish to bring prosecutions against us. I wrote about this for Policy Exchange in 2013 and again in 2015, in two papers: “The Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”.
The fundamental point is that we think this is about us. We in this Chamber have the idea that, somehow or other, the law, the justice system and what we shape and decide here is all about us, but I am afraid it is not. You do not need to take my word for it. Read the Mitrokhin archive. Read what the KGB was doing using instrumentalising. There were many honourable people in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but there were also some who were willing to co-operate with the KGB. Members should read what the KGB and its successor organisations have been trying to do around the world, using the law as a way of continuing actions against British forces and a way of disarming our forces before they get into conflict.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister—he and I have always got on very well, and I admire his dedication—but the tragedy is that, for all the well-meaning aspirations of this Government, and although he, the judges and inquiries have a responsibility to the past, the system that was set up had inquiries and an ability to find justice and the truth. Yes, it made a compromise that many of us did not like, and yes, it gave conditional immunity that many of us found pretty abhorrent, but it also gave the possibility of moving forward. It sent a message to our enemies that we would simply not tolerate our soldiers being dragged through the courts ad infinitum, because all that does is demonstrate weakness.
Let us look at the numbers. This country has a population of roughly 65 million people, and we have security forces numbering maybe 350,000. The equations and challenges are pretty clear. We also have enemies mustering at our gate, as we know very well. Our friends in countries such as Denmark and Sweden are reintroducing conscription, because they realise the threat from the east. Countries such as Poland are spending much more on defence than we do, because they know that Russia is a real threat. We will simply not be in position to stand with them and defend ourselves and our values if we are not willing to stand behind those who risked everything to serve our country.
I have fought on the frontline and know what the heat, dust, confusion and fear can be like. There is a difference between that and having to explain oneself in a courtroom 20 years later, when all we have is gossip and rumour—because nobody else was there, nobody else was telling the truth, nobody else witnessed the reality of the difficult decisions that were taken. All we are doing in holding lance corporals, corporals and commanders all the way through the process is abdicating our responsibility for choosing to send them.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I will keep my remarks brief, because many valued voices are yet to be heard in this debate. I welcome the Bill. Northern Ireland has a special place in my heart. It gave me my mum and treasured memories of time with family, and it will always feel part of me, but it also left the younger version of me with many questions, such as why kerbstones were painted red, white and blue in some places, and why the police had guns and their cars looked like tanks.
As I said after the Secretary of State’s statement last December,
“Nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 425.]
I have seen that progress at first hand. The streets of Belfast are a fundamentally different place compared not just with the stories my mum tells of her youth, but with what I remember from mine. However, progress is not finished and peace should never be taken for granted.
We must make sure that we get this right, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to build a clear, robust and fair system with which justice and closure can be sought. Creating a reformed Legacy Commission with strengthened governance, giving the Legacy Commission the powers that it needs so that answers can be provided to families— including those of servicemen and women—and taking a new approach to inquests and coronial cases will all help to provide answers that are sought and needed by grieving families.
However, we must also ensure that the system itself is not used as a weapon. I genuinely believe that, as a package, the Bill’s six measures to protect veterans should provide significant reassurance to those who served. There can be no equivalence drawn in this or any other process between those who served in our armed and security forces to protect life and promote security and stability, and terrorists, whether loyalist or republican.
The thing that was too often forgotten during the troubles were the ordinary people—those who found themselves caught in the middle and who, on too many occasions, lost their lives because of it. We must not forget them now. I thank those who served to protect people —our veterans, who found themselves in communities not too dissimilar from the ones they grew up in, having to do an immensely difficult job. I also thank those who saw that peace was the way forward. As we debate this Bill, it is incumbent on us all to remember where we have been and just how fragile progress can be. Let us get this right and provide justice for grieving families and protections for those who served.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I want to thank all the military servicemen and women who served on Operation Banner. It was not just the military. On every visit to a police station in Northern Ireland, I saw the long lists of officers who were lost. I pay tribute to members and family members of the RUC and to our security services, agents and staff. I also pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues past and present who served in Operation Banner.
I condemn utterly the mindless and needless violence of the IRA, who were, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois),
“one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 46WH.]
I also pay tribute to innocent victims of the troubles. The list of atrocities is long, and the IRA principally is responsible for the vast majority of them, along with loyalist paramilitary groups. Neighbours, sons, daughters, husbands—thousands of families were impacted in this smallest part of the United Kingdom.
Given that broader legislation on legacy has been so long awaited, it is important to emphasise the regulations I brought in as Secretary of State on behalf of the last Conservative Government on victims’ payments, which were the first stage of the legacy process. Many people have applied successfully for those payments, but I urge the Secretary of State to promote them to military and other victims and veterans, because I understand that many more people could apply for them. I also urge him to consider what could be put in place for the bereaved, using some of the principles that we adopted to exclude anybody who was injured by their own hand.
I would like to make a number of observations. I pay tribute to those on the shadow Front Bench for representing and standing up for our soldiers and for articulating the clear dangers of lawfare and the rewriting of history. Perhaps our party and this House should have listened earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when his inquiry presented the option of a statute of limitations, but that would have had to be done as part of a much bigger reconciliation process.
We need to be so careful, when debating the issue of amnesties, to recognise that these were often British citizens killed by the very limited number of armed forces who behaved badly. It was an amazing achievement for David Cameron to have his speech shown in the Museum of Bloody Sunday in Derry. He acknowledged through his tone the wrongs that were committed. They were limited, but they were committed, and we have to admit that that happened.
I urge the Secretary of State to look at further options during the passage of the Bill for strengthening protections for veterans. First, the noble Lord Caine has suggested amending the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 in order to deal with cases where a soldier thought they were acting in legitimate self-defence. Secondly, there are significantly larger volumes of legal aid paid out in Northern Ireland. Can that be looked at? The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised the roving mandate of many inquests. Can that be looked at, to focus those inquests that are coming back under this Bill?
On the commitments from Ireland, I worked very closely and positively with the Irish Government to restore Stormont in 2020 and in 2024, but I remain sceptical as to how far Ireland will go, or will be able to go, in the provision of information to families. Will the Irish Government really be able to open everything up on Omagh? We have to be frank that, given the political headwinds they face, there is limited incentive for them to do that. It would be useful to understand what commitments have been made. We also need to be honest about our security services; there are going to be limits to what they can release—we have to be honest with families about that.
There are various statutory commitments in the Bill, but none on funding. The Omagh inquiry will cost about £15 million, and Finucane about £20 million. There is a risk that day-to-day policing in Northern Ireland loses out in the absence of that funding. On memorialisation and reconciliation, the clauses from the previous legislation remain. Again, who will pay for this, and how will the impossible task of getting consent on these matters be achieved?
I know that many families in Northern Ireland and beyond still want answers, and will hope that they can get them through this Bill. The lack of closure for so many leaves the next generation taking on the baton of grief and grievance. The issue for them is that time has not healed matters, nor has it lessened their pain. I hope that they can be front of mind as the Bill is debated here and in the other place in the weeks and months ahead. I think of the many individuals and families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today, and I hope, in what is probably going to be the last piece of legacy legislation, that we can all bear those families and individuals in mind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Speaking limits have dropped to five minutes because too many Members want to contribute. I am doing my best to get everybody in.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for his thoughtful contribution?
Ever since the Northern Ireland legacy Bill was introduced by the previous Government in 2019, thousands of innocent victims’ families have waited to see this day. Of the many reckless things the Conservatives did to our relationship with Northern Ireland in their 14 years in government, I struggle to think of a more egregious example than that legislation. It was a direct attack on the Good Friday agreement, it undermined accountability and the rule of law, and it has caused significant pain to thousands of victims’ families. Indeed, in the bringing forward of that Bill, there was no consultation with any victims’ groups or families. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the South African truth and reconciliation commission, but a key difference is that that commission put families’ and victims’ voices at its centre.
For people across Northern Ireland, the legacy of the troubles is not a chapter in history, but something carried in every family and community to the present day. I know this from my own family. I am a relative of Father Hugh Mullan, one of 11 innocent victims of the Ballymurphy massacre, which took place in 1971—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. Hugh was a Catholic priest, and was trying to help another victim and offer the last rites when he was shot and killed unlawfully by a member of the Parachute Regiment. He was shot first in the abdomen, and then again in the back as he lay on the ground.
What is often missed in discussions of troubles-related cases is that what followed often compounded families’ grief. Hugh was labelled as a gunrunner, and there were attempts to smear him that could not have been further from the truth, but it would take 50 years for the words “entirely innocent” to appear on public record in a ruling by Mrs Justice Keegan.
I have had the pleasure of working with victims’ groups right across Northern Ireland, on a cross-community basis, and I want to remark on the words of Sandra Peake, the chief executive officer of the Wave Trauma Centre, a fantastic cross-community charity. Sandra said:
“Whatever the previous Government’s intention the result would have been that terrorists who carried out the most egregious crimes imaginable would be able to walk free if they told their story to ‘the best of their knowledge and belief’. They could say that they stabbed John Molloy, an 18 year old, in a frenzied attack, leaving him to bleed to death yards from his home because he was a Catholic. And the state would say, “Thank you and we’ll say no more about it”. A witness saw them laughing and dancing down the road after they murdered John. Thanks to the Legacy Act, they would still be laughing and dancing. What John’s parents, Linda and Pat, were being told”—
by the previous Government—
“was that they should grieve in private while the evil perpetrators could celebrate in public. And this in the name of ‘reconciliation’.”
I have met many victims’ families, and they are some of the best people I have met. In the face of unimaginable trauma, they have led campaigns for justice with immense courage and dignity. They are motivated not by revenge or retribution, but by their love for their relatives and their determination to secure truth and justice. The legacy Act introduced by the last Government denied them all those things, and did so without consulting them.
I will finish with the words of Michael O’Hare, brother to 12-year old Majella, who was shot by a solider in south Armagh on her way to church one morning in 1976. I am pleased to see Michael in the Gallery today. He has said:
“This is an important day for families like ours, who thought we’d seen the door closed forever on these cases. Majella was just an innocent little girl who didn’t deserve to be gunned down when walking along the road with her friends. We deserve truth and accountability. It’s a huge relief that that is now a possibility again, even if we’ve had to wait half a century. It’s never too late to do the right thing”.
Today is about doing the right thing. It is a step forward, and I thank the Secretary of State for all his work, as well as every victims’ group that has been part of bringing forward this Bill.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
“For your tomorrow, we gave our today”, would have been the phrase that many in this House stood for in honour, sombre, last Remembrance Sunday, as we stood across this country, remembering those who served and those who sacrificed. When I stood at those memorials in South Antrim, at Ballyclare and Antrim and Crumlin, and I saw wreaths laid for the members of the UDR, the RUC and the home battalions, it brought home why, when we talk about veterans in this place, we must also reflect and respect those veterans from Northern Ireland who did not return to home or to barracks in England, Scotland or Wales, but who every night returned to their own homes, having defended their neighbours, their loved ones, their families and workmates.
With regards to the victims have been mentioned, I note that the Secretary of State listed a number of atrocities but he did not mention Teebane, when 14 construction workers who were returning home from Omagh were blown up because the IRA considered them targets. They were working on a military base, and therefore the IRA described them as collaborating with forces of occupation. Our veterans and innocent victims are still waiting for their tomorrow, and they suffer, reflect, and carry the scars and pains of the 30-year terrorism campaign that was delivered on the doors and workplaces of their neighbours.
What is challenging about this, then? The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), mentioned that the trust and involvement of the Irish Government in this process is particularly challenging and galling. The Belfast agreement has been mentioned a number of times. I do look with honour and respect at what my party delivered in bringing forward that peace process, but it was delivered in three strands: a Northern Ireland only basis, a north-south basis and an east-west basis. I have asked the Secretary of State this question before and I will do so again now: where does legacy sit within those three strands?
It seems now that the Secretary of State is abdicating, and that he is working in parallel with the Irish Government to bring this forward. He stood on 19 September beside the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who told the media afterwards that there would be no specific protections for veterans—and, as we have seen, there are no specific protections for veterans in the Bill. The example that has been used once again is that veterans will not have to go to Northern Ireland to give evidence. Tell that to a Northern Ireland veteran! What protection—what special coverage—are this Government actually giving those men and women who served over there?
Yesterday, after the British-Irish intergovernmental conference, the Irish Government insisted that the legislation must remain “true” to the framework that had been agreed. So where are the amendments that will come from this place, and from the elected representatives of the United Kingdom? We will look for those amendments that are necessary to the Bill—I look for support across the House—and we will look for the definition of an innocent victim; we will have the opportunity to clarify that those responsible for the planning or implementation of an unlawful conflict or related incident are not included. Crimes that trigger an investigation must include sexual crimes as well, as we should not underestimate the use and deployment of sexual crime by terrorists and terrorist organisations to influence and control the population of Northern Ireland.
As has been raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), what powers with the second director of investigations have, and why? Those powers will be in the gift and patronage of this Secretary of State, and they will include the power to appoint a constable. If that second director of investigations is from outside the United Kingdom, not only will they have access to all the information and detailed records that our military and police services hold, but they will be able to appoint someone with the powers of a constable.
There is no special reference to a veteran being on the victims and survivors advisory group. Where is the place for the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner or the commissioner for victims and survivors in regards to who may be appointed—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Bill, particularly its reversal of aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and its effort to restore human rights compliance and public confidence. It resolves court-identified incompatibilities and makes changes to legacy cases. Alongside the remedial order, it removes immunity from prosecution, restores civil actions for troubles-related conduct, and reinstates some inquests. Other matters will be handled through the legacy commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, enabling family participation and appropriate handling of sensitive information. These measures acknowledge that previous approaches caused deep harm and were, in many respects, unlawful.
However, as with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and the Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families, it is vital that this legislation gains the confidence of those affected in the north of Ireland. Amnesty International notes progress but also remaining concerns. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which limits police ombudsman investigations, is only partly addressed. Will the Minister say how incompatibilities with the ECHR, highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, will be resolved?
The Bill also retains the national security veto, giving the Secretary of State sole authority over sensitive disclosures. That risks undermining compliance and public trust, especially where state wrongdoing may be implicated. The family of Sean Brown, who was abducted and murdered in 1997, have long sought an independent public inquiry, and the Taoiseach called for such an inquiry this year. The PSNI has apologised for failings in the original investigation. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will commit to a fully independent inquiry into Mr Brown’s death, and that the proposed veto powers will not prevent it?
Given the legacy of mistrust, why do disclosure decisions remain solely in the Secretary of State’s authority? Will the Government consider an independent mechanism to balance national security with public confidence in legacy commission investigations? Although the Bill narrows the definition of sensitive information and introduces a public interest test, only the commission can appeal disclosure refusals, and only judicial review principles—not merits review—apply. Families’ rights to truth under articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR therefore remain vulnerable. Outstanding cases, such as that of Sean Brown, highlight the need for full, independent investigations. Courts have confirmed that an article 2 inquiry is required, yet none has been convened.
Concerns also remain about universal protections. Veterans appear singled out, potentially undermining fairness. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the Bill will ensure that protections apply equally, and that no group is seen as prioritised over victims and families? Additionally, the Bill states that human rights are to be “respected”, rather than imposing a binding obligation. Clearer language would strengthen accountability and reassure the public that all bodies must comply fully with the ECHR. Will the Government make that explicit? Finally, independence in appointments, particularly of judicial panel members, is essential. The Secretary of State’s broad appointment and resignation powers risk perceptions of political influence. Strong safeguards are needed to maintain trust.
In conclusion, although the Bill and the remedial order mark progress, significant issues with disclosure, independence, inquiries and universal protections remain. I urge the Minister to clarify how the Bill will rebuild trust and ensure fairness, transparency, and full human rights compliance for victims and families.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
We rely on British soldiers to keep our country safe—they put their lives on the line to defend our country, putting themselves in harm’s way to do so. However, a shadow hangs over our armed forces today, which is this Bill. As a member of the Petitions Committee, back in July I had the privilege of opening the debate on the petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution. It was inspirational to see so many veterans come to Parliament for that debate. Again, here today in Parliament Square and in the Gallery, we see veterans gathered in opposition to this dreadful piece of legislation.
By the time the petition closed, it had over 200,000 signatures. I had the honour of meeting the creator of the petition, Ian Liles, who spent 36 years in the Army, including 13 in Northern Ireland. It was his palpable anger at this Bill that caused him to start the petition. The decision of this Labour Government to repeal the legacy Act is one that will shame our country for generations to come. No matter what the Secretary of State has said, this Bill means one thing: veterans face being dragged through the courts in politically motivated witch hunts. In fact, the Prime Minister’s own Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said that this is “immoral”, that it is “two-tier justice”, and that it will lead to “vexatious lawfare” against former soldiers. I was struck by the comments of Lieutenant General Nicholas Pope, who was forced to correct the Secretary of State for claiming that he supported the Bill.
This Bill sets a dangerous historical precedent, too. Are we really saying that if the Government today sent our troops to Ukraine—or to any other country, for that matter—they could be held to account in years to come for simply following instructions given to them by the Government of the day? If that is the case, why would anyone choose to serve our country again? Decades on, people sit and judge events in retrospect with little new evidence, and come to conclusions that are entirely at odds with the legal investigations carried out at the time.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is a coastal constituency with a strong forces tradition. Many of my constituents served in Northern Ireland and are now terrified of being pulled into a process that continues with no end. Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe those veterans a process that is fair, proportionate and final?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent pint. It is the fear—the prospect of being dragged through that process—that is causing so much anxiety. I suspect that is why so many veterans are so strongly opposed to this Bill.
We should also be clear about the difference between the actions of soldiers and those of terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent—to use violence to attack our democracy and our nation. Soldiers do not; they put themselves in harm’s way to keep people safe and protect our nation. The difference is the intent. Soldiers serving our country, whether in Northern Ireland or in any other conflict, are forced to make instant, life-or-death decisions. They are not lawyers sat behind a desk, able to gather a team and spend days deciding whether or not to act. The legacy Act was by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts.
There are nearly 2 million veterans across our country, and the sad truth is that many feel their service is no longer respected. Veterans are only demanding protection for following orders from high command, and from vexatious, politically charged lawsuits. Our armed forces are made up of extraordinary men and women who keep us safe—who go on difficult missions in dangerous and challenging places. We must defend those who defended us, which is why I oppose this Bill so strongly.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Kilsyth war memorial bears the names of the men of the town who lost their life in foreign wars—men whose service we recognise and remember every year on VE Day, VJ Day and Remembrance Sunday. On one face of that memorial sits a single, solitary name—a name set apart. The difference between that name and the others is stark. This son of Kilsyth also lost his life in the service of his country, but in his case he was killed by the Provisional IRA. In a town where his family still live and where his school friends are marking their significant birthdays, his name on that memorial is a reminder that his life, and the ultimate sacrifice that he made, will not be forgotten.
Just 2 miles down the road live another family. They, too, lost a loved one—a cousin, killed in an ambush by loyalist paramilitaries in the ’90s. I have known about the military deaths for a long time. They were one of the first things that I found out about as I became a candidate. I discovered the other one when we met families as part of a Select Committee visit to Belfast. One of the family members we met said, “I know your area. I spent summers there. My cousin lives in Kirkintilloch.” It reminded me of exactly how strong the links are between my part of the world and Ireland.
With a name like mine, I should recognise that there is a strong connection, but we are completely intertwined. It means that we know those families who lost loved ones during the troubles. We know the lack of answers that they have had, and the grief that still endures and is still raw. In the Select Committee inquiry, it did not matter who we spoke to among victims, survivors and families, because the message was the same. They told us about their loved ones and the brutal ways in which their lives had been taken, and they told us again and again that they wanted legislation that respected them, treated them with dignity and took them seriously. They wanted answers, and the previous Government’s legacy Act did not deliver that. It rode roughshod over the wishes of families, victims and survivors. It made promises to the armed forces that it could never deliver, and the mechanism that it created, despite the intentions of all the people working within it, inspired little confidence that families would be treated with the dignity and seriousness that they deserved.
I welcome this Bill, because it puts families at its heart. It recognises that the victims and survivors are the people this legislation must serve. It recognises that members of the security forces are also victims and survivors. It builds into the process the need to reflect and to stay engaged with those families. Across the board, those experiences have not necessarily been good. Where there have been inquests, they have been nothing more than tick-box exercises. They spoke to us, and we heard of anger, frustration and despair. It was the first time we had heard those stories, but it was not the first time that they had told them, because they have been saying it for decades upon decades in the hope of change. I thank every single one of them for sharing those stories with us.
The other part of this legislation that commends it is the fact that it recognises that if Scotland is a village, Northern Ireland is an even smaller one, and everybody is interrelated. The Bill builds on the best aspects of Operation Kenova, which is one of the big strengths in making it work. Like any piece of legislation, the Bill is not perfect, but it is a necessary and long-overdue step in the right direction. For the sake of those victims, survivors and families, we cannot afford to get it wrong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to support the Opposition Front Bench in their concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out. First, the Bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones. It essentially means that they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing or even asked to give evidence. Secondly, Labour’s protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the Irish Government have denied that they exist at all. It remains unclear how they will work in practice to protect veterans, and the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris has said that no additional protections will be given to veterans, so there is a conflict between the two parties to the agreement.
Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the protections for veterans in the new legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked the Secretary of State that question at the Dispatch Box, and he never answered it. I would be grateful if at some point he, or the Minister when he gets up, would say whether the protections extend to both sides.
The main point that I want to make, having served in Northern Ireland, is how quickly people forget what a peculiar and terrible event it was—so peculiar to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom with British citizens all around them, having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom. It seemed almost outrageous, but that was what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and those were very tough to follow at times because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around any corner. You never knew when you went to a house whether someone would be sniping or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and on the alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background in which that happened.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The right hon. Member makes an important distinction about the manner in which we deployed our soldiers. What he has described is a policing action, and there are very different requirements for delivering scrutiny. Is he not incredulous that other Members of his party are conflating that with the concern that we would put those requirements on future veterans, who would be fighting a conflict where we hope they would be acting forwards in a way that is entirely different from what he described?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will not follow the hon. Member down that road, because I have limited time and there is something I want to reflect on, but the reality is that many people and veterans believe that this will be a problem for future recruits.
I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the legislation passed by the previous Government because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded in the final analysis by one particular case. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine. I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we would ever find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland. We have had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured and that he was executed, but we never get to know. His parents died not knowing and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Is it true that he was cut up? That somehow spread, and nobody wants to own up to it.
It struck me that for as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for it, we would never know or get closure. I was persuaded on those grounds that it was time to shift from the way we were behaving—the way we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. As Soldier F even now tells us, it is unlikely that we will achieve what everyone here keeps talking about as justice. What we will achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of it. It struck me that the only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, have those cases explained and get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened and why. Therefore, they would at least have closure through having knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.
I wish we knew where Robert Nairac lies, if he lies anywhere at all. I wish his family knew. Many other soldiers and civilians are in those circumstances too. The terrorism and brutality of the IRA was appalling, yet we are still arguing about it even today.
Let me take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit’s funeral. I remember when he watched the person who set the bomb and blew up the Grand in Brighton walk free. I remember him saying to me afterwards, “It was the worst moment in my life—I went through all of this and I had injuries. This man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland, but my wife will never be free, because she is immobilised for the rest of her life, and I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds in the bombing.” For his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, as horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made.
Let me simply say that the attacks on the previous legislation forget that it was about trying to get truth and reconciliation, and about learning from other countries such as South Africa. As difficult and problematic as this issue is, there are major faults in this legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and that he will accept many of them.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Just over 20 years ago, in my red Vauxhall Corsa, I rounded the bend at the bottom of the Woodstock Road in Belfast and drove straight into a pregnant pause in the middle of a riot. To my left was a baying mob of young east Belfast men, and to my right was a baying mob of young men from the Short Strand. They were being kept apart by a British Army unit gathered around a group of armoured Land Rovers.
As I buzzed my window down, I heard a crunch as my tires passed over the bricks and debris. The worry must have been written across my face. The pause in that moment was pregnant in more ways than one—above all because of my heavily pregnant wife sitting next to me in the passenger seat. She was managing her contractions with breathing exercises as I told the nearest soldier of our need to get to the hospital on the other side of town and, crucially, on the other side of the road.
In that brief moment of relative calm, the soldier made a split-second decision and waved us through; I did not need further invitation. Before long, we were safe in the maternity wing of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Later that day, our first child—our daughter—was born, and we have called her our Belle of Belfast city ever since. I will always be thankful for that soldier’s decision, but even more thankful that he and his colleagues were there that day to keep us safe in the first place.
I had moved to Belfast four years earlier to begin my first proper job, running the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s first ever youth peace and reconciliation programme. It was a new job, in a new city, in what seemed like a new Northern Ireland, just three years after the Good Friday agreement. It was a hopeful time; there was an appetite from the vast majority of the population to enter a new and peaceful era for that wee country.
There was also a realisation that the horrors of the troubles had to be processed and dealt with by the individuals directly impacted, but also by Northern Irish society as a whole. Yet here we are, 20 years on from that moment, still talking about making a serious start on dealing with the legacy of the troubles.
I can say with confidence that the legacy Act did not do that; it did not help with that legacy. For example, it meant that 200 military families were left in limbo, unable to pursue the truth of what happened to their loved ones. They were families like that of Mo Norton, whose brother Terence Griffin was killed in the M62 bus bombing in 1974. She said:
“That morning, everything changed. Twelve lives were lost, including children. Our family was shattered. There was no warning, no chance to say goodbye. Just silence, and then years of unanswered questions. I need to know that Terence’s death has been fully investigated, I don’t think it has been properly investigated in the past.”
Honourable soldiers follow the law and are glad to do so. That is what made my grandpa a good soldier, and it is what gives the British armed forces their outstanding reputation.
As strange as it may sound, I am pleased that we are debating the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Today represents the possibility of a huge step forward. I believe in the bonds of these islands that we share—that is why I am a Unionist—but our relationship with the Republic of Ireland matters deeply. The joint framework of the Irish and UK Governments states:
“The Governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole”.
I welcome that, but the challenge is that we need to hold on to reconciliation. Reconciliation is mentioned only once in the Bill, but we must hold on to the principle. Reconciliation is obviously hard.
No one in Northern Ireland came out of the troubles completely untouched, and the pain can twist down the generations. Truth alone is not enough for a community to reconcile. There must be trust and a resetting of our relationships, and that does not happen without acknowledgement, without memorialisation and even, in some cases, without repentance. We need community spaces, moments and symbols that do that. We know that no one can make anyone else reconcile, and a Government certainly cannot. At the same time, however, Governments have the resources, the convening power and the cross-cutting responsibilities to empower and enable those moments, spaces and symbols that can foster social reconciliation. We saw that at the time of the late Queen’s visit to Dublin castle.
I welcome that commitment, but we need more detail, and we need it more quickly. We need commitments from the other parties to this conflict, about whom we have not talked enough today—specifically the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, and all other militant and terrorist groups. They need to make those commitments, and acknowledge what they did.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for this welcome legislation, which seeks truth. I simply urge him to think creatively and ambitiously about how the Government can now help to turn truth into genuine reconciliation and hope for Northern Ireland’s future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I have the honour of being, in 107 years of the Royal Air Force police, the first of its veterans to be elected to this House.
Our armed forces are revered worldwide because they train for and execute one thing to a higher standard than anyone else, namely the moral component—discipline, and the will to fight. Without those two principles, an effective fighting force descends into what we see from the Russian military in Ukraine: the extrajudicial killing of civilians; soldiers motivated not by an objective, but by fear of their own colleagues and commanders; and the routine humiliation, torture and murder of their colleagues.
We must hold our armed forces to a higher standard than our adversaries, because they are better than those adversaries. They must be expected to act within the law. When they act outside the law but in good faith, they must be defended, in recognition of the unique pressures under which they operate. If there were no consequences for breaking the law while in uniform, no longer would we pledge to protect our own troops from the retribution of their own commanders, from illegal orders or poor leadership, whether in Northern Ireland or Afghanistan. No longer would we stand by our statement before the world, in Nuremberg 80 years ago, that “just following orders” did not excuse war crimes.
Private Bryan Soden from Tewkesbury was only 20 years old when he lost his life, on his third deployment to Northern Ireland. Like so many others, he was murdered in an ambush by cowardly paramilitaries. Those who bravely served in Northern Ireland did so under the constant threat of an enemy, often disguised as a civilian, lurking and awaiting an opportunity to kill them. Our Northern Ireland veterans should be in no doubt that this country will continue to distinguish their noble service from the deceitful and inhumane paramilitary terrorism that they stood and fought against. To do that, we cannot allow the IRA to be the barometer. We cannot resolve to hold our troops to the same standard to which they hold their terrorists. To do so would not only legitimise terrorism, but sell out those who conducted themselves with honour.
Those Conservative Members who, last week, hijacked a debate about remembrance to score political points about this Bill neglected to recognise that we are here only because their Northern Ireland troubles Bill was a hash, and satisfied none of the parties to whom it applied. Some of those who spoke in that debate referred to a letter printed in The Times the day before Armistice Day, written by eight retired generals and one retired air chief marshal under whom I taught the law of armed conflict to RAF recruits. The signatories asserted that the Northern Ireland Bill “tears up” our contract with our personnel, and that
“Today every…member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”
The letter paints an emotive image, but it is misleading. I served for 23 years, and from the very beginning, and every year thereafter, I was reminded that I had to act within the law, and that if I acted outside the law but in good faith, I would be protected by the law.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In the months in which I was the Northern Ireland spokesperson for my party, I engaged with lots of veterans’ groups. Their members told me that they were very keen for this legislation to recognise that they went to Northern Ireland, as service personnel, to restore the rule of law. They recognise that they should be subject to the possibility of prosecution, but prosecution should never turn into persecution. How does my hon. Friend reconcile those points with the issues that he is raising?
Cameron Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and he is absolutely right. We went to Northern Ireland to secure peace against terrorists, and the law should always recognise the difference between the actions of our soldiers and those of the terrorists they stood against. I always knew that I had to act within the law, but that if I broke the law in good faith, I would be protected by that law. Those who signed the letter may think that the Bill undermines that contract, but they have declined to clearly identify what part of the Bill does that, and I cannot find it. If this wider debate is about supporting our veterans and our armed forces, Members will find an ally in me, but if what they really seek to do is absolve personnel of responsibility for alleged war crimes, including those against United Kingdom citizens, then let them say so aloud.
Although I recognise the shortcomings of the legislation that preceded the Bill, the worst that I can say about this Bill is that the Government do not have the support of the Veterans Commissioners. Can the Minister clarify which, if any, veterans’ groups have approved the Bill? Furthermore, by opting to go with convention, rather than taking this Bill to a full Public Bill Committee, the Government have declined an opportunity for full, line-by-line parliamentary oversight and cross-party collaboration. Fiat justitia.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I come to today’s debate, as many Members on both sides of the House do, as someone who was proud to serve my country and who has the utmost respect for those Members who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. For me, this debate is complex, but at its heart are two simple questions: how do we respond to trauma, and how do we uphold accountability? The wounds of the troubles are still raw. I saw that earlier this year, when I visited Northern Ireland and went to the WAVE trauma centre. I met people who are still experiencing trauma, and I met victims of the troubles whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time—people who lost parents, people who lost limbs, and people whose lives were irreversibly changed by violence in which they took no part. I met Alex Bunting, a taxi driver who was going about his day when a sudden explosion tore his vehicle apart and severed his left leg in 1991. The question of who was responsible for the attack was never solved, but it was assumed to be an IRA operation that struck the wrong target.
I also met Kathleen Gillespie, who was held hostage by the IRA with her children while her husband Patsy was chained to a cab and forced to drive a lorry at an Army checkpoint; he and five young soldiers were killed. Patsy was used by the IRA as a human bomb. Kathleen was angry with the last Government, because she felt that his barbaric death was treated like it never happened under their legacy Act.
Alex deserves answers, Kathleen deserves answers, and both deserve accountability. So do many others, not only in Belfast but here in Britain. Families in the west midlands are still seeking answers after the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, which took 21 young, innocent lives. Half a century on, the families’ trauma remains, and they still wait for justice. That is why accountability matters—accountability for the terrorists, including the IRA, who carried out the overwhelming majority of killings, but also accountability for our armed forces when standards were not upheld.
However, the Conservatives’ legacy Act of 2023 undermined every route for accountability. Most gravely, it created a system of conditional immunity for members of the IRA—effectively a blanket amnesty for anyone who was willing to co-operate with the commission. That is not justice; it places terrorists and those who served our country on the same moral footing. Families were rightly appalled. Audrey, whose brother Private Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA in 1971, said:
“We always had a very slim hope of getting justice, but…this amnesty has let us and other families down. Our Government has let us down badly.”
Victims of IRA terrorism, and victims of state wrongdoing, deserve the opportunity for accountability. No veteran should be dragged repeatedly through processes dealing with the same matter. That is why the new protections in this Bill are so important. They mark a genuine improvement, and put veterans’ welfare first. They are important, sensible and overdue protections for our veterans, who overwhelmingly served with honour and distinction. This legislation seeks to fix the grave failings of the Conservatives’ discredited legacy Act of 2023. It helps victims to pursue justice, it restores the chance of accountability for terrorist crimes, and it provides stronger, fairer protections for veterans than anything in the previous Government’s approach.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
At the outset, let me restate unequivocally that we DUP Members will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will stand with the families whose loved ones were cut down by a ruthless and bloody terrorist campaign. Their pain has not diminished, and neither will our determination to defend truth, justice and moral clarity.
We continue to hear attempts to justify or sanitise and romanticise terrorism. We hear repeatedly from Sinn Féin’s leadership, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all and Mary Lou McDonald, that there was somehow no alternative to the IRA’s barbaric campaign of violence, and that it was justified. Justified? That is an affront to every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. There was always an alternative to murder; there was always an alternative to placing bombs under cars; and there was always an alternative to shooting innocent men, women and children.
I want to take the House back to two significant events in 1987: the IRA bombing of the service of remembrance at the cenotaph in Enniskillen, killing 12 people and injuring at least 60 more; and the Special Air Service’s engagement of heavily armed terrorists in Loughgall in my constituency. Which one of these incidents do Members think was granted a public inquiry? It was not the murder of innocents and the injuring of many more. Instead an inquiry was granted into the heavily armed terror gang, which was rightly engaged with and eliminated by the security forces, who saved countless lives in the process. Such is the subversion of the legacy process in Northern Ireland that the murder of innocents at Enniskillen has never had a public inquiry.
In recent times, the Secretary of State visited Loughgall and heard directly from innocent victims of the IRA’s East Tyrone brigade, one of the most brutal, ruthless killing wings of the IRA. He spoke with two men whose families endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of some of the IRA’s most notorious killers, and their testimonies were powerful and deeply moving. The East Tyrone brigade were not freedom fighters, but a heavily armed terror unit. Having already killed hundreds of innocent people, they mounted a killing operation at Loughgall, intending to obliterate any RUC officer in that station. They never paused in their murderous intent. They did not stop to give any officer an opportunity to walk away. Terrorism must never be sanitised or justified. Those who defended the innocent must never be sacrificed to appease those who glorify violence.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s promises to the House mean that the Bill would enable some of those people and their supporters to be included on the victims advisory group? Indeed, if the Secretary of State consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance party, she would say that they should be included, because they are just as much innocent victims as the people whom they killed.
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. That was a point well made.
This Bill speaks of inquests, and we firmly believe that every family deserves a full and fair investigation, but Loughgall—really? Not only has that event been before the European Court of Human Rights, where the UK was found to be justified, but there is to be a second inquest. How does that make innocent victims feel? There must be no more vexatious pursuit of the security forces, and this Bill does not protect them. Only 10% of troubles-related deaths were caused by the security forces, and almost all of those occurred in engagements with terrorists, yet the narrative we hear is deliberately inverted. There is no comparison—none—between terrorists and those who stood as a human shield in their path. The SAS soldiers who served in Loughgall deserve this Government’s full support.
The Government have allowed the Irish Government an entirely disproportionate role in shaping legacy, while innocent victims in Northern Ireland feel sidelined. Let us be very clear: the Irish state has its own legacy—a dark, uncomfortable legacy—that it has yet to confront with honesty or transparency. That same state’s own tribunal, the Smithwick tribunal, found collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the IRA on the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. Those two senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were ambushed and executed after information was passed by the Irish police to terrorists. It was the same with Ian Sproule, the 23-year-old from Castlederg. These are not isolated incidents. Across border areas, families have credible concerns about the Irish state’s failures—failures to arrest, to extradite, and to share intelligence, and failures that allowed terrorists to flee across the border and live openly.
We will stand with every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. We will stand with the RUC, with the Ulster Defence Regiment, with our veterans, and with the SAS. Terrorism was wrong. It was never justified, and it cannot be sanitised.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take you back to a Saturday in March 1993. I was getting ready to leave the house to get on a little blue Sprinter bus that stopped outside. It would take me into town. I was meeting friends there for a couple of hours. I had probably told my Mum that I needed to buy a Mother’s Day card, or something like that. The next day, I planned to walk my Border Collie, Gem, and maybe play some games on my computer. I would normally have been playing football on the Sunday, but we were shortly moving house and city, so I had stopped playing.
Just as I was about to leave the house, my mum told me I was not going. I was 11 years old and utterly indignant; the rage was ready to go. An emergency news bulletin was on the TV—rare then, but almost unheard of now—and the newsreader said that a bomb had exploded in the town centre. I was not going anywhere. Later news bulletins said that the IRA had carried out a bombing; they had also detonated a bomb at an industrial site in the town a few weeks before. There was no social media, and not really much more information, or even rumours. The news that night indicated deaths and multiple casualties. The town centre was closed off.
The next day felt strange, but not overly so. I had grown up on an RAF base, so I was very used to the threat of IRA bombings. I was used to checking the car, and I was aware of the kind of language being used on the news. The next day, I went out, as I had planned to walk Gem in the park—a huge park with football fields. I saw someone—I think it was Gary, who I used to play football with—and asked him why the team was not playing that day. He said the game was cancelled because one of the boys in our team had been critically injured in the bomb attack and was in hospital. That unnamed boy was in fact my friend, Tim Parry, and he was in intensive care, having suffered life-threatening injuries on Saturday 20 March, the day before Mother’s Day. I grabbed Gem’s lead and ran home, flushed—not crying; not even sad. I was an 11-year-old boy who just did not know how to respond. I was totally overwhelmed and did not know what to think. I crashed through the front door. While I was out, my mum had a phone call from a friend, telling her what had happened. I did not feel anything; I was numb. I do not remember anything of my reaction or anyone else’s.
With the hindsight of 32 years, I realise that the news five days later, on 25 March, was inevitable. Tim died after his life support machine was turned off. Another young boy, three-year-old Jonathan Ball, had died at the scene of the bombing. I missed Tim’s funeral—something I regret to this day. I was back with family in Scotland.
I do not know what happened in Warrington in 1993, other than that someone I was friends with and played football with every week had been killed. Since that day in Warrington, I have tried to understand. At university, I studied the politics of violence. I completed my dissertation on the politics of paramilitaries. I worked in Northern Ireland, where I had to meet and shake the hands of some of the people from the IRA who were ultimately responsible for the deaths of both Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball.
Prior to giving this speech, I messaged Colin Parry, Tim’s dad, whom I remember as being one of many parents shouting support from the sidelines during football matches. I wanted him to know that I still think about that day, and I still want answers. I do not seek revenge, and I do not think the Parry family ever expect to get justice, but I do want answers, and so do hundreds of others who have lost family, friends and loved ones as a result of horrific violence in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill can deliver the information and the truth that those people deserve—those innocent victims who, like Colin and Wendy Parry, still live with the pain and injustice of what they have endured for so many decades. I believe that everything should be tried. If this legislation is an attempt to help even one person, then it should be considered more than a worthwhile effort.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I would like to acknowledge all the brave veterans here today and to thank them for their service to this country.
I grew up during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland in a deeply patriotic household with a father who served in the British Army. I remember watching the news when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten in 1979 and the effect it had on my father, and again when the IRA blew up Airey Neave at the gates of Westminster, also in 1979. I remember watching the horrific footage of the 11 soldiers and seven horses blown up in Hyde Park in 1982. I remember watching the news when the IRA tried to blow up Mrs Thatcher in 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, killing five innocent people. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed the Baltic Exchange in the City of London in 1992, killing three and injuring 91, with a Semtex bomb—the biggest bomb to be detonated on mainland Britain since world war two. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed central Manchester in 1996, wreaking havoc and injuring 200 innocent civilians. I remember watching many more events, but I was only watching the news on the television. Like so many of us voting on the Bill today, I have no experience of the horrors on the ground that our brave veterans faced in this war against terrorism.
Like so many of our veterans, my father did not speak of his tours in Northern Ireland. He did not speak of what he did, what he saw, or the risks he took. It was simply his job and his duty. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is watching me make this speech and speak on behalf of our brave veterans—many of whom are watching these proceedings today—about the injustice of their facing prosecution for simply following orders. These brave men served their Queen, their country and their regiments without question. They risked their lives to protect us, and now, in their retirement years, they are facing prosecution from this Labour Government and their shameful Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The Good Friday agreement was undoubtedly a historic achievement, but I remember watching the television with my parents when the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness and finding that so hard to watch. Watching the prosecutions of our veterans, while IRA terrorists were given comfort letters and immunity from prosecution, has been equally hard to stomach. The existence of the public coroners’ court in this legislation to appease republicans is nothing short of the Government enabling show trials to demonise our veterans. All applications should be heard by the Legacy Commission and by the Legacy Commission alone.
This legislation is wrong and unfair. Moreover, it will dissuade young men and women from considering a career in the armed forces at a time when we are already struggling to recruit. We have benefited from years of relative peace in this country, but now, more than ever, the Government need to be prepared for hostilities and to defend this country and its citizens. In a recent joint letter to the Prime Minister, nine four-star generals said that, with this legislation, British soldiers must worry not only about
“the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”
How powerful are those words?
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is needed to repair the legally and morally flawed legacy Act passed by the previous Government, which created confusion in an already complex and sensitive area of law, history and military doctrine, and made impossible promises offering a route to immunity for terrorists who killed British citizens on British soil. What is worse is that those who created that mess now seek to mislead our veterans by portraying this Bill as some form of injustice. It is despicable.
As a veteran, I thank all those who served during Operation Banner and I understand the genuine concern in the veteran community that these issues have reopened. I hope that we hear some humility from those on the Conservative Benches who have caused this situation. This Government have had no option but to clean up the consequences of the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is difficult and sensitive work but necessary if we are to address veterans’ concerns properly and restore credibility. That view is shared by the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, who have recognised their constructive engagement with the Ministers. I welcome that spirit of honesty and collaboration.
In that same vein, I am proud to represent the position of the Royal British Legion as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. The RBL has said:
“The Government’s commitment to introducing safeguards for veterans is necessary. The legislation must protect veterans from repeated investigations, while ensuring bereaved Armed Forces families can continue to pursue answers to their longstanding questions.”
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to use the word “you” in those circumstances.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Those two principles—being protected from repeated investigation and giving families proper answers—must sit at the heart of the Bill. We know the previous Government’s Act shut down investigations into the deaths of our armed forces personnel and denied answers to hundreds of families. Further, its conditional immunity scheme was ruled unlawful by the Northern Ireland High Court, leaving us with the need for a new and credible approach.
In that spirit, the Royal British Legion has proposed several improvements. First, the provision of giving evidence remotely, anonymously and with welfare protections could be strengthened with clear guidance on how decisions will be made. Secondly, it should not be left to veterans to explain the context of the events that took place in the troubles. Rather, a senior member of the Ministry of Defence should be a representative to provide factual context and describe the dangerous situation in which our veterans found themselves. Thirdly, the Bill rightly recognises the impact of repeated investigation, and it is important to set out clear criteria for the Legacy Commission so that duplication happens rarely and only when justified. Finally, the victims and survivors advisory group rightly includes references to armed forces victims. However, the Bill should state explicitly that veterans or the families of those we lost will have guaranteed representation.
I thank the Ministers for their engagement so far. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to actively engage with the Royal British Legion ahead of the Committee stage? This legislation is not just about history; it is about truth, justice and reconciliation across these islands, and it is about ensuring that our armed—
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest possible terms. The Bill has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our veterans.
No one should underestimate the pain, the grief and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in its wake. Some 3,500 people were murdered and countless others were maimed, physically and psychologically, condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address that—not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly and above all with moral clarity.
Jim Shannon
On accountability, I think we all want justice for those victims who have never had justice. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men of Ballydugan, for instance: there was no justice for them and nobody was ever made accountable. My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA and they fled across the border. No one was ever made accountable. Does the hon. Member feel that the justice that my family and all the other families want cannot be delivered through the Bill?
Alex Easton
The hon. Member is perfectly right; the Bill will not give justice to innocent victims. Moral clarity is grievously lacking in the Bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks in effect to rewrite history. We are shamefully witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism western Europe has ever known being hounded to their graves. There are no letters of comfort for them. There is no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path. Instead, rather than naming and confronting terrorism, the Bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission.
Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it. This is an affront to justice, to truth and to the memory of the victims. Those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This Bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent and it fails the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets those who chose the path of murderous terrorism and those who stood in their path and defeated them. This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just.
I am also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures operating outside the framework even of the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finucane, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries. Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, has reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month.
Specifically on the Bill, I too have serious concerns about clause 5. The requirement to have policing experience in Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Kenova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It is a back-door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers, again to placate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executive to be part of the oversight board. How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions?
Finally, is the proposal to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have due regard not simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activist groups? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for example, such advisory groups will be required to give an undertaking and commitment to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left with a panel, some of whose participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those who were murdered? That is just not right. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that no terrorists will sit on the legacy board? That assurance is not in the Bill, and he needs to clarify that. I want it in the Bill.
Will the Irish Government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can genuinely be achieved. Let us preserve the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The thing that seems to bind us all together is the search for the truth. I just hope that, through this process, we might be able to agree about how we can achieve that. One of my earliest Adjournment debates, way back in 1999, was on the murder of Patrick Finucane. Only weeks before that, I had been on a platform with Rosemary Nelson as part of the human rights campaign. Weeks after was murdered by a loyalist bomb under her car, so we are all desperate to find the truth, because hopefully that might bring some closure.
I desperately want this Bill to work, and I want to ask a number of questions about how I believe some of the issues should be addressed. The first is about ECHR compliance. Clause 26 deals with that. It basically says that a statement will be published giving guidance to which investigations will have to have regard about standards and how certain elements of the investigation have to comply with certain rules of behaviour. That narrows it towards the ECHR, but there is no express provision on that. I just do not understand why there is no express provision requiring Legacy Commission inquiries to meet ECHR standards.
Clause 11 is the same. It says that
“human rights should be respected”,
rather than complied with. Why is there a change in the wording of the joint framework, which was specifically about compliance, not respect?
Let us be clear: the national security veto gives the Secretary of State the ability to redact reports to families on security grounds, and as a result there is a fear about potential concealment. The measure refers to the relevant Secretary of State—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but some of these people will be responsible for MI5 and military intelligence, which might be the subject of an investigation. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Why not assign security decisions to a judicial panel member rather than leaving them in the hands of a Secretary of State?
There are immense powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair, the commissioners, the director of investigations, the chief executive officer and the judicial panel. The Secretary of State has a duty to take advice from a relevant panel of persons—the names are to be subsequently published. It is not clear who those advisers will be, what their status will be or even what their experience will be. In addition, under the Stormont House agreement, the Justice Minister makes appointments on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why have we departed from that approach in this piece of legislation?
There has been reference to the internment clauses: clauses 89 and 90. I remind the House that a number of members of the Provisional IRA were interned, but it was not just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of Unionism, too. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. I believe that they deserve justice as much as anybody else.
I hope that, as we reach the next stage, there will be a cross-party element to the Bill’s improvement so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward. If we do not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future, and I do not believe that we would be serving our constituents or anybody else properly in that respect.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Defence Committee recently visited Canberra in Australia. For Members who do not know the geography of the place, the old Parliament building looks down a row of trees and across a lake to the national war memorial. When the new Parliament building was built in the 1980s, it was pushed back so that it had exactly the same view. The implication was that the decisions made in that Parliament ended up down at the war memorial—it was a sense of focus, and I hope that we can have that focus today. The curator of the national war memorial said that it is quite the thing to find—with no cameras and no fuss—the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet on their hands and knees scrubbing the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier.
I did four tours of Northern Ireland. My first was in 1992. I served three and half years there, trying to bring peace to that place. In the first week of my first tour, I was manning a checkpoint just by the Divis flats. My road man called me over because a Hilux van had driven in. He called me over and said to the driver, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” I looked into the driver’s eyes and he said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this van.” I knew immediately that he was lying. I had no experience there, but I knew he was lying because I had been trained. As my grandmother used to say, an ounce of experience is worth a ton of enthusiasm.
I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in government. I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in the military. If only we had some people with experience who could send the message to the Cabinet that what they are doing is wrong. Maybe it could be the 210,000 people who filled in a petition in record time and got a Westminster Hall debate. Many of the veterans who were there then are here today. I thank them for the presence, and have enjoyed meeting them again in Parliament Square today. Maybe it could be the 2,512 veterans in my Spelthorne constituency who have written to tell me that the Government are making a mistake. Maybe it could be the nine four-star generals who have written an open letter to the Government to tell them that they are making a mistake. I have tried to get my head around why the Government so glibly are ignoring them. What if nine former chief constables or nine former senior bishops wrote to the Government and said, “You really need to think again”? I find it bewildering that the Government think they know better than those nine four-star officers who wrote saying that this Bill does not offer sufficient, proper protection to those who were doing their duty in good faith.
The problem is—and the Secretary of State knows this—that this piece of legislation is part of the proxy war that answers the question, “Who won?” It is a shot being fired, and our veterans, I am afraid, are being used as chess pieces in that disgraceful proxy battle in order to relitigate and answer the question, “Who won?” When we last spoke about this in Westminster Hall, I begged the Secretary of State to listen to the advice of the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I can only assume from this Bill that he has not done so, and I will be voting against it tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have, unfortunately, run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, ma’am.
This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service.
One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.
Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.
For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot.
Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there is no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us, but his Bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded, because they will be hounded.
Mr Francois
On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable.
First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light.
Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons.
Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome.
Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release.
Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans:
“If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.”
What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently:
“If potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their Government will stand by them, when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why risk joining at all?”.
Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a
“direct threat to national security”.
If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless.
When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan:
“We must reverse it as soon as possible”.
The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill.
In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023.
Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I.
Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army.
When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. I wish to declare an interest. Members should be aware of my declaration in the “List of Ministers’ Interests”, where I have flagged that two family members work for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Today’s debate has been powerful to listen to, and many right hon. and hon. Members have raised important points and asked important questions. In the time available, I will try to address as many of those points as I can, and I will write to Members on any specific points that I am unable to address in time.
I will start my remarks with enormous thanks to the veterans who served us in Operation Banner, serving in intolerable conditions, and standing in harm’s way to protect life, as other Members have powerfully described. Quite simply, our armed forces are the best of us. I wish to thank those who served in the police—a job of enormous difficulty that brave men and women set out to do with distinction. We owe a particular duty of care to those who served our nation, and there will never be equivalence between our armed forces and police service, and the terrorists who set out to cause death and destruction.
As the Secretary of State has set out, this Bill is about helping people to get answers. I cannot begin to understand the pain of not knowing what happened to a loved one who was killed or disappeared. I can only imagine that the need for an answer, to know what really happened, never fades.
Matthew Patrick
I will not take interventions, as I am very short of time.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said that this legislation will be “reopening wounds”, but I believe they never closed. I have sat with families who simply want to know what happened to their loved one. More than 3,500 people were killed during the troubles. The Good Friday agreement recognised that it was essential to address and acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors, and it is our collective duty to deliver on that remaining Good Friday agreement commitment. If through this process, those relatives can be supported to get answers, then we will have met that duty. There are many things that the last Labour Government achieved of which I am proud. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) noted, the Good Friday agreement rightly sits among their very finest achievements.
I recently had a conversation with a veteran in my constituency who told me how important it is to deal in facts, so let us set some of those out. It is a long-standing principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are independent. Judicial independence has served our country very well for over 300 years. That is why when people read about recent cases, such as the trial of Soldier F, it is not relevant that the decision to prosecute was taken while the Conservative Government were in power, because the decision was independent. Equally, it is not relevant that soldier F was acquitted under a Labour Government, because that decision too is independent.
Since 2012 there have been 25 prosecutions relating to the troubles. Of those, the majority were for republican terrorists. There are nine live prosecutions relating to the troubles, and one ongoing prosecution relates to the conduct of the British Army. Again, the decision to prosecute was taken under the Conservative Government —under, not by, because they are rightly independent decisions.
I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment. Among other things, the amendment suggests that removing conditional immunity will lead to veterans being dragged before the courts. That is not true. The Conservatives’ failed immunity scheme, which would also have applied to IRA terrorists, was never commenced. All it did was offer a false promise that could never be delivered. Because this amendment is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding about the Bill and the way in which our prosecution system works, I urge the House to reject it.
Veterans were raised by a number of hon. Members. The Government’s commitment to honour Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. We must not forget that over 1,000 armed forces families lost loved ones during the troubles, and that over 200 investigations into the deaths of armed forces personnel and veterans were shut down by the last Government’s failed legacy Act. In search for answers, those families, as much as any families, deserve a fair, proportionate and transparent system. They would not want for the terrorists who took the lives of brave soldiers to have any form of immunity.
Members talked about our protections. I reiterate that our Bill puts in place strong and important protections that were not included in the failed Tory legacy Act. I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is himself a veteran of Northern Ireland, for his close work and attention to put in place these important protections. We have published our fact sheet that details where the protections sit throughout the Bill, so I will not rehearse them all now, given the time I have available.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked how we can continue with the remedial order. The Government abandoned their appeal and therefore have the ability to continue with the order. For those, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, who talked about morale, I am proud of the protections in the Bill. I am also proud more broadly that this Government have given an important pay rise to our armed forces, and I believe that morale was harmed by the actions of the last Government.
Matthew Patrick
I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.
On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.
Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.
A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political.
Matthew Patrick
I do not have time.
I now turn to the issue of inquests, which has been raised by hon. Members. As the Government have long committed to, clause 84 makes it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared with an inquest.
Matthew Patrick
As I have stated, I have a very short amount of time, and I want to address as many of the points that have been made as I am able.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the right hon. Member for Belfast East, raised the commitments made by the Irish Government and the role that they will play. The clear commitment of the Irish Government to provide the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission will help provide many more families with an opportunity to obtain information they have long sought. This partnership represents two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I believe that the Irish Government will honour the promises they have made—the agreement has been signed in good faith, and we are each committed to do what we promised to do independently in our Parliaments.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate—a debate that I know we will continue as the Bill progresses. As we do, I know that we will hold at the forefront of our minds who this is all for: for victims and their families right across the United Kingdom; for all those who bravely served us in intolerable conditions; and for Northern Ireland and its future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is it absolutely relevant right now?
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me how, within the rules of order, I can draw attention to the way in which the junior Minister, in summing up and purportedly taking part in the debate that has just ended, refused to take any interventions for lack of time, yet finished his speech with two minutes left? Can you say anything that might encourage a Government with an unhealthily large majority to enter into the spirit of real debate? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will decide whether it is a point of order. I do not need interventions from the Front Bench.
Sir Julian Lewis, you are a Member of astounding experience, and you know better than most that that is most definitely not a point of order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to accept or decline an intervention, and the Minister declined yours most positively.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)
Monday 27th April 2026
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 24 April 2026 - large print - (24 Apr 2026)
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion about whether the Bill ought to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. While I will allow some leeway on scope, I gently encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of carry-over.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
This motion will enable the House to progress the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is essential to remedy the failure of the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am grateful for the careful scrutiny of the Bill by both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If dealing with legacy was easy, this aim of the Good Friday agreement would have been resolved a long time ago. It is not easy; it is very difficult, not least because there are many different and opposing views. We have a responsibility to do this for those affected by the troubles, including the many people who lost loved ones and are still searching for answers. I believe there is recognition across the House that we need to address the legacy of the troubles, because, after so many attempts, this is our last chance.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has carried out his work on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with such sensitivity to all parties. However, I would also like him to explain and give more detail on the responsibility to the victims and survivors of the troubles, as well as the special duty of care to our veterans.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with such distinction, and I will come directly to addressing the two questions she has just asked.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I represent a very large number of veterans. What are they to make of the remarks made by the Attorney General, who has suggested to his human rights lawyer friends that they have done more for the sum total of human happiness than the brave, highly decorated men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent?
Hilary Benn
I would simply say that I think the whole House acknowledges the brave service of our veterans in many, many difficult circumstances, and that is one reason that this carry-over motion is necessary.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me.
Whatever its intentions, the legacy Act did not work. Its central provision—immunity—had no backing in Northern Ireland, has been found by our domestic courts to be incompatible with our international legal obligations and was never commenced by the previous Government. Immunity has been rejected by victims and families. Immunity is not supported by the three veterans commissioners, who have said that they do not call for immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
Hilary Benn
I hope that our armed forces personnel will listen to what I am about to say and see both the protections that are currently in the Bill and the commitment the Government have made to bring forward further such protections. Indeed, the Bill will put in place a means of dealing with legacy that is legally compliant and will hopefully, in time, command broad public support in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. It will also result in the unprecedented sharing of records by the Irish authorities with the new Legacy Commission as a result of the framework agreement reached with the Irish Government.
Since its introduction in October 2025, the troubles Bill has been welcomed by a significant number of victims’ families and representative groups. Many recognise that while it cannot be the perfect Bill for them, it balances many of the different interests and provides a basis on which families’ cases can be taken forward sensitively and lawfully.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the debate started to check in on what he was putting forward. There is some indication that protections will be put forward that Ministers hope will support the armed forces, but there are no similar protections whatsoever being offered to personnel of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other branches of service in Northern Ireland. Some 319 RUC members gave their lives during the troubles, while thousands were injured; they deserve the same protection and help. Can the Secretary of State indicate what protections will be offered to the RUC personnel who gave so much for us, for their freedom and liberty?
Hilary Benn
The protections that are contained in the Bill currently will apply to RUC personnel and others who served the state, and the hon. Gentleman will see the further amendments that we will bring forward.
I would point out that every Member of the House has just received a letter from Joe McVey, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, urging us to vote for this motion tonight and making the argument that
“beyond every clause and every amendment there are people whose lives have been shaped by loss”.
One important part of the Bill is the consideration it gives to those who served the state so bravely in the form of protections for veterans and police officers to ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect. In recent months, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week, my ministerial colleagues and I have been consulting widely on the legislation. We have been very grateful for the time that veterans groups have spent with us, explaining how they think our legacy processes need to be improved. That is why we are putting in place new protections: no repeated investigations; an end to cold calling; requiring consideration to be given to the age and welfare of veterans; and enabling any veteran asked to give evidence to do so remotely and anonymously.
In Committee, I will be bringing forward a substantial package of amendments to further strengthen those safeguards, including clearly differentiating between the lawful actions of soldiers and police and the unlawful actions of paramilitary terrorists, and to put in place arrangements to oversee how those protections operate in practice. Without the Bill, all those new protections—which were not in the legacy Act—would not be there for veterans while the commission continues its work, including investigations. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities to families and veterans, who would face continuing uncertainty. Is that really what those who have expressed concerns about the Bill want to see happen?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.
Hilary Benn
The best way to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House see the amendments is to pass the carry-over motion tonight.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear that if the Bill is not passed, veterans will have no protection whatsoever moving forward?
Hilary Benn
That is self-evidently the case, because the protections that I just read out, which the Government have put in this legislation, would not exist. That is a powerful argument why the Bill should carry over.
Hilary Benn
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; many Members want to speak.
I will turn briefly to some of the arguments that will be made against carrying over the Bill, because I think it is important that we conduct this debate on a shared understanding of the facts.
First, on prosecutions, in the last 28 years just one soldier of the 250,000 who served in Operation Banner has been convicted of a troubles-related offence. During all that time there have continued to be inquests and cases investigated. The truth is that the chances of prosecutions are rapidly diminishing. Secondly, I remind the House that the basis on which any decision about a prosecution is made rests, as it always has done, with independent prosecutors. No one who has done their duty lawfully has anything to fear. Thirdly, on the claim that paramilitaries—in particular the IRA—were given amnesty by the on-the-run letters, they were not. At the moment, there are eight troubles cases in which suspected paramilitaries have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including of soldiers and members of the RUC.
Let us not forget that, when in government, the Conservative party wanted to give immunity to terrorists. That is what the legislation said. Members and colleagues will be aware that there are many unsolved killings of British service personnel, whose families deserve answers, including of those in a number of the most deadly IRA attacks, such as Guildford, Warrenpoint and the M62 coach bombing. The Opposition’s argument against the motion rests on their wish to return to immunity, which never existed and is wrong in principle.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will conclude my remarks, because many Members want to contribute.
I am acutely aware of the stress that many have described in going through legacy processes, which is precisely why we will put the strongest possible safeguards in the Bill. If this motion is carried, the Bill will be brought back to the House early in the new Session for a Committee of the whole House, where I will welcome the scrutiny of all Members to ensure that we get this right. This Bill is about creating a legacy process in which all involved can have confidence. I hope that we can work together constructively and with the care that the families of all those who were killed or seriously injured deserve, to ensure that this legislation and the further amendments that we will make are given careful consideration in Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
At the outset, I pay tribute to the veterans who came to Parliament Square today, the veterans who have sent messages of support and are watching at home, and the veterans who are with us in the Gallery. I also pay tribute to the shadow Defence team, who have done so much to hold this Government to account for the mistake that they are making.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Alex Burghart
No.
We are now entering the season finale of the tragedy that is this Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It has been a long season. Despite taking office in July 2024, with a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, they have taken 15 months to bring this Bill to the House. Despite a Second Reading in November, nearly six months ago, the legislation has gone nowhere. Despite bringing forward their remedial order to strike down parts of the legacy Act in January, the Government have since failed to bring it before the Lords, because they know that the Lords do not support it. The troubles Bill is stuck in a legislative purgatory,
“Doomed for a certain term to walk the night”
till its “foul crimes” are “burnt…away.” The reason for that is an open secret in Westminster. The truth is that the Bill is trapped between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and No.10, with the Prime Minister and his team unable and unwilling to make a decision about what the outcome will be. We have read this script before.
For its part, the Northern Ireland Office is simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister when he came to power—the instruction in the Labour manifesto—and the orders of Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, about whom, it must be said, some extremely serious allegations have been made in recent days: not least that he may have drafted or approved documents alleging serious crimes by soldiers without reasonably credible evidence, and that he continued pushing settlements after being told that his clients were lying.
The Ministry of Defence is all too aware of the open hostility held towards this legislation by members of the armed forces, present and past. It is all too aware of the dangers the Bill presents to morale, retention and perhaps even recruitment, but its Ministers are not always prepared to say what needs to be said in order to get their way.
Mr Bailey
I thank the Minister for giving way. We are having this debate because in hindsight the military forces deployed in Northern Ireland were not provided with adequate protection. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely cared about veterans and the protection of members of the forces in future, he would have submitted amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to prevent a recurrence. Can he make us aware of any such amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I gently remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.
Alex Burghart
I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to take time to read the Armed Forces Bill amendment paper. The two gentlemen sitting either side of me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have tabled very many amendments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go out this evening and to try to find one veterans organisation that supports what his party is trying to do with this Bill.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so he should know the lie of the land there. He has talked a lot about veterans. Has he read the letter from Sandra Peake, the director of the WAVE trauma centre? She is an unimpeachable character, who has stood up on behalf of all kinds of victims. She is imploring us to put the Bill through tonight so that we can properly scrutinise it. Has he read that letter? Is he going to mention victims at all in his speech?
Alex Burghart
I have read that letter. I have great respect for the WAVE trust; I did some work with it when I first came to the House. I respectfully disagree with what is in that letter, for reasons that I will set out in due course.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government Member, including Ministers, who wants to be taken seriously by armed forces personnel needs to condemn the remarks of Lord Hermer and the disgraceful disparaging of our armed forces?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there will be ample opportunity for them to do so tonight.
Tonight the Government and Labour Back Benchers have a choice, and the choice is simple: to reject this controversial and unloved legislation, which promises much but would do no good.
Alex Burghart
We will get to immunity in a moment, but the Labour party needs to look down within its soul and its history before it says such things.
The Bill will reopen the door to vexatious litigation. It will drag old soldiers through the courts and subject split-second decisions taken under high stress decades ago to the post hoc algorithm of a legal framework that did not exist at that time. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said that military forces were not given adequate protection at the time—what has happened subsequently is that the legal framework has changed beneath their feet and held them accountable in a way that could never have been intended at that time.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Is the shadow Secretary of State more surprised that the promised amendments leaked to the papers at the weekend are missing from the debate or that the Armed Forces Minister is missing from the Chamber and will not be here to vote for this disgraceful carry-over motion, because he knows that it should not be voted for?
Alex Burghart
I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.
Jim Allister
The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?
Alex Burghart
I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.
The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.
The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. However, this faux outrage was never—[Interruption.] My Committee has done some excellent work on this very sensitive matter, and when we were in Westminster Hall there was no faux outrage. These people did not turn up to speak up for the veterans they speak of now. The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job—so is my Committee—and I find it very wrong that these matters are being presented in this way on the Floor of the House. We need a carry-over motion. We need to be in a better place, where there will be amendments.
Alex Burghart
I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this.
When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill.
Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.
Jim Shannon
One thing that really concerns me is that this carry-over motion has been pressed by the Irish Government. That absolutely boggles my mind. The double standard is entirely shocking. The Irish Government need to be held to account for their role in protecting IRA murderers across the border. We think of all those ones who were murdered: Kenneth Smyth, my cousin; Daniel McCormick, his comrade; Lexie Cummings, and Stuart Montgomery. They were just four, but there were many, many more. Whenever there were murders, the murderers raced across the border. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anger on behalf of my constituents and my family, who want to know why the Irish Government have more say in this than the victims of Northern Ireland, my family and others?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point.
The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion.
All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that.
In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said:
“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.
The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation.
Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that.
I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is articulating it perfectly. Does he agree that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is no comfort at all for these people who are subjected to years of gruelling inquiry just to establish what we already know: they are innocent?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Would the hon. Member accept that when the process exonerates the soldiers and the veterans at the end, the whole point of the process and taking them to the court in the first place is to give the daily headlines in the paper to allow Sinn Féin and the IRA to rewrite the history of the troubles?
Alex Burghart
I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.
Colum Eastwood
Has the shadow Secretary of State read the Saville report? He referenced the Saville inquiry not that long ago. Has he read what it says about Soldier F, about how many people he killed that day—unarmed, innocent people marching for civil rights shot down in cold blood by Soldier F, by his own admission? Has he read that?
Alex Burghart
I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that if ever there was a demonstration of the two-tier process in terms of legacy, we have it as a result of the Saville report? The same Saville report that was used to pursue Soldier F contained an assertion that Martin McGuinness probably had a submachine gun on the same day. He was never questioned, never mind pursued or taken to court—not once.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have made.
Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how
“a peacetime human rights framework”
now wields
“an effective veto over efforts to close the past.”
Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that
“those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”.
This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them.
I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow.
The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The House will be aware that Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver in this case to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historic troubles-related deaths. I remind Members that references to those cases should be limited to the context and the events that led to those cases, but should not refer to the details of the cases or to the names of those involved in them.
I will start by imposing a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, as I will be calling the Secretary of State no later than 9.46 pm.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
This debate is deeply personal for me, because, in addition to being the Member for Southend East and Rochford, I am a proud former paratrooper.
For me and countless others with military backgrounds like my own, the legacy of the troubles is not a distant memory but something that our community continues to carry the weight of. Back in November, I brought members of the Parachute Regimental Association, together with officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence. I had one simple aim: to ensure that veterans had a voice and their concerns about the Bill were heard clearly and directly. I thank those officials for their attendance and engagement.
Let me be clear: the legislation passed by the Conservative Government must be updated. This is not myth or fallacy; indeed, even some Conservative Members have acknowledged that the current legislation is inadequate. It troubles me when colleagues from this House head over to Parliament Square, as they did this afternoon, not to engage with former colleagues or members of their local military associations, but to “virtue signal”, as my teenage daughter would put it. Our duty as parliamentarians is to lead, make difficult decisions and speak with honesty and sincerity. It is not to spew negative and dangerous rhetoric, as some across this Chamber seem intent on doing. They parade around with lapel badges larger than some solar panels and bearing the slogan, “Proud of my country, ashamed of this government.” That does not help or resolve this issue, and it is certainly not why the public voted us into this special place. It is dangerous and unproductive noise.
However, I must be equally clear that, as it stands, the Bill leaves many questions unanswered and needs additional work. We cannot afford to rush it. Although justice must be delivered, we must also take the time to ensure that the legislation delivers the protections that our veterans need and deserve. Those who served in Northern Ireland followed orders and put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they cannot be an afterthought in this process. So I say to the Government that we should take the time to get this right, to continue our engagement, to listen to those who serve and the families who lost loved ones, and to ensure that before the Bill moves to its next stage veterans can have full confidence that it will deliver what is intended without creating serious unintended consequences that cannot be later undone.
In conclusion, I say that, to every member of our armed forces community who has served and those who continue to serve, we owe a debt that cannot be repaid. And to those watching from the Gallery today, I say thank you: thank you for standing up for the memory of those we have lost and for standing together to protect those who are yet to serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring all those who served to uphold the rule of law during Operation Banner are treated with dignity and afforded proper legal protection. As a Member of a parliamentary party whose percentage of veterans is well into double figures, I assure the House that their experience informs my party’s approach and strengthens our determination to assist the Secretary of State in getting this right.
Before I address the substance of this motion, however, I would like briefly to correct something I said to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) when we last debated this hugely consequential matter. In response to his intervention during the debate on the Government’s remedial order, I said that the percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party is greater than in his. During my research for today’s speech, however, I discovered that, while we are close, that is not the case. In my defence, what with the ever-dwindling number of Conservative MPs it is hard to keep track of the denominator in that equation, but I none the less apologise to the hon. Member and this House for my error.
This debate provides an opportunity to judge whether the troubles Bill is fit for purpose, commands confidence and does justice to those it seeks to serve. On all three counts it gives me no pleasure to conclude it currently falls far short.
As I hope the Secretary of State recognises, the Liberal Democrats have engaged with the troubles Bill constructively from the outset. Although we voted with the Conservatives on their reasoned amendment to kill the Bill, we broke with them to abstain on Second Reading to signify that, while we are deeply unsatisfied with many of the provisions, protections and omissions in the troubles Bill, we remain opposed to the blanket immunity confirmed by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, somewhat delphically described as “conditional” immunity by the Conservatives even though the only condition is the admission of guilt.
As a party that believes in the rule of law and fulfilling our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, we also supported the Government’s subsequent remedial order, which simply removed two provisions where the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal issued declarations of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, one of which has never even been brought into force. Sadly, the Conservative party sought to weaponise that vote by creating a false dichotomy between veterans and victims, cynically pitching one against the other, seemingly oblivious to the fact that those two categories are far from mutually exclusive.
Cases like that of Private Tony Harrison, murdered by the IRA in 1991, bring this into sharp focus. His family has spent years seeking truth and accountability, only for legislation granting blanket immunity to terrorists to strip away hope that those responsible would ever be properly investigated, charged or convicted. Or there is Patsy Gillespie, who worked in an Army base and in 1990 was strapped into a van by the IRA while his wife and children were held at gunpoint—a hero whose last act was to shout a warning that saved the lives of many before he and five members of the King’s Regiment died as the bomb went off.
The Conservatives, who claim to have always had our veterans’ backs, had little to say when their own legislation barred investigations into the maiming and murder of hundreds of state actors such as these. There is a stark irony here: a party that claims to stand by veterans introduced a system that precluded justice for the families of those very veterans, which is why every veterans organisation with which I am working is opposed to these callous attempts to use the very real plight of our veterans in a nakedly political assault on the Human Rights Act.
The Liberal Democrats remain adamant that supporting the remedial order was the right thing to do. It was a narrow technical measure to remove two unlawful provisions granting blanket immunity to paramilitaries and veterans alike. We consistently opposed these measures in the last Parliament as contrary to the rule of law and drawing an inappropriate moral equivalence between terrorists and servants of the state. More importantly, all the veterans’ organisations with whom I am working oppose those provisions, as do every political party and community in Northern Ireland.
However, voting in favour of the remedial order does not require us to do likewise regarding the Bill before us, because despite many months of patient negotiation between the NIO, veterans’ groups and commissioners, Opposition parties and the MOD, the Bill remains deeply flawed. The central issue is the lack of sufficient protections for veterans and failing to address the very real danger that the process becomes the punishment.
The Secretary of State heralds his six safeguards, but even he has now acknowledged that they do not go far enough. As currently drafted, there is no clear statutory threshold for repeat investigations without genuinely new evidence, no firm presumption in favour of remote participation, and limited clarity around how welfare, proportionality and the cumulative impact of past investigations will be applied in practice. Under the current Bill, veterans will continue to face uncertainty around repeat investigations, the threshold for reopening cases and the circumstances in which they may be required to engage again with investigatory processes.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to bring forward amendments, but we currently have no idea how extensive those will be. There is still no confirmed date for the Committee stage, which has been repeatedly delayed and is still planned to be a Committee of the whole House, therefore precluding the detailed line-by-line scrutiny that could usefully take place outside the Chamber. In that context, it is difficult to justify carrying the Bill over without greater clarity.
Our position is not about opposing progress, but about ensuring that the legislation we pass is robust and capable of delivering a process that people, in particular veterans and victims, can trust. The carry-over motion risks extending uncertainty without resolving the underlying problem. It is important that my party makes clear that the current Bill is far from adequate. For these reasons, we will oppose the motion.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The first thing to say is that there was an alternative. There has been a lot of debate recently about whether or not there was an alternative to murder and mayhem: there was an alternative and that is represented by the party of which I am a member. The only honest way to deal with this particular issue is to make it clear that no matter whether the culprit or perpetrator was wearing a uniform or not, the murder of anybody was wrong. That violence brought us no closer to the aims that I hold very dear; it took democratic struggle to get us to the point of peace and opportunity for real change.
I was at an event on Friday in my constituency for the 45th anniversary of the death of a boy called Paul Whitters, who was 15 years old when he was shot in the head by a police officer and died. It was a very moving event. His family were there and his mother had come home from Glasgow—she had had to leave, of course, after all that heartache and pain. There were 186 children killed in our troubles: 80 of them were killed by republicans, 50 by loyalists and 49 by the British Army or the RUC. When we talk about this issue, I want people to think about those children. All I ever hear from certain quarters of this House is about veterans and organisations that are lobbying, and about votes and Back Benchers and all that stuff, but I want people to think about those children.
Julie Livingstone was 14 years old when she was shot in the head and killed in Lenadoon, a month after Paul. Stephen McConomy, whose family I know very well—they are decent, hard-working people—was 11 years old when he was shot and killed by a soldier in 1982. The people who went to try and comfort Stephen and see if he was okay were told that they would be shot as well. The soldier who carried out that murder—and that is what it was—was interviewed for one hour by the RUC. Six months after that, the RUC and the British Army came to Stephen McConomy’s house, and Bishop Daly said at the time that they were in the house longer than the time they took to interview the soldier who killed Stephen. Again, he was 11 years old.
Alan Jack was five months old and in his pram when the IRA set off a bomb in Strabane that killed him. I just want people to think about this. This is not some political game. Those of us who live there do not always agree, as Members might know, but we take this very seriously. This is about trying to give the people who have been left out of this process some truth and some justice if possible. We all know how difficult justice will be, but why are they not entitled to the same access to justice as any of us would expect today? If Members are against trying to sort out this problem, they should ask themselves, “Why not?”
Do not tell me to draw a line under the past. The people who want to move on the most are the victims who have been left behind in our society. They cannot just draw a line under the past when the truth is not out there about what happened to their loved one and the justice that they deserve has not been achieved. The bottom line is that if we are serious about bringing our communities together and reconciling them, whatever our constitutional views, we have to do it on the basis of truth and honesty. We should stop using our victims as political footballs.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom.
This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans. Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims.
We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an oath of allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No. Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Despite the promised raft of amendments, this Bill does not and will never protect those who put on uniform and stood between good and evil—the bloodthirsty terrorists. When the East Tyrone killing machine of the IRA was taken out at Loughgall, it saved countless lives, and it was the same at Coagh. People have had enough of the hounding of those who served, and they have had enough of this Government bending the knee to Dublin. It is time that we stand up for our veterans, not throw them to the wolves.
Gavin Robinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words.
The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.
Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans.
I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place. She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that
“there are no such plans”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1011.]
yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!
Gavin Robinson
I will not.
When we talk of amnesty, I think of Martin Quinn, the brother of Glenn Quinn, and of Mrs Quinn, his mother —an 82-year-old woman who lost her son in January 2020. He was beaten to death by a loyalist paramilitary; he was terminally ill, and he was killed in his own home. An 82-year-old mother is sitting at home today with death threats from loyalists because of Colin Simms and the murder he committed in Carrickfergus. He does not have the support of his community or his comrades. If the Secretary of State can achieve anything tonight, it should be to inform Mrs Quinn that neither Colin Simms nor anyone like him will receive any sort of immunity or early release, for the sake of justice that is yet to be delivered.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
For my community, the home of the British Army, this debate goes to the heart of our history and who we are. In Aldershot, we remember 22 February 1972, when the IRA detonated a bomb targeting the headquarters of the British Army’s 16th Parachute Brigade. It was one of the first attacks by the IRA on mainland Britain, and took the lives of seven innocent victims: Father Gerard Weston, Thelma Bosley, Margaret Grant, Joan Lunn, Jill Mansfield, Sheri Munton and John Hasler. We remember them every year at the memorial that stands in their honour. We also honour the members of our armed forces who served in Operation Banner to keep the peace over many decades; I pay tribute to them for their service, including those watching over our debate tonight from the Gallery. I thank the Aldershot Parachute Regimental Association, the Royal British Legion, and the many individual veterans who I have been engaging with over many months.
I want the voices of our veterans to be heard in this debate. Too many families, including hundreds of armed forces families, lost loved ones in the troubles and are still looking for answers. Too many of our veterans have been left completely without legal protections because of the previous Government’s legislation, which was rejected by the courts. Ultimately, we are here today because of the previous Government’s decision to grant conditional immunity to terrorists like those who murdered British soldiers and civilians in my community. I believe that that decision was wrong, and that these issues need to be addressed. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that Parliament could debate how we fix these problems, and I am grateful to both the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Ministers for the discussions they have had with me ever since the legislation was introduced.
However, I want to be clear with my Government that the veterans I have been speaking to over many months still need to be convinced by this legislation. They need further reassurances, and until we see the full package of amendments, I am reserving judgment. We must get this right. No veteran who served with honour, following orders in the most difficult, fast-moving circumstances, should be left fearing repeat investigations, and there should be no equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were only focused on taking lives. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January asking for more to be done on those points, and I am encouraged that the Government are now committed to strengthening protections for our veterans. Right now, our veterans have been left with no protections whatsoever—that needs to change. They need to be protected by law. I hope that much more can be done in the next Session before we reach Third Reading, so that we can give every veteran clarity and confidence.
Let me conclude with a reflection about what we owe our veterans who served in Northern Ireland and beyond. Last year, I travelled 8,000 miles to pay my respects to those from my community who fought in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are British and remain British thanks to their service. The islanders told me that they owe a debt of gratitude to my community that can never be repaid. We owe a debt to all those who serve our country, now and forever, and I will always have their back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call David Davis, after whom there will be a three-minute time limit.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago.
This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice.
The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill.
We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating:
“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”.
He went on to say:
“I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend is incredibly well informed on this subject. In his research, has he found any justification for public money being used in that way?
David Davis
No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer.
I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow.
This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Andy McDonald, who has a three-minute speaking time limit.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation. Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust.
We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence. Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces.
So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The motion may be dressed up as a matter of procedural convenience, but it is no such thing. It goes to the very heart of how this Parliament chooses to deal with the legacy of conflict, with the rights of victims and survivors, and with our fidelity to both our own constitutional traditions and our binding international obligations. The Bill, in its present form, fails the test. It does not command the confidence of victims. It does not command the confidence of the wider community in Northern Ireland, or indeed of our own brave veterans. To agree to its carry-over would therefore be more than a tidying-up exercise. It would be a conscious, deliberate decision by the House to prolong the life of a measure that is at best deeply contested, and at worst fundamentally misconceived.
We should be honest with ourselves: the Bill as drafted is not the solution that victims deserve, and it is not the solution that veterans deserve either. The Secretary of State has mentioned that amendments will be tabled to give better protection for veterans, but we do not even know what they are, so how can we pass tonight’s motion?
Dr Murrison
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the person who is likely to draft those amendments is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is one and the same Lord Hermer? What confidence does the hon. Gentleman think the armed forces community can have that this Bill will be any better?
Alex Easton
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and I totally agree. There will not be a lot of support for this Bill among the armed forces.
These are not abstract or academic concerns; they go to the essence of what it means to live under the rule of law. The Bill fails to grapple in any credible way with the status of the so-called on-the-run letters of comfort, and with the plain injustice that flows from the position in which those who fled justice were handed such letters while veterans of Operation Banner have been handed only letters of continued investigation and the threat of prosecution. That is morally wrong, and this Bill does nothing to rectify it. In that context, the carry-over motion assumes genuine constitutional significance.
Carry-over is an exceptional procedure; it is not a routine device to be used to spare a struggling Bill from the consequences of its lack of support. The Government are not merely asking us to keep an administrative option open; they are asking us to confer an extended lease of life on a legislative scheme that has failed to win the confidence of those whose confidence is indispensable. The proposals must include real safeguards for veterans—men and women who are entitled to see concrete protections on the face of the statute, rather than being fobbed off with warm words and vague assurances of future safeguards. Those proposals must ensure that the oversight mechanisms, and any victim and survivor panels, are constituted in a way that does not invite those who murdered and maimed to sit in judgment or presume to adjudicate the human rights of the innocent. That would be an affront to natural justice and basic decency. The proposals must also exclude political parties that support terrorism—past, present or future.
To vote for a carry-over tonight is not to remain neutral or to keep all options open; it is to keep on political life support a scheme that many veterans, victims and survivors feel is being imposed on them. Many veterans regard the scheme with deep and understandable scepticism, and many people across Northern Ireland do not support it. Accordingly, I am unable to support the motion for carry-over, and I urge this House to do the right thing and reject it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I thank the Secretary of State for appearing in front of our Committee on two occasions—he has truly embraced scrutiny. The JCHR is currently carrying out legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and the remarks I offer tonight are informed by the evidence that we have received, although we are still working through that process.
As we all recognise, there is no more complex and sensitive a legacy than that of the troubles, which is why it is so tragic that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed so greatly. It failed because it could not command cross-community support, because it was rejected as unlawful by the British courts and, of course, because it introduced immunity, including for terrorists—a point made most strongly tonight by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). We owe it to the victims of the troubles to do better, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) pointed out, that includes the families of service personnel and the police.
On veterans and those who served, I note that genuine concerns have been raised. As the MP for Sandhurst, I know how important this issue is for all those who put on a uniform and bravely put themselves forward to defend our country. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to those concerns and for committing to bring forth amendments. Although all Members of this House will scrutinise those amendments closely when they are brought forward, I am grateful for that commitment. It is important that we carry over the Bill, so that all Members can scrutinise it.
This Bill is our opportunity to finally begin to address the legacy of the troubles. I feel very strongly that all of us must take that duty seriously and carry it out with all due seriousness.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the limited time I have, I say to the Secretary of State that this Bill was bad, and it is now a mess. He comes in front of the House to ask for a carry-over when he knows that carry-over motions are only ever to be used for Bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of time to progress. Such motions are not for highly contentious legislation that is about to be changed, possibly beyond recognition from what has gone before. He is now apparently addressing many of the issues, but we are not allowed to know, because they are a secret until next time, when we will come back to carry on with a massively changed Bill. It is bad procedure, and it is bad government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time—he knows that—that this is just a bad route to take.
The problem that the Government have had from the beginning is that they have been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Féin and the hand of Ireland. I worry desperately about the arrangements. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, where are the promises on delivery from Ireland? For all these years, there has been all the stuff that they know about who did what, when they did it and how it was done. All that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and the Irish Government could have dealt with it earlier. Instead, there are people who do not want this to be open and we are now singing to their tune. That is what really bothers me.
We are now being asked to take a pitch in the dark. Having denied all the way through the Bill’s passage that veterans would be pursued vexatiously through the courts and having said that there were controls in place, the Government have apparently finally realised that that was not the case. All of a sudden, the position has changed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the question of the failure of the Government of the Republic, the reality is that they have an outstanding interstate case against us.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is astonishing. My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I served early on in Northern Ireland, and I lost a very good friend—I apologise for repeating his name—in Robert Nairac. We have never got to the bottom of what happened to him.
I thought that the speech from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was incredibly interesting. It is very difficult to pursue truth, which is why I supported the previous legislation. That was not because I thought it was a great Bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out. I do not think the vexatious pursuit of veterans will ever produce the truth that he rightly seeks. There is a better way, and it is not this Bill.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will, but briefly, because I do not get any extra time.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the right hon. Member. I understand his point, and a point was made earlier about the commission for the retrieval of remains. Basically, IRA members who were involved in the disappearance of people were given immunity within the confines of giving information. The bottom line is that it did not work. Jean McConville was found by a passer-by. Columba McVeigh has still not been found and others have not been found. The IRA did not give the information, even once it was given immunity. Immunity does not work, and it has been proven not to work.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
We will not altogether agree about this issue. We can debate what actually happened, but we will never know, because the Government refused to pursue this matter through the courts. South Africa was a good example of how it could be done. I went out to advise in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that the truth and reconciliation committee got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some mending of fences. We will no doubt debate that issue further. I have high respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his position.
In conclusion, we are being asked to vote blind on a Bill that we knew was damaged before. All our protestations about the vexatious pursuit of veterans were denied, as were all the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has raised throughout the whole of this debate. The legislation was rather arrogantly pushed through, and the Government said, “No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The legislation is perfectly okay.” At the last moment, when they have failed to get the Bill through, they have produced this idea that somehow there are amazing new amendments that will protect veterans going forward. Why should veterans, who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason, other than because they were veterans who served in Northern Ireland, now say, “Oh, that’s okay; it’d be a good idea to see what comes next time around, because they were so honest this time around.”? The Government have failed to be honest about this from start to finish.
The Armed Forces Minister is not here for a reason—because he knows very well that he does not want to be sitting on the Front Bench when the Bill gets voted through to the future. [Interruption.] I say to all colleagues, it is time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
A teacher in my constituency wrote to me today with concerns about the Bill, pointing out that some MPs will be voting tonight who were born after the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We need to let that settle for just a moment. The Secretary of State is right to say that this is our last opportunity to get legacy issues right.
The fundamental reality is that life during the troubles exposed ordinary people to fear and danger that few outside Northern Ireland could ever comprehend. Those who lived and worked through that period—in particular those charged with protecting the young people in our communities—lived under constant threat and uncertainty. That burden deserves recognition and respect. I think we all agree about that in this House. Those years placed extraordinary pressures on everybody involved. It would be profoundly wrong of this House to disregard the risks faced by members of the armed forces, the police, the emergency services and civilians during that time, including the teacher who wrote to me today to say how difficult the situation was.
I was reminded at my St George’s day parish quiz on Saturday night at church that the RUC is one of only three organisations that collectively received the George Cross. May I take this opportunity to commend Councillor Tommy Judge, who has been the member for Sharston in my constituency for 25 years? He was on the 1974 M62 bus. He sat in a different seat that day, when 12 of his colleagues died and 38 were injured—there but for the grace of God. I thank him for his service in our armed forces, and I thank him for his municipal service in Manchester for the past quarter of a century.
This is our last chance for those who remember. The purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is not to deny the experience of those who served the state in good faith. On the contrary, it reflects a recognition that for decades the legacy of the past has not been addressed properly or lawfully. Families from all communities have been left without answers, and confidence in existing processes has gone. The shadow Secretary of State said “post hoc”. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is how the phrase continues—correlation does not equate to causation.
I am acutely conscious of the human dimension of this, having grown up as a Mancunian Irish Catholic and seen the bombs through the ’70, ’80s and ’90s, and, because we had the wrong accents, having seen how our family was treated. But there was no equivalence with those suffered in Northern Ireland. That is why this legislation matters and why Parliament must approach it with seriousness and respect for all those lives shaped by the troubles.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Bill is a betrayal of our veterans. It is a betrayal of the men who put on a British uniform and served their country, risking their lives to protect people of all communities in Northern Ireland during the period of the troubles—men like David Griffin, who I had the privilege to meet: an 84-year-old Royal Marine veteran who lives out his life at Royal Hospital Chelsea. He is a man who, half a lifetime ago in 1972, in a split-second decision when he was ambushed by terrorists, made a call. That call should not haunt him in the last years of his life. He should not have to wake up every morning worried that a letter will drop through his letterbox telling him that he is going to be prosecuted.
Old men like David Griffin have been hounded for far too long. That is the reason why—belated, yes, but belatedly it did happen—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 provided a degree of immunity to those brave men. This Bill rips that up. It will be open season for men like David Griffin. Men like David Griffin deserve better than this Bill.
Men who are serving this country now do so as well, because this is not just about the past—it is about the present and future, too. What signal does the Bill send to those who sign up to serve our country? That half a lifetime from now, new laws may come in, and they will be hounded through the courts, living out the last days of their lives worried about a knock on the door or a letter through the post? No. That is wrong. That is not the country that I want to live in.
When I hold this Bill up to the light, I see all over it the fingerprints of Lord Hermer—a man who frankly hates this country. Let us be honest with ourselves. I never thought I would see the day that Gerry Adams’s lawyer was sitting around the Cabinet table of the United Kingdom, in the very room that the IRA tried to blow up when I was a child.
The men who serve our country deserve better than this Bill, better than Lord Hermer and better than this Government. I will be voting against the Bill. I hope it dies tonight.
Hilary Benn
I will do my best to respond to as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as possible. I listened very carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), but I am sorry to say that he did not address the central problem, which is that the previous Government’s legislation failed and needs to be replaced. He also appeared to suggest that he knows that victims and survivors will find out nothing from the very process that that legislation put in place, which I am keeping in the form of the legacy commission—[Interruption.] Well, that is what he said. Was the hon. Gentleman arguing that judicial review should be removed from legacy cases? Is that his argument? If that is his argument, it would not have been available to challenge the Clonoe inquest—a challenge that the Government are supporting.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) shares the Government’s opposition to immunity. I must confess that I was disappointed by his party’s stance on the Bill, because if there is no Bill, we cannot get it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba)—himself a distinguished veteran—made a powerful appeal for reason in order to try to get this right.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was listened to in absolute silence, rightly, as he described a number of the children who were killed during the troubles. That silence was in marked contrast to some of what we heard earlier.
Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said in most of his speech, I welcome the fact that at the end he made it clear that he is opposed to giving terrorists immunity, and that his party, which he leads, has always been clear that it did not support the immunity provisions in the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is indeed this Government’s policy.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Secretary of State suggested in his speech that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair, but a court case collapsed specifically because of one of them, so could he clarify that? More specifically, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that a member of staff hired by the Northern Ireland Office is having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents. That worries the House intensely. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no such requests have been made by the Northern Ireland Office, or, if any such requests have been made, that they have been immediately denied very clearly, both in writing and verbally?
Hilary Benn
It is a matter of public record that there has been no early release of any prisoners at all, and there have been no negotiations. I have said it in the House before, and I will say it again: there have been no negotiations with dissident terrorists at all. I did not say that no letters of comfort were issued; what I said to the House was that the letters of comfort did not grant immunity from prosecution. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) refers from a seated position to Mr Downey. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is a matter of public record that he is currently facing prosecution for the murder of two individuals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) gave us a moving reminder of those whose lives have been lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) called for seriousness and respect in this debate. I say to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) that he is wrong. This Bill does not rip up immunity.
Hilary Benn
It is no good him shaking his head. The provision was never commenced by the last Government, and it has been found to be incompatible with our legal obligations. In conclusion, we need to deal with this, and I have heard lots of arguments as to why—
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 13 October 2026 - large print - (13 Oct 2026)
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of the carry-over extension. I remind the House that Mr Speaker granted an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historical troubles-related deaths.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.
This is a short motion, but it stands for a lot. Strictly speaking, all it does is allow the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which was introduced a year ago, to continue its passage through Parliament, but it is actually about far more than that. It is about families who lost loved ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable: daddies, mammies, brothers, sons and daughters—more than 3,500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It is about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief, families desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones—answers that might help them understand the how, the why and even the who, answers that might help provide some degree of comfort. We will be joined in a few moments in the Gallery by Mo, Pat, Jennifer and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers.
Let us not forget that more than 1,000 of those who were killed were members of our security forces, serving under Operation Banner or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England. Twenty-five per cent of the investigations involve victims from the military. A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I am determined that veterans’ families will get answers, too. The Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we are going to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. Fifty-five years ago, he was murdered. Alongside him was a man called Daniel McCormick. They were a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, but they both served in uniform. Nobody—in 55 years, this 10 December—has ever been made accountable. The three-man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen on that morning of 10 December ran across the border to sanctuary and safety. With great respect, Secretary of State, you tell me and my family that we can have justice—we do not see justice. We have been waiting 55 years for justice. I don’t believe it, Secretary of State. Can you talk to me honestly, for all the families? I could name many others who have had been murdered over the years. I think of the four UDR men; one person was made accountable, but no one was held accountable for the murders of those four UDR men at Ballydugan some 36 years ago. On behalf of the victims, my family and all the families, we need justice. I want justice for my family and for every one of those victims who served in uniform—RUC men, UDR men, British Army—and who gave their lives for this Province and this country.
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, because it is remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon and what I have heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. I met one man whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencer. It has not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. That is why it is so important that we get answers for people. The kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are families who lost loved ones who served.
I remember going to the RUC memorial garden. It is very, very touching because, for decade after decade, it has the names of RUC officers who were killed, and for decade after decade, it is three or four names, three or four, then six, then eight, and then dozens, dozens and dozens. Many of those families have never had an answer. If there is one thing I feel very strongly after all the communications and conversations I have had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there is not one set of people who are families and another set of people who are veterans; actually, the largest group of families are veterans’ families, and they deserve answers, too.
We went further in our manifesto: we committed to replace the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Why? Because it was legally flawed, it offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it did not carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government, for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to repair trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous legacy Act.
Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments. These can only be considered if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous Government’s immunity provisions, which were conditional, as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists. We will amend the Bill to bar the commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries.
Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers’ training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation. Those points were made in previous debates by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so I hope the amendments will gain cross-party support.
We have also listened to concerns raised by the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and others over the on-the-run letters. These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the Bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the commission’s work to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.
There is more we can do if this motion is allowed tonight. The men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm’s way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended. Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice, this commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved one’s death, which is what we will create through the legacy commission.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today because of a family situation. Since the Bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the Bill. Alongside the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for South Ribble (Mr Foster) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), she has argued for greater protections for individuals, to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. The first is a provision to ensure that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the commission or, crucially, by a coroner unless it is essential, which is a very high bar—much higher than in previous legislation; for instance, because there is new information or a new forensic process.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Member will know, the word used in the legacy Act is “necessary”, which is a much lower bar. “Essential” is traditionally a higher bar, and it is used in lots of legal judgments already. The kind of thing we are talking about is where there is a new forensic process that was not available 30 years ago—for instance, we might be able to examine a fingerprint on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than we could previously—or where there is literally a new piece of information, and it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.
Secondly, there is a new provision that the legacy commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers whether to request an individual to come as a witness.
Thirdly, there is another new provision that the legacy commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information.
Fourthly, the legislation will put the protection from cold calling into law and strengthen the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the commission’s work.
Fifthly, prosecutions in troubles-related cases are rare— I expect them to be rare— but to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute, any future prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General acting quasi-judicially. That will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of Government, and who rightly pointed out that there is precedence for this approach and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosectors’ independence in considering the evidence before them.
I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the legacy commission’s victims and survivors advisory group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented.
The legacy Act’s immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute via a remedial order. To enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round, we will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to whom I am grateful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?
Chris Bryant
I arrived in post a few months ago and I sat down with the Defence Secretary. We looked at some of the amendments that had already been drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, and we were convinced that we needed to go a little bit further than that. For instance, the amendment in relation to the Attorney General is a new amendment, as is the amendment in relation to compelling new evidence. I really want to proceed as much as I possibly can in a consensual way with Members from across the House. That is why I have provided as many opportunities as possible to take Opposition Members and Members from other political parties through the details of all the amendments.
Sometimes we need time to get our legislation right. One problem was that we had a long period—some of these amendments could have been dealt with several months ago and we might have got to a better place sooner, and then we would not have needed the carry-over motion either. However, there is not much point in crying over spilt milk; it is much better just to try and get the Bill right, which is precisely what I am trying to do.
Importantly, I should say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), all of the amendments that we have tabled are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations and the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?
Chris Bryant
Whether this was the right route to go down was obviously a material consideration for us, for all the obvious reasons that other hon. Members may adduce in the debate later on. However, many in the veterans community keenly felt that it would be much better if this decision were not being made just by the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and that it would be better if it were made here. Obviously the standard prosecutorial question does not change at all—in other words, is there a more than 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction, and is it in the public interest? The Attorney General will act in a quasi-judicial function, as she is very keen to point out.
I have heard back from large numbers of veterans that this measure provides a degree of confidence and reassurance to those who have been worrying about this issue. For instance, it applies equally to anybody who might be prosecuted for being involved in the M62 bomb or the Guildford pub bombing. I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) makes, but that was one of the things that was asked for. Where possible, I have tried to make the argument as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of veterans to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Who will make the final decision on who goes on to the commission advisory board? While it is good to know that no paramilitaries will be allowed on that board, can the Secretary of State assure me that members of a political party that supported violence and those paramilitaries—Sinn Féin—will not be allowed on to the board?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—indeed, he also made it to me yesterday. The Secretary of State makes the decision about who sits on the advisory group, which is a key distinction of the legacy commission. One of the things I have repeatedly heard loud and clear is that this whole process needs to be focused on the families and the victims, and the only way we can secure that is if we have an effective advisory group. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there should be no one in the group who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. Ensuring that will be one of the Secretary of State’s key responsibilities. The advisory group can have between three and seven members, and we are saying that at least one of them must be a veteran, a former member of the police or one of their representatives, although the number may be more than that.
Co-operation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities may be the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and who was responsible. That may meet the point that was made earlier.
Chris Bryant
I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.
Chris Bryant
I was just going to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will then give way to other Members, if that is all right.
Jim Shannon
My own family members are very clearly aware of the three IRA murderers who escaped across the border and stayed there; they did not return home. I put it on the record that Gerry McMonagle, who was involved in the murder of Lexie Cummings in Strabane in 1982, not only escaped across the border, but became a mayor and sat on Donegal county council. There is a person who should be held accountable for his actions. He escaped because a wrong notification was made by the police in relation to the summons. He was able to run out of court, get on a motorbike, cross the border and live a new life. There are also the two superintendents who were murdered at the border. There has been collusion from the Garda Síochána and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has to be accountability for the people in the Garda Síochána who gave evidence and for the people in government at the time who oversaw it and did nothing about it. There is a big role for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to play, so let us ensure that we keep their feet to the fire and keep the heat on the back of their neck.
Chris Bryant
That is precisely the point I am making. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and provide answers. Where they fail to do so, we will take issue with them assertively. The key difference that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South made was ensuring that the Irish Government are introducing legislation that will require them to co-operate in this process and, in many cases, provide answers that are essential in relation to the kind of person that the hon. Member for Strangford refers to.
Gavin Robinson
The Garda legacy unit has been much lauded, particularly by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). It formed part of the framework that was published last year, and it was meant to be operative from January. Is the Secretary of State aware that from that date until now, that unit has failed to provide any answers or any responses, answer the telephone or respond to emails with any information? Is he aware that there was a public perception that it was providing information until we challenged Helen McEntee as the Minister responsible? She then said that no information would be passed at all until the legal uncertainties were cleared—they have been cleared by Dillon in the Supreme Court—or this legislation passes, yet the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information continues to investigate cases. It continues to seek answers for families, and it is getting no responses whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State have an indication that the legacy unit will provide those answers, either following tonight or next Tuesday?
Chris Bryant
I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.
Chris Bryant
I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.
The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.
The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the briefing that his team gave mine at the start of this week. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that he and his team have worked hard to try to make improvements to this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill is a mess. That mess is attested to by the fact that we are still debating it when it was introduced a year ago tomorrow and we have yet to breach Committee of the whole House. The mess is attested to by the fact that we are debating a carry-over motion for the second time. It is attested to by the fact that the Government told us in April that they were going to submit their amendments after six months of delay, but published them only yesterday after another six months. We have 144 Government amendments making up a pack of about 300 amendments over 119 pages. This is a mess in the process of becoming a bigger mess.
The Secretary of State has been handed this mess. I know it is not of his making, but he has been given the unenviable task of fixing it. Yet this Bill cannot be fixed, because the fundamentals are wrong. However much one scrubs off some of the worst corners and the worst excesses, the fundamentals are still there. Next week, we will have a chance to debate this legislation and its many amendments, but the amount of time set aside is wholly unequal to the task. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government have effectively denied the House the Report stage. Only an hour has been set aside for Report, and it is inevitable that the Committee of the whole House will eat that away entirely. As a Back Bencher, the Secretary of State was a defender of this House’s role in scrutiny. It is upsetting that we will not be able to give this Bill proper treatment in the Commons and that it will only get proper scrutiny in the Lords. That, though, is only a minor quibble in the face of the problems in the Bill itself.
In simple terms, we cannot support this legislation because it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. In the long time in which this Bill has been in the Table Office, a number of cases have come to public attention that illustrate both the problem that requires fixing and the inadequacy of the Government’s response. In November last year, we debated the findings in the case against soldier F from Bloody Sunday.
Alex Burghart
Soldier F was found not guilty after the longest and most detailed inquiry in British legal history. Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that even after such an investigation, the evidence fell well short of the standard required.
Alex Burghart
The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined”—
Alex Burghart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will finish my sentence.
Alex Burghart
Because I was in the middle of speaking. The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper.”
It is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, but I would also be grateful if he actually mentioned a victim in his speech. We are three minutes in, and there has not been one mention. He talks about soldier F, who murdered lots of people on Bloody Sunday along with his colleagues. They were unarmed people, as proven by a British Prime Minister-appointed court of tribunal, and as understood, recognised and supported by a Tory Prime Minister. Will he mention some of the victims of soldier F or some of the other victims that we should be talking about tonight, instead of people who were willingly and openly going into streets and shooting people down who did not have a gun in their hand? That is what happened.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims. The victims, who suffered so much, are being given the promise of convictions that will never come. Even when we have the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes, yet this House is now expected to believe that the legislation before us will open the road to all these convictions. It will not happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled, but that does not mean that soldiers who did nothing but their duty will not be pulled through the courts time and time again.
In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case from 1992. On that occasion, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war, they sought to kill and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. The men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances, decades ago.
The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in the House. In 2024 a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in Coagh in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as “ludicrous” and said that it should never have come to court. Despite that, in April this year the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out. Last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court, and that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years, when the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous.
Chris Bryant
I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that all that is under his legislation.
Alex Burghart
I am giving the Secretary of State an example of the things that will not be stopped by his legislation. This will continue. The Bill does not solve the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
Your problem.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady says that it is our problem. Our legislation drew a line in the sand which meant that things like that would never happen again. That case had already started, and if the hon. Lady were familiar with the legacy Act, she would know where the line in the sand was drawn.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I just want some clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.
Alex Burghart
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out to the hon. Lady and the Minister for Veterans and People exactly the sort of problems that the legacy Act was designed to solve. There was obviously a cut-off point—[Interruption.] As I am sure the hon. Members know, the legacy Act had a cut-off point, and cases that had already started were not caught by that. I am giving an example of similar cases that will now come about because of their legislation.
As Philip Barden KC wrote in The Spectator this week, the Government’s attempts to solve this issue, and the Government's proposed protections, are wholly inadequate to the task. They fail on their own test, because the Bill and the Government’s amendments “will permit repeat investigations.” Earlier, the Secretary of State raised the use of the word “essential”, and talked about new evidence. As Philip Barden pointed out,
“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence.”
This might sound like a high bar, but it is an extremely low bar.
All the while—throughout the year and more in which we have been dealing with this legislation—the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, set up by the legacy Act, has been doing its work. A few weeks ago, ICRIR published its first report, which laid out the details of Mr Rory O’Kelly’s murder by the IRA in 1977. That was an information-recovery exercise which concluded that no perpetrators were ever likely to be identified, but it still provided answers to questions that have haunted Mr O’Kelly’s family for half a century. His daughter described, in extremely moving terms, how the report had moved the family into a
“space of serenity and light, all anger taken away”.
Yet just as ICRIR has started working as intended, the Government are to reprogramme it into what two generals have described today as essentially a criminal investigations body, charged with collecting evidence to a criminal standard, although we know that the chance of prosecutions is incredibly unlikely. Those who work in ICRIR are desperately concerned that that will lead to a massive increase in their workload, with no increase in funding, and that it will inevitably mean long delays and distraction from the core information-recovery exercise, which was intended to be their central function. Those on the Government Benches may not want to take from me the case that I am making against this Bill, and I understand that, but they should take it from the retired generals and soldiers who have repeatedly spoken out.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about veterans and the roles of those veterans. My concern is for my constituents who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive their service in Northern Ireland. What those families want is the truth, and they want a truth that is undebatable. Does he not recognise that we should be talking about the victims and the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false dichotomy? There is more than one level or tier of victim.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady speaks powerfully on this point, and she is absolutely right to say that many victims were people who served. I was talking about the way in which ICRIR works and is now being seen to work. Regardless of who was killed, it can be used by victims’ families in order to assist in the information-recovery process, and one of the advantages of ICRIR is that it is a non-adversarial system that has already started to enable families to find out things they did not know before. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that process is very valuable, which is why it was put in the legacy Act by the previous Government.
I hope that Labour Members, and anybody in the House who is thinking of supporting the continuation of this legislation, will listen to the two retired generals who wrote today that the Government should stop pretending that their amendments offer veterans meaningful protections. The consequence of continuing down this route will be that some men who served decades ago, like soldier B—not soldier B himself, but men like him—will spend years in the jaws of vexatious litigation, that victims will not receive the justice that they are being promised by this legislation, and that many more veterans will continue to live with the nagging sense that those using lawfare may come for them. They are already being punished by the idea of this legislation.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party’s legacy Act actually gave no protection whatsoever to veterans’ families because it was found to be unlawful? He has therefore let those families down.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will know that her Government, when they came in, did not appeal against that case. We have a human rights framework that is wholly inadequate for dealing with cases from decades ago, and it is clear that the current Government would rather protect that framework than protect people from that period.
The failings of this Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen and long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have met many people whose lives have been shaped by the troubles and who, decades later, continue to search for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, today I hosted in Parliament victims’ families from WAVE. They also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, which I was really pleased about. I pay tribute to Jennifer, who was 12 when the IRA took over her family’s home and her father, Patsy, was abducted and killed; to Pat Molloy, whose son John was 18 when he was killed on his way home; to Mo Norton, whose brother Terence was serving when he was killed in the M62 bus bomb in 1974; and, finally, to Laura Burns, whose dad Robert was killed in their home.
It is always emotional listening to any victim, so I would personally like to thank victims for speaking to us; they are in the Gallery. As we debate this Bill and consider the next steps in this process, we must keep those people at the forefront of our mind.
At the end of last year, my Committee completed a year-long inquiry on the legacy of the past. It was a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging extensively with all communities, and revealing strong cross-party consensus on a number of key issues and areas where the Bill can be improved. Our hope is that the detailed evidence and recommendations in our report will help shape debate in this House and beyond. I encourage all Members to review our report as we consider this Bill.
My Committee heard powerful testimony from victims, survivors and families who continue to live with the consequences of the past. Many are still struggling to obtain answers, accountability and a measure of closure. We cannot build a more reconciled future without addressing the past, and for that reason, we must ensure that the Bill is carried over, and that Parliament has the time to give these issues the careful consideration that they deserve. It is clear that there is still much that we need to do to improve this Bill, so that victims and survivors remain at its heart, and so that it addresses the concerns raised during our inquiry.
Time and again, witnesses pointed to the importance of resources. Whatever structures Parliament creates, they will succeed only if they are properly funded. Without adequate resources, expectations will be raised that cannot be met. We also heard concerns about whether victims’ and survivors’ voices would be fully reflected in the new arrangements. This process should never be framed as a choice between different groups; the focus must remain on those who continue to carry the burden of loss and trauma. More broadly, questions remain about how the new system will work in practice: who can access investigations, how will information be disclosed, and can we build confidence in the process? These issues go to the heart of public trust.
In conclusion, while views differ on many aspects of legacy, one message came through clearly: people want a process that is properly resourced, commands public confidence and places victims and their families at its centre. The challenge for the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office is to deliver that. We owe it to those still carrying the legacy of the past to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As has been said many times before, and ignored just as often by Conservative Members, the Tories’ legacy Act utterly failed our veterans, drawing an unacceptable equivalence between the actions of those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to undermine it by maiming, murdering and doing all they could to encourage sectarian division and hatred.
Of course, the Conservatives are trying to argue that they are defending the interests of our brave veterans, when in reality they are cynically using them to score political points. That is why so many veterans organisations will have nothing to do with their grandstanding. The legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations under the European convention on human rights. At the time, that was just collateral damage, but now it has become central to the Conservatives’ ill-conceived plan to leave the ECHR, and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Brexit deal of which they are so unjustly proud.
The legacy Act failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party, be it from the Unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition, supports the Conservatives’ flawed legislation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation. As we have seen throughout these debates, the Tories are still in denial about the legacy Act’s failings, just as they are in denial about their many other failings in government—from Brexit to their financial mismanagement. I am sorry to say that it is what we have come to expect from a once-great party. It is shameless, and they should be shame-faced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?
Mr Kohler
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Labour party’s willingness to deal with these failings is most welcome. At this point, may I, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who was the architect of the original Bill, for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party’s spokesperson for Northern Ireland? I am pleased to acknowledge that it is an approach normally followed by the shadow Secretary of State, and followed by the new Secretary of State.
Although 156 Government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing them today. Under the mysterious procedures of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry-over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary Session. I am sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but I trust that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and his fellow trailblazers on the Modernisation Committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time-wasting practices. The Bill we are considering today is the same one we considered the last time we debated it, so my party will again vote against the motion.
I have worked closely with veterans organisations, such as the British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland. Anxiety about future threats of lawfare, and veterans being dragged through repeated investigations, has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against that background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards in the Bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure that the process does not become the punishment.
I commend both the Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues. As they both promised, the Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned raft of 156 amendments. However, there is just a week before the Committee stage. That raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then re-numbered Government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail. Only today, I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments.
Mr Kohler
He did, but I have now discovered a table, helpfully produced by the Northern Ireland Office, detailing the key ones. It is very useful, but what we and the veterans groups need is time to work through the implications of each amendment, and to talk to our veterans. That is simply not possible in only a week.
As the Secretary of State knows, I also have concerns that scrutiny is being undertaken via a Committee of the House. What this legislation requires is detailed line-by-line examination of each clause, but what we will have is two days of the usual pantomime in this Chamber.
Chris Bryant
It is really important to explain why we do not generally consider Northern Ireland legislation in a Committee upstairs; it is so that a lot of Members can take part in these debates.
Mr Kohler
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention, but I was coming on to that. I am told, as he has just told me again, that the reason we have a Committee of the whole House is that we need to include our colleagues who represent Northern Ireland. However, I do not see why that absolutely legitimate point could not have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—a solution that I suggested, but that the Secretary of State ignored.
This legislation will have profound consequences for victims and veterans. Getting it right is essential to maintaining the confidence of communities across Northern Ireland, and the confidence of current and former members of the armed forces. Our amendments propose clear statutory safeguards to prevent repeated investigations, unless there is materially new evidence that is certified as necessary and proportionate. They establish a presumption of remote participation, so that veterans are not compelled to relive traumatic experiences in person unless it is strictly essential. They also provide for anonymity, proper welfare support and regulated contact through official channels. Additionally, our amendments seek to ensure that veterans’ views are properly represented, including by guaranteeing veterans a place on the victims and survivors group. We would also establish an independent reviewer, who would report annually to Parliament. This would ensure that protections were consistently applied, properly scrutinised and upheld in practice.
The Government’s amendments do indeed seek to address many of those points, but we need to work through the detail of the drafting before we can say whether they achieve what is needed. For example, the clause requiring compelling new evidence to exist, or be reasonably expected to exist, before a witness can be contacted is already giving us cause for concern, as the director of investigations will be the sole judge of his own decision.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I enjoy working with him on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have also enjoyed listening to him talk us through his many amendments. Does he not realise, though, that we will not be able to consider or vote on those amendments if he does not back this motion this evening?
Mr Kohler
The point is that we have only a week to consider 156 amendments, and then we have only two days to discuss them. We need line-by-line scrutiny.
The legislation does not exist in a vacuum. The House is aware that tensions have increased in the wake of the decisions to allow the Drumcree march, and then to ban it. Against that backdrop, it is even more important that the legislation provides genuine routes to reconciliation, so that future generations growing up in Northern Ireland no longer have to experience the divisions of the past.
On that point, I am still disappointed by the lack of weight given to restorative justice in the Bill. The process cannot only be about legal mechanisms that conceive of justice through an all-too-narrow lawyer’s lens. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a statutory duty to promote reconciliation, alongside a framework for restorative justice. That would offer victims and survivors, where they choose to participate, the opportunity for truth telling and acknowledgment outside of purely adversarial processes.
For many, the primary question is not about punishment but understanding. The recent report from ICRIR into the death of Rory O’Kelly, who was murdered by an IRA gunman, shows that answers, not retribution, are key. His daughter Frances issued a powerful statement, describing the catharsis and closure that the report brought to her and her brother Roger, who died shortly before its publication. The work undertaken ensured that Roger did not die without knowing what had happened to his father. Yes, this was a form of restorative justice, but our amendments would allow more intensive forms of RJ.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.
Mr Kohler
I remain to be convinced that the Bill, even after 156 amendments, can deliver on its essential function, and I am concerned that we cannot properly scrutinise the proposed wording to see if it will. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the motion.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am voting in favour of the carry-over motion, because we need to debate the Bill, and to have the Bill. We need to have it for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. Not only are the victims of terror attacks looking at the Bill—many are in the Public Gallery—but the eyes of the world are on us. This is an international issue. We have shown the way by bringing peace to Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest legacies of the Labour party—and the tireless work of community activists, Members in this Chamber and those from different parties in Northern Ireland, representing a future full of peace.
To have that future, however, we need to understand the past, and there are over 1,000 families who have not got answers about what happened to their loved one. For those families, that is a pain that is almost too hard to tell. They do not know what happened in the last minutes of their loved one’s life, who committed those atrocities, and in many circumstances, where they are. That pain is being passed on to future generations, who they are understandably worried about.
Today I met members of the WAVE Trauma Centre community in Belfast. Sandra Peake and WAVE do an amazing job of addressing the continuing trauma. They enable us politicians to hear from some of the families. Those stories were hard to hear, but I will share some of the words spoken, because I support the carry-over motion on their behalf. One victim said:
“It is important to get legacy right now or it will keep affecting our children and future generations”.
They said it was important to debate the motion and have the right product set up,
“so that we can move on.”
Another person said,
“My mum has been fighting for decades and passed it on to me, but she should have the answers before it is too late.”
Someone else said,
“I would really like the truth. Who was responsible.”
Another said, “People need the truth.”
People have been researching what happened, in some cases for 20 years or more. They know some of the names and have begun to piece some of it together. There is always the concern that there might be an investigative journalist knocking on the door with some of the answers, but with no actual investigation to back it up with and to say what really happened.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am listening to the powerful message that the hon. Lady is giving. Is she concerned that in moving away from ICRIR and the work that has already been done and moving to a commission, trust and the search for truth will be lost and some families, veterans and victims may be put off the process because they see yet another body?
Fleur Anderson
I really welcome that question. I think that the Bill will enable us to build on the work of ICRIR and that it will prove itself. If the Bill is not agreed to, investigations will not go forward at the pace that they need to, and then justice is stopped. I think that more families will come to the commission in its new and improved form, and then more families will have answers.
If we do not approve this carry-over motion and pass the Bill behind it, we will not see an improvement to the commission and it will not be able to continue doing its work. Too many court cases have been stopped because of the Conservatives’ legacy Act. Too much justice has been stopped. More than 1,000 police investigations, including investigations into the deaths of over 200 members of our armed forces and civilians, were stopped. That Act failed to win the confidence of families and victims. It shut down civil claims and halted inquests. Now we need the good work of peace and reconciliation to go ahead.
At the same time, the Government have rightly recognised the need to protect veterans. I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State for their work in delivering that. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—several of my constituents have come to talk to me about what they did—served with courage, professionalism and distinction in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Bill’s protections against unnecessary repeat investigations, recognition of operational realities and safeguards for witnesses will help to ensure fairness for those who served our country honourably.
More than a quarter of a century after the Good Friday agreement, Northern Ireland has made extraordinary progress, as I have seen for myself. But for far too many families, the shadow of the troubles remains. We cannot change what happened or undo the enormous suffering that was inflicted, but we can ensure that families have the best possible chance of discovering the truth. That chance will continue to wither away if there are more delays, because it will be harder to get the evidence, talk to witnesses and get to the truth.
This Government have chosen not to look away; they have chosen to act. I therefore welcome the carry-over motion, the Bill that will follow and the commitment that it represents to victims, survivors, families and the whole of the Northern Irish community that there can be justice.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Minister. I enjoyed working with her in that role.
It is incumbent on me to make two initial points. The first is that we only have 30 minutes left in this 90-minute debate and this is the first substantive Northern Ireland contribution. Because of that, I will keep my remarks as brief—uncharacteristically brief—as I can.
Can I also uncharacteristically welcome the tone of the Secretary of State in introducing the carry-over motion? It should be no surprise to him that I lament that we are here debating it. I lament the fact that a Government who came in with such a majority on a promise of repeal and replace is doing neither. I resent the fact that it took 18 months before we received the Bill a year ago, and the advice of my colleagues and I six or eight months ago was that if they Government were going to amend their own legislation so substantively, it would have been better to withdraw it and reintroduce it with coherence and consistency, so that people could look at it and understand its implications properly.
What we have now is but one week. I said this morning and I say again that it is deeply unfortunate for innocent victims and veterans to have but a week to consider and comprehend the import of the amendments—scores of them, with 60 additional pages in the amendment paper—and understand the impact they will have on their rightful quest for truth and justice.
The Secretary of State will know if he has educated himself on these issues and the history of them that we did not support conditional immunity. We do not support those measures, and we are pleased to see some of the issues that he has opened today, and which he released to the media and to parliamentarians yesterday. I lament that during the passage of the legacy Act, although the former Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, took on board many of the amendments tabled by me and my colleagues, he could not do so in this representative House of Commons, but had to leave it to the House of Lords. Here again, we have amendment after amendment where the Government have thankfully finally listened to some of the amendments tabled by me, by my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party and by Ulster Unionist party, Traditional Unionist Voice, independent and Alliance Members. The Government have, however, tabled their own amendments.
I do not understand why the Labour Government resisted for so long committing to legislate to root out equivalence between those who upheld the law and those who set out to destroy law and order in Northern Ireland—between veterans and paramilitaries. I am glad that that will be put beyond doubt, because it was a statement of fact before and it should not have been resisted.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am pleased to see that there is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, so I do not have to hold myself to the commitments I made earlier. [Laughter.]
I say to the Secretary of State that I am pleased that the Labour Government have accepted that they will legislate on the matter of on-the-runs—again, it is a statement of fact, and I could never comprehend why the Labour Government were resisting such an amendment. So, too, will they legislate to ensure that paramilitaries and former paramilitaries—people who sullied themselves and tried to destroy our society—will not form part of any advisory board to the commission. That is right. I could not for the life of me understand why the Labour Government were resistant to that approach. I am grateful—[Interruption.]. No, it was always indicated that it would not happen in practice, but they would not legislate on the face of the Bill. I say “they”; I mean the Labour Government. I am glad that at least that concession has been given.
I am grateful that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to make a fundamental point, which draws on comments that were opened earlier. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), but I am pleased that he referred to what happened yesterday in the Omagh inquiry. It is beyond me—I hope it is beyond every sensible Member of this House—that the Government are still resisting the dates for the legacy commission. The legacy commission has to stop its work on a given date—the date the Belfast agreement was signed—yet the largest atrocity of the troubles occurred just three months later in Omagh. The Government are resistant to allowing the legacy commission to consider the case of Omagh.
Why is that important? It is important because the Omagh inquiry is set up, and its terms of reference allow the inquiry only to look at what the British state could have done to prevent the largest atrocity of the troubles, yet the Irish Government have questions to answer. Yesterday when John Ware, the former “Panorama” journalist, opened up his evidence in court, he referred to the Irish soldiers who received a bomb warning the day before—on 14 August—in Finner base, as has been mentioned. I have every word of that. Will the Secretary of State ask immediately for a copy of that document? He knows that it goes further; he knows that it says clearly that on 14 August they have to inform the guards and the Northern Ireland security forces and that they have to place people on border checkpoints 196 and 194. It was very clear and precise. Why was it opened up yesterday? Because the belief is that, in a 1,500-page bundle, the Irish did not know that they had given it, and they were worried that it was going to be taken back and not opened up.
If the Irish Government had information the night before, at Finner base, that the Omagh bomb was going to be placed in Omagh, as was opened yesterday in the inquiry, that needs to be explored. Yet it falls outside the terms of reference. All we ask in the amendments is that we legislate for ourselves to say that the legacy commission can at least consider the largest troubles-related incident that sits outside the dates of the troubles.
Jim Allister
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.
Gavin Robinson
It was Mr Justice Horner, as he was then, who declared in 2021 that there should be an inquiry on both sides of the border to deal with the jurisdictional issues. I say this to the Prime Minister: the legacy commission will have the ability to look at the issues, provided the dates are moved from 21 April 1998 to 31 August 1998. It is easily done, and it is so fundamentally important for those victims and families who suffered at Omagh and who require truth and justice. I make the plea, knowing that I am going beyond the bounds of a carry-over motion debate, that this is so fundamental that we cannot allow this point to pass and for the Government fail those families yet again. Yesterday’s revelation is as stark and as telling as it needs to be. The information shared yesterday falls outside the terms of reference, and yet the legacy commission should and could take on that work.
I intend to revisit this matter next week, but in the interim I implore the Secretary of State, with whom I have raised it on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, who I am grateful is here, to consider the import of what was shared yesterday in the inquiry and what was withheld from the Sir Peter Gibson review in the past, when it was emphatically said that the Irish had no warning when they did. The inquiry’s chairman is incapable of drawing conclusions from that because it falls outside his terms of reference. The legacy commission could do that work; it needs to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will be aware that we are pressed for time. I will try to get as many people in as I can, so I immediately reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his engagement throughout the process. Generals, veterans, veterans’ commissioners, ex-chiefs of the defence staff, victims, those who live in Northern Ireland—he has engaged with them all and collectively they are thankful for it. The Government amendments are also welcome; they are moving in the right direction.
There is one thing that I request from those on both sides of the House. Behind the victims, the soldier Bs and the soldier Fs, and underneath the passion and the emotion, there are human beings. We have to ensure that the message we send to them in this House is that we are after their best interests. We must remember that they will be watching this debate and that it affects every single factor of their lives.
I know what it is like to be in the dark, facing terrorists, when snap decisions have to be made in a difficult environment. Unfortunately, I also know what it is like to console the family members of lost loved ones. I do not know what it is like to have all that wrapped into a community and into neighbourhoods—neighbour on neighbour, street on street. I pay tribute to and commend all the individuals in the Gallery. Thank you so much for attending.
I resigned from Government in part because I could not support our approach to legacy. In particular, I remain concerned about the different routes we created to examine the same conflict and some of the same incidents.
It is my belief that we are adopting a twin-track approach to truth, justice and reconciliation. On the one hand, we have inquests, where the chance of prosecution is vanishingly small, but the prosecution is often not the end state. The process has become the punishment. With a minimum cost of £20 million, on average, and a maximum cost of £20 million per inquest, the total equates, as one Policy Exchange paper put it, to in excess of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, we have the legacy commission. Let us build it. Let us make it better. Let us make it the single route to truth, reconciliation and justice. It has more investigative powers, it can move faster and it will bring the end state at a delivery cost of a fraction of that of inquests. What other country delivers reconciliation through a twin-track approach? It just does not happen.
I will vote in support of the carry-over motion tonight, but there is more to be done to streamline the route towards truth, reconciliation and justice, so my vote tonight should not be taken as support of the Bill as it stands. I believe that there is a better way, and more work to be done: one route, one process, no more lawfare, no more twin-track approach, stop the legal exploitation of the system, and put all the inquests through the legacy commission. I will vote tonight to carry the Bill over, but when we get to Committee, it must change.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to talk about the carry-over motion that we have in front of us this evening, because much of what we have heard from the Secretary of State was what we heard from the previous Secretary of State in regard to why we needed to see the remedial order rushed through. The remedial order went nowhere, but now we are compensating and bringing it into the legislation that we have been asked to consider next week.
I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in regard to the number of amendments that have been laid before us when considering the Bill and the very short time that this Government have given everybody to consider them. That applies not just to the legislators in this House but to the victims groups, the veterans not just of the United Kingdom but of Northern Ireland, and the small family groups, who will find it extremely difficult to work through that booklet of amendments to see how it applies to them, to their cause and to their loved ones, and how it supports them in their search for truth.
I ask the Secretary of State to look at the timing of the Committee stage and also at what contribution Northern Ireland MPs will get to make in this House. I make a plea to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches: let us not use victims and veterans in Northern Ireland as political playthings. We have heard that from the Labour Benches. The Government are at times as bad as what we have seen from the Opposition, and I think the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), has a lot to apologise for here tonight in regard to the topics that he brought forward. I ask the Secretary of State to consider a Keeling schedule, setting out with clarity how the amendments would apply to the legislation, what amendments can be brought forward and how they would amend the Bill. That would make a big difference.
The Secretary of State strayed away from the carry-over motion into some of the amendments. Can I ask him and the Government to look seriously at my amendment 4, which would bring sexual crime under the remit of the new commission? I know what the previous Secretary of State said, and what the Northern Ireland Office said, and it is often stated in here that the previous Government’s troubles Bill did not receive any support from the Northern Ireland parties. My amendment has support from every Northern Ireland MP who takes their seat in this House, as well as from Labour Members and Lib Dem Members, so I ask the Government to seriously consider it. When I met the Secretary of State to talk about this, he was very open and honest, and he said that the Government would consider non-Government amendments to make this Bill better. It has a long, long way to go before it could be acceptable to many in my community.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I will be supporting the carry-over motion today. I would also like to pay tribute to the victims from the WAVE Trauma Centre, who, alongside many of us, have shared their powerful stories with parliamentarians in the last two days.
Nearly 30 years on from the Good Friday agreement, these men and women are still seeking truth and justice for the awful crimes inflicted upon them. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will share a couple of the stories that they shared with me. The first is the story of Jennifer Gillespie. Jennifer was just 12 years old when masked Provisional IRA men broke into her house, took her and her mother hostage, and forced her father, Patsy, to drive into an Army checkpoint as a human bomb. Patsy, who was a civilian cook in the local barracks, was chained to the driving seat of a van packed with 1,000 lb of explosives, followed by kidnappers in a separate car, while his family was held at gunpoint. He was forced to drive into the checkpoint. As he approached, Patsy shouted a desperate warning to the troops guarding the checkpoint, but the IRA detonated the van, killing Patsy and five soldiers from the King’s Regiment. That was just one of three co-ordinated proxy bomb attacks that evening. Jennifer and her mother, Kathleen, are still seeking justice so many years after that horrible attack.
I also met Mo Norton, whose brother, Bombardier Terence Griffin, was one of 12 killed in the M62 bombings. A Provisional IRA bomb was stowed in their coach luggage locker, and exploded as the young soldiers and their families were returning to Catterick after their weekend leave. Nine soldiers and three civilians were killed, including two children, aged just five and two. Mo is still devastated after all these years, and she and her family in Wigan are still seeking answers.
I never served in Northern Ireland myself, but I have served alongside many soldiers and Marines who have. They spoke of the constant threat of snipers and bombs, of not knowing who among the local population might be trying to kill them or when they would strike. They took on strict rules of engagement, serving in the United Kingdom among British citizens to protect them. They fought paramilitaries that were unencumbered by those same rules, as the cowardly attacks I described earlier show.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these veterans, but victims and veterans are not two separate groups. Two hundred and sixty-four members of our armed forces were murdered by terrorists. They had their unresolved cases terminated by the 2023 legacy Act. We owe these families a chance at justice. The last Conservative Government attempted in good faith to draw a line under the troubles, but their offer of conditional immunity was unacceptable to bereaved families, and the courts found it unlawful. The legacy Act must be replaced, and today’s motion allows for that work to continue. The families have waited for decades. I urge the House to pass the carry-over motion and allow the Bill to proceed.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Government ask the House to grant the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill a carry-over extension. This is not a trivial request. It will extend the life of the Bill, and this House should not grant it lightly, particularly where the legislation is as contentious as this.
I ask a basic question: what will the extension actually achieve? I am aware of the Government’s proposed amendments. The Government will be aware of the substance of the amendment I have tabled, which seeks to bar former paramilitaries from appointment to the victims and survivors advisory group. I welcome the fact that my amendment has been substantially engaged with, but a Government amendment or amendments, however welcome, cannot cure a Bill that must be judged in the round. Taken as a whole, the legislation remains substantially flawed.
Behind this procedural motion lie real people: victims and survivors who have waited decades for truth and acknowledgment, and veterans who served this country with courage and distinction, who now face the prospect of repeated investigations into events from more than 50 years ago. That is my impression. Isn’t the reality that neither group is served by legislation that does not command the confidence of either?
William Faulkner wrote:
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in Northern Ireland. Families will seek answers about loved ones they lost. Veterans who served under extraordinary pressure deserve fairness and certainty in equal measure.
We must speak honestly about the history. Around nine in 10 troubles-related deaths were caused by terrorist organisations, not by the state. Any legislative framework that does not reflect that reality with clarity and proportionality risks compounding injustice rather than resolving it.
Lord Hewart reminded us over a century ago that
“Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
That principle cannot be set aside by a Bill extended for procedural convenience while its fundamental flaws remain unaddressed. Carry-over should be the exception, not the default—granted where a Bill is close to being fit for purpose, not where it remains substantially flawed. Extension will not repair this. The House owes victims, survivors and veterans more than delay dressed up as progress. I urge Members to oppose this motion.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Politics is ultimately about confidence. Leaders cannot lead without the confidence of their party, a Government cannot govern without the confidence of this House, and legislation cannot work without the confidence of the people it affects. The legislation passed by the previous Government did not have the confidence of any party in Northern Ireland, victims groups or, ultimately, the courts, but it is entirely apparent that this legislation has never had the confidence of veterans, and I genuinely believe it unlikely that it can be recovered. I am talking about veterans like Mick Male, a member of the Hartlepool armed forces liaison group, who came to my office to express his lack of confidence in the Bill and who invited me to meet his veteran colleagues who said similar.
I fully appreciate the efforts of our new Secretary of State and his attempts to rescue this Bill and restore that confidence, and also the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and his efforts to go further to restore confidence. On balance, I believe that these arguments deserve to be heard and debated, but veterans in my community of Hartlepool deserve to be able to debate them as well. I am deeply sceptical that in the next few days they will have the opportunity to make their views heard, in the way they should be allowed to, to their elected representatives. I say clearly to Mick and all the veterans in Hartlepool that if, ultimately, in just a few days’ time this Bill does not have their support, then it will not have mine.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation?
My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.
The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today.
I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is at times like this that I feel very despondent. I share some of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) tonight, because I do not think it is ideal that I am standing here with 180 seconds to try to sum up what this carry-over motion and this Bill mean.
The people of Northern Ireland have heard it all before. This is not perfect, and the manner in which it is being done is far from perfect, but people have died waiting. We have been at this in Northern Ireland for at least 20-odd years. I am not going to stand in the way of any family. I have held the hands of families—families I know from my constituency—people who served, people who were innocent Catholics, and people who were innocent Protestants. No one person is above anyone else. I hope to God that those people in the Gallery understand that and do not go away from this place despondent tonight. I am glad more people from Northern Ireland are not listening to this—I really am—because there has been a lot of grace lacking in this.
Let’s stop playing games. No one has any right above another. It has been many, many years, and many mistakes have been made. All I want anybody in Lagan Valley, Northern Ireland, across the UK and wider afield, where people have been drawn into what was such an intimate, insidious and disgusting conflict, to know is this: you are seen, and you all matter. We are not going to get this 100% right, but if we do not act now, people will die—many already have—without the truth. I will be supporting this carry-over motion tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the final one and a half minutes, I call Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—
David Davis
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has now put that matter on the record.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Monday 19th October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 October 2026 - large print - (19 Oct 2026)
21:24 - divided: - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:09 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:31 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:46 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:04 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. When addressing the Chair, please use our names, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman”.
Clause 1
Introduction
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move amendment 143, page 1, line 8, leave out
“including Schedules 1 to 8 to that Act,”.
This is a drafting change.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), or of any Remedial Order made under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any rights or protections that were, as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, granted by the ICRIR to individuals who had previously served as service personnel or crown servants are to be regarded by any prosecuting authority or court in the United Kingdom as remaining in force.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.
Amendment 24, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “12 April 2010”.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) perpetuating or planning an act of terrorism”.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, at end insert—
“(2A) Any actions which were lawfully performed by members of the Armed Forces, or Crown servants, in the course of their duties shall not, as a consequence of this Act, be considered as unlawful acts of terrorism or criminal violence.”
Amendment 10, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) No provisions of this Act may be read to imply or suggest a moral equivalence between perpetrators of terrorism and the security and police forces of the State.”
Amendment 56, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) No provisions of this Act are to be understood as suggesting any form of equivalence between terrorist actors and the British Armed Forces, security or police services.”
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “(section 7)” insert “, and
(f) the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.”
Amendment 82, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
“(e) to offer to refer parties to relevant conduct to restorative justice processes as an alternative to referral to prosecution where investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under this Act find evidence that offences have been committed (see section [Restorative justice procedures]).”
This amendment provides that a principal function of the Legacy Commission will be to offer to refer parties to restorative justice processes as an alternative to prosecution. It is connected to Amendments 83 and 84, and NC19.
Government amendment 144.
Amendment 7, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) In performing its functions, the Legacy Commission must ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.”
This amendment will require the Legacy Commission to ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.
Amendment 53, page 3, line 7, leave out from “, and” until end of line 8.
This amendment would remove the Chief Executive Officer from being a member of the Legacy Commission’s oversight board.
Government amendments 145 to 147.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendments 252 to 254.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 82, line 23, at end insert—
“(cc) the person has previously held one or more of the following offices—
(i) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly;
(ii) a councillor (within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 – see section 126(1) of that Act);
(iii) a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, or
(iv) a Member of the European Parliament representing any constituency in Northern Ireland,”.
This amendment adds anyone who has previously held elected office in Northern Ireland to the list of restrictions on being appointed as a Legacy Commissioner or Director of Investigations.
Government amendments 255 to 259.
Amendment 42, page 86, leave out part 4.
This Amendment decouples the process for appointing Judicial Panel members from the appointment process for other offices involving the Secretary of State and is consequential to Amendments 39, 40 and 41.
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out from “investigations” to end of line 2 and insert “in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, so far as practicable, to ensure that one of the persons appointed as Director of Investigations must have experience of conducting criminal investigations elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 39, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.
This amendment provides for Judicial Panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
Amendment 40, page 4, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.
This amendment provides for the senior judicial panel member to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 41, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes reference to the appointment process set out in Schedule 1 and is consequential to Amendments 39 and 40.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Amendment 116, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, after “victims” insert “, veterans”.
This amendment changes the purpose of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group so that it additionally provides advice to the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State in such a way as to uphold the rights and interests of veterans.
Amendment 117, page 5, line 11, leave out “so far as practicable”.
This amendment removes the “so far as practicable” limitation on the categories of people who must be members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.
Amendment 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(iii) the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and”.
Amendment 75, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(iii) one or more persons who is a veteran.”
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, so far as practicable, ensure that the Victims and Survivors Group includes at least one veteran, as defined in Amendment 79.
Amendment 21, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has—
(a) been convicted of a Troubles-related offence, or
(b) been identified, following national security vetting, as having had any former or current associations with any proscribed organisation.”
Amendment 52, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has been, or is, a member of a political party that has any links to, or supports, any paramilitary or terrorist organisations past or present.”
Amendment 1, page 5, line 21, at end insert
“, and
(b) do not include any person—
(i) who has participated in any terrorist act, or
(ii) who has a terrorism-related criminal conviction.”
Amendment 2, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of this section, a “victim” is a human individual who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, through no fault of their own, directly by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law.
(5B) A person is not to be considered a “victim” if they—
(a) are, or were, physically or psychologically injured as a result, or in consequence, of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict related incident; and
(b) were either wholly, or in part, responsible for the planning, or implementation, of an unlawful conflict related incident.”
This amendment inserts a definition of victim for the purposes of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group which would be established under clause 8.
Amendment 22, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(5A) In this section references to victims and survivors refer to innocent victims and does not include those who are precluded from receiving a Victims Pension under Regulation 6 of the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020.”
Amendment 118, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer whose function is to—
(a) monitor and assess whether the views and interests of each member are being adequately represented within the Group;
(b) produce an annual report on the effectiveness of the Group’s representational balance and engagement with the Legacy Commission; and
(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State for improving the Group’s composition or consultative practices where imbalances or deficiencies are identified.”
This amendment provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the Group’s representational balance and effectiveness.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government amendment 149.
Clause 9 stand part.
Government amendment 150.
Amendment 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove the national security restriction on the Legacy Commission’s potential activities.
Amendment 85, page 6, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.
This amendment would limit the restriction on the Legacy Commission’s actions to those that would damage national security, rather than including those that would risk damaging national security.
Clause 10 stand part.
Government amendment 151.
Amendment 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 5, leave out
“human rights should be respected”
and insert
“human rights standards must be complied with”.
Amendment 77, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“(g) the principle that veterans who served the United Kingdom should not face disproportionate legal action through the conduct of the Legacy Commission.”
This amendment introduces a specific principle to the duties of the Legacy Commission, ensuring that in exercising its functions, the Commission protects veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who served the UK from disproportionate legal action.
Amendment 119, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“(g) the principle that all investigatory and inquisitorial functions should be exercised proportionately, having regard to the public interest in further inquiry and the likely evidential value of what it may yield.”
This amendment introduces a principle requiring investigatory and inquisitorial functions to be exercised proportionately by the Legacy Commission, having regard to the public interest and likely evidential value.
Government amendment 152.
Amendment 81, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(g) the principle that restorative justice procedures can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—
(i) facilitating honesty,
(ii) supporting victims and survivors, and
(iii) promoting reconciliation.”
This amendment creates a duty on the Legacy Commission to function consistently with the principle that restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles.
Clause 11 stand part.
Amendment 55, in clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out “constable” and insert
“Chief Constable, as provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”.
Government amendments 153 and 154.
Clause 12 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Government amendments 155 to 160.
Clause 13 stand part
Government amendments 161 and 162.
Amendment 120, in clause 14, page 9, line 24, leave out from second “person” to end of line 25 and insert
“(other than a veteran) to attend at a time and place stated in the notice, and in the case of a veteran may require such attendance only where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means—”.
This amendment provides that veterans may only be required to attend in person where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means.
Government amendments 163 and 164.
Amendment 80, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
“(3A) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) may not be issued to a veteran who has previously provided information under the provisions of this section, unless—
(a) materially new evidence has been brought to the attention of the relevant person,
(b) as a result of the new evidence, issuing a notice to a veteran to provide further information would, in the opinion of the relevant person, be proportionate and necessary,
(c) the relevant person has issued a certificate confirming that the conditions in (a) and (b) have been met.”
This amendment would prevent a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member from requiring a veteran to provide information under this section unless the investigator had certified that it was, in their view, proportionate and necessary to do so.
Amendment 138, page 10, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) A notice under this section may not require a person to attend to give oral evidence when the provisions of section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate] apply.
(5B) Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of full medical records, except in accordance with section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate].”
Government amendments 165 to 167.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendments 260 and 261.
Schedule 3.
Government amendments 168 and 169.
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 86, in clause 16, page 11, line 36, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.
This amendment changes the definition of sensitive information to refer to information that, if disclosed, would damage national security, rather than also including information that would risk damaging national security.
Amendment 87, page 12, line 5, leave out
“person considering whether information is prejudicial information”
and insert
“Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland”.
This amendment would give the decision as to whether the disclosure of information is prejudicial, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Clause 16 stand part.
Amendment 286, in schedule 4, page 99, line 14, leave out from “The duty” to the end of paragraph (4).
This amendment would remove the requirement for relevant authorities to classify information as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring it to the Legacy Commission, reflecting the conclusions of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.
Schedule 4.
Amendment 65, in clause 17, page 12, line 18, leave out from “person” to the end of line 41 and insert
“, unless in the view of the Commission the disclosure of such information would lead to a breach of any individual’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.”
Amendment 88, page 12, line 21, after “concerned” insert
“, unless a judicial panel member finds that it is necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would enable a judicial panel member to determine that a disclosure of information may be made by the Legacy Commission, notwithstanding prohibitions A to E, if they believe such a disclosure is necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 89, page 12, line 38, after “proceedings” insert
“, if any restriction notice has been approved by a judicial panel member”.
This amendment would require a judicial panel member to agree to the issuing of a restriction notice.
Government amendment 170.
Amendment 54, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
“(11) Within six months of this section coming into force, and every six months thereafter, the Legacy Commission must report on any incidences in which the Secretary of State, under the provisions of Prohibition C in subsection (6) and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, has either—
(a) prohibited the disclosure of, or
(b) ordered the redaction of material that has been identified by the Secretary of State as protected international information.
(12) In the case of material falling under subsection 11(b), the report specified in subsection (11) must include any determination made by the Legacy Commission as to whether the redactions resulted in the material being of no use to them in their investigations.
(13) Within a month of each report published by the Legacy Commission under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the report’s conclusions.”
Clause 17 stand part.
Government amendments 262 and 263.
Amendment 37, in schedule 5, page 101, line 39, leave out from “permitted” to the end of paragraph (5).
This amendment would remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to be notified prior to, and their ability to veto on national security or public interest grounds, the disclosure of sensitive information by the Legacy Commission.
Amendment 90, page 102, line 2, after “and” insert
“takes their response into account when reaching a decision”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 91 to 96, would allow the Legacy Commission to disclose sensitive information once it has notified the Secretary of State, and considered their response, and would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to prohibit disclosure on national security grounds.
Amendment 91, page 102, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 92, page 102, line 8, leave out “permitted” and insert “approved”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 93, page 102, line 9, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 94, page 102, line 11, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 97, page 102, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.
Amendments 97 and 98 clarify that the power to prohibit proposed disclosures on national security grounds is limited to those areas which would definitively, rather than potentially, impact national security.
Amendment 95, page 102, line 23, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 96, page 102, line 24, leave out “prohibition” and insert “opposition”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.
Amendment 104, page 102, line 24, after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
“(5A) Where a notification under sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) has been made, the Secretary of State must refer the matter to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
(5B) A referral under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made within a month of the Secretary of State’s notification.
(5C) In considering the referral under sub-paragraph (5A), the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament may request further reasons, and information, from the Secretary of State relating to the decision to prohibit the proposed disclosure on national security grounds.
(5D) The Secretary of State must respond to any request from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for further reasons or information within two weeks of receiving the request.
(5E) After considering a referral under sub-paragraph 5A the Intelligence and Security Committee may within 12 months of the referral lay before both Houses of Parliament a report outlining the Committee’s—
(a) assessment of the Secretary of State’s reasons for prohibiting the proposed disclosure of information; and
(b) conclusions on why the prohibition is an inappropriate response to national security considerations, and how—
(i) the information in its entirety could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed; or
(ii) the information, subject to redactions, could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed.
(5F) Where the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported that a disclosure could, in their opinion, be reasonably made under sub-paragraph (5E)(b) (i) or (ii), the Secretary of State must, within a month of the Committee publishing its report, make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the Committee’s conclusions.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to refer any decision to block a disclosure on national security grounds to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, enabling the Committee to review the decision, request further information, and, if it concludes that the prohibition is not justified, report to Parliament on how the information could reasonably be disclosed.
Amendment 98, page 102, line 26, leave out “risking damage to, or”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 97.
Amendment 38, page 103, leave out paragraphs (8) to (13).
This amendment is supplementary to Amendment 37.
Government amendments 264 to 266.
Amendment 101, page 104, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Amendment 99, page 104, line 30, leave out “an” and insert “a merits based”.
These amendments (99 to 101) would extend the power of the courts to review the merits of a Secretary of State’s decision not to permit the proposed disclosure of information, beyond those powers provided to courts in judicial review proceedings.
Amendment 100, page 104, line 33, leave out “review” and insert
“reconsider all evidence relating to”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Schedule 5.
Clause 18 stand part.
Government amendments 171 to 177.
Clause 19 stand part.
Amendment 67, in clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Government amendments 178 and 179.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Government amendments 180 to 182.
Clause 22 stand part.
Amendment 70, in clause 23, page 17, line 36, after “appropriate” insert—
“(k) the number of occasions during that reporting period when an employee of the Commissioner either—
(i) declared, or
(ii) (ii) was determined, following an internal review, to have
a conflict of interest in relation to a case referred to the Commission.”
Clause 23 stand part.
Government amendment 183.
Clause 24 stand part.
Government amendments 184 and 185.
Clause 25 stand part.
Government amendments 186 and 187.
Amendment 62, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) The statement must set out the manner in which the Legacy Commission is to exercise its investigatory function so as to ensure compliance with its human rights obligations, including, but not limited to, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Government amendments 188 and 189.
Clause 26 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 27, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(1A) Where conduct forming part of the Troubles—
(a) caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, or
(b) caused a person physical or mental harm as the result of being the victim of a sexual offence,
the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”
This amendment would enable victims of sexual crimes that were committed as conduct forming part of the Troubles to request an investigation under Part 3 of the Bill.
Amendment 68, page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
Clause 27 stand part.
Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) there is material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, and there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43.”
This amendment requires any requests for investigations by public authorities based on new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30 and requires there to be a realistic prospect of information being provided to a prosecutor.
Amendment 139, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(11A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Amendment 103, in clause 30, page 23, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the request relates to a matter which has previously been the subject of investigatory or inquisitorial proceedings, no further investigation may be accepted by the Directors unless—
(a) materially new evidence has been brought to their attention, and
(b) as a result of that new evidence, a re-investigation would, in their opinion, be proportionate, necessary, and in the public interest for maintaining confidence and trust in the justice system.
(c) Where (a) and (b) are satisfied, the Directors must issue a certification confirming that those conditions have been met.”
This amendment is intended to introduce a rule against reinvestigation of matters related to the conduct of a veteran unless new evidence has been brought to the attention of the Director of Investigations, is proportionate and necessary, and it is in the public interest.
Amendment 280, page 23, line 26, leave out
“or an active resumed inquest”.
Amendment 281, page 23, line 36, leave out
“or an active resumed inquest”.
Amendment 282, page 24, line 5, leave out “or resumed inquest”.
Amendment 123, page 24, line 9, leave out from “unless” to end and insert
“material new evidence exists which was not available to previous investigators and the Directors of Investigations acting jointly have issued a written “New Evidence Certificate” which—
(i) identifies the specific material relied upon as constituting such material new evidence;
(ii) confirms that the material was not reasonably available at the time of any previous investigation or inquest;
(iii) explains why any further investigation or duplication is essential and proportionate, having regard in particular to—
(A) the passage of time;
(B) the age and health of any person likely to be investigated;
(C) the likelihood that the new evidence could realistically lead to information capable of being provided to a prosecutor; and
is published, subject only to national security and GDPR redactions.”
This amendment introduces a requirement that further investigations duplicating earlier proceedings may only be undertaken where material new evidence exists and a “New Evidence Certificate” has been issued.
Amendment 25, page 24, line 9, after “essential” insert
“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Amendment 283, page 24, line 11, leave out “or a resumed inquest”.
Amendment 284, page 24, line 19, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
Clause 30 stand part.
Amendment 125, in clause 31, page 25, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of that investigation unless—
(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,
(ii) in the Directors’ view, the duplication is essential.”
This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before subsequent investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.
Amendment 26, page 25, line 33, after “essential” insert
“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 126, in clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) owing to material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43,”
This amendment requires investigations initiated by the Directors of Investigations on the basis of new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30.
Amendment 285, page 26, line 20, leave out from “proceedings” until the end of line 21.
Clauses 32 to 34 stand part.
Government amendments 190 and 191.
Clause 35 stand part.
Amendment 130, in clause 36, page 28, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) The Director must decide that the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation only where—
(a) material new evidence exists, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and
(b) such evidence is capable of demonstrating that the relevant conduct constituted an offence at the time it occurred; and
(c) there is a realistic prospect that the relevant prosecutorial authority would decide that it is in the public interest for a person to be prosecuted in respect of that conduct, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”
This amendment raises the threshold for conducting a criminal investigation by requiring material new evidence and a realistic prospect of prosecution. It is connected to Amendment 123.
Amendment 131, page 28, line 33, at end insert “, but may only do so where—
“(a) material new evidence exists in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and
(b) determining those facts is fair and proportionate, having regard in particular to the matters set out in sections 36(10) and 36(10A).”
This amendment limits non-criminal fact-finding investigations to cases where material new evidence exists and where such inquiries are fair and proportionate. It is connected to Amendment 123.
Amendment 127, page 29, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—
(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,
(ii) in the Director’s view, the duplication is essential.”
This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.
Amendment 27, page 29, line 9, after “essential” insert
“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Government amendment 192.
Amendment 132, page 29, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) the conduct to which the investigation relates occurred, including the operational orders, briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time; and”.
This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the operational context in which the conduct occurred, including relevant orders, briefings and intelligence.
Amendment 133, page 29, line 21, at end insert—
“(10A) In carrying out an investigation, the Director must also have regard to—
(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;
(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and
(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry or questioning remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”
This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out an investigation.
Amendment 34, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”
Amendment 63, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) A ‘previous investigation’ refers solely to investigations which complied with the full requirements of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Clause 36 stand part.
Government amendment 193.
Clause 37 stand part.
Government amendment 194.
Amendment 121, in clause 38, page 30, line 33, at end insert—
“(6A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”
This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.
Clause 38 stand part.
Amendment 69, in clause 39, page 31, line 20, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert
“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”
Clauses 39 to 42 stand part.
Amendment 83, in clause 43, page 35, line 7, at end insert
“and no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”
This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.
Amendment 12, page 35, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Amendment 13, page 35, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Amendment 14, page 35, line 22, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Government amendments 195 and 196.
Amendment 15, page 35, line 33, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.
Amendment 44, page 35, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) No referral for prosecution is to be made for a person who served in—
(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),
(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,
(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
when the conduct under investigation arose as a result of that person acting in accordance with operational decisions.”
Amendment 47, page 35, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) Where the referral for prosecution concerns a veteran of—
(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the Special Forces),
(b) the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Services or Government Communications Headquarters,
(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or
(d) the Police Service of Northern Ireland
the written permission of the relevant person as set out in subsection (6B) is required.
(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), the relevant person is defined as follows—
(a) the Director of Service Prosecutions (in the case of paragraph (a)),
(b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom (in the case of paragraph (b)), or
(c) the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d)).
(6C) When determining whether to give the permission required under subsection (6A), the relevant person must consider whether prosecution would have a negative impact on the proposed defendant’s mental or physical health, giving particular attention to—
(a) the proposed defendant’s age and health;
(b) any trauma that the proposed defendant suffered as a result of their service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles;
(c) any medical evidence from the practising doctor; and
(d) the number of times that the individual has been previously investigated or given evidence to an investigation.”
Amendment 140, page 35, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”
Clauses 43 to 48 stand part.
Government amendment 197.
Clause 49 stand part.
Amendment 278, in clause 50, page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) This section applies to a death caused directly by conduct forming part of the Troubles if—
(a) the Secretary of State gives a direction to the senior judicial panel member in relation to the death;
(b) an inquest relating to that death had been initiated, including where such inquests had not yet been allocated to a coroner, before 1 May 2024, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.”
Clause 50 stand part.
Government amendments 198 and 199.
Amendment 128, in clause 51, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) must (in particular) ensure that they do not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—
(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,
(ii) in their view, the duplication is essential.”
This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before inquisitorial proceedings may duplicate previous investigative steps.
Amendment 28, page 40, line 17, after “essential” insert
“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Amendment 279, page 40, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) For the purpose of subsection (3), in taking into account previous investigations, the relevant judicial panel member must consider any evidence that was presented before those investigations before requiring a witness to give evidence at inquisitorial proceedings.”
Amendment 134, page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The relevant judicial panel member must ensure that, in the carrying out of the proceedings, regard is had to—
(a) the context in which the conduct examined in the course of the proceedings occurred, including—
(i) operational orders given to personnel; and
(ii) briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time.
(b) any earlier criminal investigation of that conduct occurred.”
This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the operational context in inquisitorial proceedings.
Amendment 35, page 40, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of this section, “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”
Amendment 135, page 40, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) In carrying out the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member must also have regard to—
(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;
(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and
(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”
This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out judicial proceedings.
Government amendments 200 to 202.
Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.
Amendment 76, in clause 54, page 41, line 32, after “person” insert
“who is not a veteran”.
This amendment together with Amendment 78 provides that a person who is a veteran, as defined in Amendment 79, will not be required to give evidence in person to an inquisitorial proceeding, unless the Director of Investigations demonstrates it is strictly essential for them to do so.
Amendment 29, page 41, line 35, after “given)” insert
“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Amendment 78, page 41, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) Where a veteran is required to give evidence in inquisitorial proceedings, the judicial panel member must give permission for such evidence to be given through a live audio or live video link, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, unless the Director or Directors of Investigations can demonstrate that there is a clear and specific reason, recorded in writing, which makes it strictly essential for the veteran in question to give evidence in person.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 76.
Government amendment 203.
Clause 54 stand part.
Government amendment 204.
Clause 55 stand part.
Government amendment 205.
Amendment 108, in clause 56, page 43, line 8, at end insert
“unless such restrictions would lead to the concealment of the involvement of a state agent in rape or other sexual offences.”
This amendment would ensure that the restrictions on public access provided in this section may not be imposed if they would result in the concealment of information about state actors who were involved in rape or other sexual offences.
Government amendments 206 to 208.
Amendment 30, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Restrictions under this section may be imposed if the individual subject to, or participating in, inquisitorial proceedings is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Government amendment 209.
Clause 56 stand part
Government amendments 210 to 221.
Clauses 57 and 58 stand part.
Government amendment 222.
Clause 59 stand part.
Government amendment 223.
Clause 60 stand part.
Amendment 84, in clause 61, page 46, line 37, at end insert
“and no referral to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”
This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.
Amendment 16, page 47, line 1, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Amendment 17, page 47, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Amendment 18, page 47, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert
“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.
Amendment 19, page 47, line 26, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.
Amendment 141, page 48, line 10, at end insert—
“(10) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”
Clause 61 stand part.
Government amendment 224.
Amendment 122, in clause 62, page 48, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”
This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.
Clause 62 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 63, page 49, line 16, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert
“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”
Clauses 63 to 66 stand part.
Government amendments 225 and 226.
Clauses 67 and 68 stand part.
Amendment 136, in clause 69, page 54, line 23, leave out “have regard to the” and insert
“not take any decisions which will, or are likely to, unreasonably impact the”.
Amendment 31, page 54, line 25, after “proceedings” insert
“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”.
Amendment 137, page 54, line 25, at end insert—
“(3) In determining reasonableness in this section, the relevant Directors of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must have specific regard to—
(a) the number of prior investigations or interviews the individual giving evidence or participating in the investigation or proceedings has participated in;
(b) the intrusiveness of the step;
(c) the availability of less intrusive means by which to obtain the evidence or benefit of the individual’s participation in proceedings; and
(d) the importance of the individual’s participation or evidence in the investigation as a whole.”
This amendment prohibits investigative steps that would unreasonably impact the health or welfare of a person, and sets out factors relevant to determining reasonableness.
Clause 69 stand part.
Government amendment 227.
Clause 70 stand part.
Government amendments 228 to 231.
Clause 71 stand part.
Government new clause 32—Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces.
Government new clause 33—Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.
Government new clause 34—Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.
Government new clause 35—Duty to avoid unnecessary costs.
Government new clause 36—Inspections of the Legacy Commission.
Government new clause 37—Powers of inspection.
Government new clause 38—Reports following inspections.
Government new clause 39—Disclosure of sensitive or protected international information by the Inspectorate.
Government new clause 40—Assistance agreements.
Government new clause 41—Effect, pending determination, of application for restriction order.
Government new clause 42—Information for registrar of deaths following inquisitorial proceedings.
Government new clause 43—Time limit for applying for judicial review.
Government new clause 44—Intercepted communications etc.
Government new clause 45—Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses.
Government new clause 46—Initial contact with police officers.
Government new clause 47—Working with prosecutors: policy statement.
Government new clause 48—Defamation.
New clause 1—Legacy Commission: Transparency of resourcing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, each financial year, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the resources allocated to the Legacy Commission.
(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the resources made available to the Commission; and
(b) the allocation of resources to investigations relating to—
(i) state actors, and
(ii) non-state actors.
(3) Within two months of the publication of a report made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on the report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each financial year which sets out the resources made available to the Commission and the allocation of resources to investigations relating to state and to non-state actors.
New clause 2—Disqualification from appointment of Persons with Terrorist Associations—
“(1) A person (X) is disqualified from being appointed, or from continuing to serve, as—
(a) a Commissioner of the Legacy Commission,
(b) a Director of Investigations,
(c) a member of the judicial panel,
(d) an officer of the Legacy Commission, or
(e) a member of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group,
if subsection (2) applies to that person.
(2) This subsection applies where person (X)—
(a) is, or has been, convicted of a terrorist offence within the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000;
(b) is, or has been, a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of section 3 of that Act; or
(c) has publicly advocated for, justified, or glorified the commission of acts of terrorism connected with the Troubles
(3) The Secretary of State must, before confirming any appointment under this Act, require candidates to declare any matter that would fall within subsection (2).
(4) The Secretary of State must terminate the appointment of any person who becomes disqualified under this section.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section prevents the appointment of a person whose only connection to the Troubles was as an innocent victim or survivor.”
New clause 3—Lack of legal effect for “comfort letters” or assurances—
“(1) For the avoidance of doubt no “comfort letter” or other assurance of no police investigation or prosecution provided at any time to any person can have any lawful effect.
(2) This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”
New clause 4—Principles when examining activities of veterans of armed forces or police service—
“In evaluating the actions or omissions of any person under investigation while serving in the armed forces or the police there shall be a rebuttable presumption that there was no criminal mens rea involved.”
New clause 5—Support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—
“The Secretary of State must ensure, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, that an equivalent package of practical and financial support and assistance is provided to former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, facing investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under the provisions of this Act, as is provided by the Ministry of Defence to former members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
New clause 6—Requirement to not make remedial orders in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—
“(1) No remedial order may be made by the Secretary of State under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of any part of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
(2) Any remedial order in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that was made prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent is to be regarded as having no legal effect.
(3) If a remedial order had been made in relation to the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must, within a month of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament regulations to repeal the remedial order.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
New clause 8—Relevant authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: Legacy Commission—
“(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 31, subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(ab) The Legacy Commission.’
(3) In Section 32, subsection (6), after paragraph (n) insert—
‘(o) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’
(4) In Section 33, after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4AZA) The Legacy Commission shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance except on an application made by the Director(s) of Investigation.’
(5) In Section 33, subsection (5A), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) The Legacy Commission.’
(6) In Section 34, subsection (4), after paragraph (m) insert—
‘(n) a person is entitled to act for the Legacy Commission if they are the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’
(7) In Section 51, subsection (2), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, the Legacy Commission’.
(8) In Section 51, subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) in the case of a direction by the Legacy Commission, except by or with the permission of the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’
(9) In Section 51, subsection (3), after ‘the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert—
‘, the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission’.
(10) In Section 55, subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(zba) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’
(11) In Section 56, subsection (1), after paragraph (ha) insert—
‘(hab) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’
(12) In Section 75, subsection (5), after “Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary” insert—
‘, or the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’
(13) In Section 75, subsection (6), after paragraph (ee) insert—
‘(ef) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’
(14) In Schedule 1, Part A1 (Relevant Authorities for the Purposes of ss. 28, 29 and 29B), after paragraph (A1A) insert—
‘(A1B) The Legacy Commission.’
(15) In Schedule 2, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission.’
(16) In Schedule 2, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (5), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission;’.”
This new clause is consequential to Amendment 55 and would bring the powers of the Legacy Commission and the Director(s) of Investigation in line with those afforded to Chief Constables and equivalent investigatory bodies in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
New clause 9—“On the runs”: no immunity from prosecution—
“It is recognised that the “on the runs” administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution.”
This new clause reaffirms the conclusions of Lady Justice Hallett’s 2014 report into the “On the Run” administrative scheme.
New clause 13—Tort, delict and fatal accident actions—
“(1) A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force.
(2) A relevant Troubles-related civil action may not be brought on or after the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) For the purposes of this section an action is a “relevant Troubles-related civil action” if conditions A, B and C are met.
(4) Condition A: the action is to determine a claim arising out of conduct forming part of the Troubles.
(5) Condition B: the action is founded on—
(a) tort or delict,
(b) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation, or
(c) a cause of action arising under the law of any other jurisdiction that corresponds to—
(i) tort or delict, or
(ii) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation.
(6) Condition C: the time limit for bringing the action was, or would be (in the absence of this section), given in—
(a) the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11)),
(b) the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/754 (N.I. 5)),
(c) the Limitation Act 1980,
(d) the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984,
(e) the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, or
(f) section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;
(including where a court has permitted the action to be brought outside such a time limit).
(7) Subsection (1) does not stop a relevant Troubles-related civil action from being continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force, if the court of first instance has given a final judgment on, or otherwise finally determined, the matter in dispute before that day (including by a default judgment or a consent order or, in Scotland, by a decree in absence, decree by default or summary decree).
(8) Where subsection (1) or (2) stops an action from being continued, or brought, on or after the day on which this section comes into force, that subsection—
(a) does not stop costs proceedings from being continued or begun on or after that day; but
(b) otherwise stops the proceedings in the action, and any other related proceedings, from being continued or begun on or after that day.
(9) In this section—
“costs proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings to determine or recover costs (in Northern Ireland or England and Wales) or expenses (in Scotland) of the action;
“fatal accidents legislation” means—
(a) the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)),
(b) the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or
(c) section 4 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 7);
“matter in dispute” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means the claim (referred to in subsection (4)) which arises out of conduct forming part of the Troubles and which the action is to determine;
“other jurisdiction” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means a jurisdiction (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) other than the jurisdiction in which that action is, or would be, brought;
“other related proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings which relate to, or arise out of the action (including any enforcement action and any appeal), except for costs proceedings;
“2008 Mediation Directive” means Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.”
New clause 14—Investigations: ability to accept referrals for conduct after 10 April 1998—
“(1) The Legacy Commission may accept any request for an investigation into conduct which would be considered conduct “forming part of the Troubles” had it occurred between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998 where that conduct caused—
(a) a person’s death, or
(b) a person to suffer serious mental or physical harm,
and where an investigation had previously occurred but was subsequently found to not be compliant with Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(2) The Legacy Commission may accept such a request notwithstanding the conduct in question occurring after the time period specified in Section 2 of this Act, provided that the Commission is satisfied that the conduct in question was related to the Troubles.”
New clause 15—Inquisitorial Proceedings: ability to make a finding of state collusion—
“(1) This section applies where inquisitorial proceedings have been carried out.
(2) In producing a final report on the findings of the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member may, if satisfied that they have received clear evidence that “state actors” were involved in the breach of an individual’s rights under Articles 2 or 3 (or both) of the European Convention of Human Rights, make a finding of collusion between the UK Government and paramilitary organisations.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), “state actors” includes members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, security or police services.”
New clause 16—Independent reviewer of the safeguards for veterans under this Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer to monitor the application of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.
(2) Within a year of their appointment, and every year thereafter, the Independent Reviewer must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.
(3) In producing the reports specified in subsection (2), the Independent Reviewer may make any such recommendations for the reform of the safeguards as they deem appropriate.
(4) The Independent Reviewer established under subsection (2) shall be appointed for a five-year term, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section, "armed forces" has the meaning given by section 94.”
This new clause would create an Independent Reviewer of safeguards for veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, in the Act.
New clause 17—Protections for veterans involved in investigations or inquisitorial proceedings—
“(1) Where inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 involve a person who is a veteran, a restriction notice or restriction order made under section 56 must prohibit the identification of that person in any proceedings or publications, whether directly or indirectly, unless the Secretary of State determines that disclosure is necessary in the public interest.
(2) The Legacy Commission must not contact a veteran directly regarding an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and contact relating to such matters must be made through the relevant official channel.
(3) The “relevant official channel” for the purposes of subsection (2) is either the Ministry of Defence or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or such other body as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.
(4) If any contact is made with a veteran under subsection (2), the veteran must be provided with appropriate welfare and support in connection with that contact from the relevant official channel.
(5) In applying section 69 (Duty to have regard to welfare of witnesses etc.), the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must—
(a) not take any investigative step that would unreasonably impact the physical or mental health of a veteran, and
(b) have regard for the cumulative and longitudinal impact of any previous investigations or questioning of that veteran.”
This new clause provides that veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who are subject to inquisitorial proceedings will not be identified until that disclosure is necessary in the public interest, that any contact with veterans is made through an official channel with appropriate welfare support provided, and that the welfare of veterans is considered before investigative steps are taken.
New clause 18—The work of the Legacy Commission: Principles of restorative justice—
“(1) Within six months of commencement of this Act, the Legacy Commission must report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work.
(2) The report produced under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following—
(a) ways in which the Legacy Commission could facilitate or offer restorative justice processes as part of its work;
(b) ways in which restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—
(i) facilitating truth-telling;
(ii) supporting victims and survivors who wish to engage in non-adversarial processes; and
(iii) promoting acknowledgement, reconciliation, and understanding without displacing formal accountability mechanisms;
(c) any steps that it recommends the Government take to support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work.
(3) The report produced under subsection (1) must be made public.
(4) Within three months of the publication of the Legacy Commission’s report, the Government must lay a report of its response before Parliament.
(5) The Government response must include—
(a) any steps it will take to enable and support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work; and
(b) where it rejects the recommendations of the Legacy Commission, its reasons for doing so.”
This new clause requires the Legacy Commission to publish a report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work, and requires the government to respond to that report.
New clause 19—Referral to restorative justice procedures—
“(1) Where an investigation under Part 3 has been carried out and the relevant Director of Investigations considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual, whose identity is known to that Director, constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Director may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.
(2) Where an inquisitorial proceeding under Part 4 has been carried out and the relevant judicial panel member considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual whose identity is known to the judicial panel member constitutes an offence, the judicial panel member may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.
(3) No referral to a restorative justice process can be made without the consent of every party to the conduct who would be entitled to be a participant in the activity.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, “a restorative justice process” means an activity—
(a) where the participants consist of the individuals referred under subsection (1) or (2) and at least one victim or survivor of the relevant conduct;
(b) which aims to maximise awareness of the impact of the relevant conduct on the victims; and
(c) which gives an opportunity to victims and survivors to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the conduct and its impact.
(5) A person running an activity for the purposes of a restorative justice referral must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with such an activity.
(6) In this Act, “parties to the relevant conduct” means the offender and one or more of the victims or survivors of the relevant conduct.
(7) In this section, “relevant conduct” has the same meaning as given in section 43(7).”
This new clause provides a definition of restorative justice and requires that any referral to restorative justice requires the consent of every person who would be a participant in that activity.
New clause 20—Comfort letters: lack of validity—
“The “comfort letters” issued by the UK Government under the “on the run” administrative scheme do not have, nor have ever had, any lawful effect and do not provide immunity from prosecution, nor may they impede any future prosecution.”
New clause 21—Protection for conduct carried out in accordance with contemporaneous Rules of Engagement in respect of Troubles-related conduct—
“(1) No criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries shall be commenced in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland by—
(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),
(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,
(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
unless the condition in subsection (2) has been met.
(2) The condition is that—
(a) there is new and compelling evidence, that was not available at the time of the conduct in question; and
(b) the evidence has been certified as “new and compelling” by a Supreme Court Judge.
(3) In any legal proceedings, it is to be presumed that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness of the Rules of Engagement and orders they received, unless—
(a) the condition in subsection (2) has been met; and
(b) the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.
(4) No civil action against any party identified in subsection (1) shall be commenced, unless in a prior criminal case related to the conduct in question—
(a) the condition in subsection (2) was met; and
(b) a criminal conviction against that specific party in relation to conduct in question was obtained.
(5) Where it can be shown that the operational directives or Rules of Engagement given to a party listed in subsection (1) were unlawful under the domestic law that was in force at the time of the conduct in question, criminal or disciplinary investigations, or proceedings, may only be commenced, or continued, against those individuals who authorised, or approved, the Rules of Engagement or directives, and not against individual service members who acted in good faith in following those directives.”
New clause 23—Provision of legal advice and support for veterans and former police officers—
(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that any person who—
(a) is a former member of the armed forces, or
(b) is a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
and who is subject to an investigation, review, inquest or legal proceedings relating to conduct forming part of the Troubles, has access to appropriate legal advice and support, and that such advice or support should be provided at no cost to the person in question.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include—
(a) access to independent legal representation,
(b) support in connection with inquests, investigations and any related proceedings, and
(c) such further assistance as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the provision of free legal advice and support to veterans and former police officers who are subject to investigations, inquests or legal proceedings relating to the Troubles.
New clause 24—Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld—
“(1) Where information relevant to an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 is not disclosed by virtue of—
(a) section 17(2);
(b) a restriction notice or restriction order under section 56; or
(c) any other enactment or rule of law,
the relevant decision-maker must determine whether, in the absence of that information, the investigation or proceedings can properly and fairly continue with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(2) In making a determination under subsection (1), the relevant decision-maker must consider—
(a) the need to ensure that any investigation or proceedings are conducted consistently with the principles set out in section 11;
(b) the need to secure public confidence in the work of the Legacy Commission; and
(c) whether the evidence available is sufficient to justify continuation.
(3) If the relevant decision-maker determines that the investigation or proceedings cannot properly and fairly continue, they must not take further steps in relation to the investigation or proceedings.
(4) In this section “relevant decision-maker” means—
(a) the relevant Director of Investigations; or
(b) the relevant judicial panel member.”
This new clause requires a determination of whether investigations or proceedings can fairly continue where relevant information is withheld, having regard to Article 6 ECHR.
New clause 25—Cold-calling protocol—
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a protocol (“the cold-calling protocol”) to ensure that any contact with a veteran, in connection with any matter arising under or by virtue of this Act, is made only through channels supported by the Ministry of Defence.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) prohibit direct or unsolicited approaches to a veteran by or on behalf of the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, or any other body exercising functions under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with the cold-calling protocol;
(b) provide that any permitted contact with a veteran is to be made only—
(i) with the knowledge and support of the Ministry of Defence, and
(ii) through a representative authorised for that purpose by the Ministry of Defence;
(c) secure that, from the first point of contact, the veteran is afforded access to advice and assistance arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence; and
(d) make provision for the recording and oversight of contacts made in accordance with the protocol.
(3) Regulations made under this section (1) are subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a cold-calling protocol governing contact with veterans, including provision for contact to be made only through Ministry of Defence-supported channels.
New clause 26—Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must also appoint a person (“the Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards”) to monitor the operation and effectiveness of—
(a) the cold-calling protocol made under section [Cold Calling Protocol], and
(b) any other arrangements made under or by virtue of this Act for the protection of veterans.
(2) The Independent Reviewer must, in particular—
(a) keep under review the implementation of the cold-calling protocol by the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, and any other body exercising functions under this Act;
(b) assess the adequacy of the steps taken by those bodies, and by the Ministry of Defence, to ensure compliance with that protocol; and
(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State about any remedial or preventive action that appears to the Reviewer to be necessary or desirable.
(3) The Independent Reviewer must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of the Reviewer’s functions during that year.
(4) The Secretary of State must—
(a) lay a copy of each report given under subsection (3) before Parliament, and
(b) publish each report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to, or in respect of, the Independent Reviewer in connection with the performance of the Reviewer’s functions.”
This new clause provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the operation and effectiveness of safeguards for veterans under the Act.
New clause 27—Presumption against prosecuting veterans—
“In determining whether to institute, or continue, criminal proceedings in respect of conduct forming part of the Troubles, the relevant prosecutorial authority must have regard to the principle that it is to be exceptional for such proceedings to be brought or continued against a veteran, unless the evidential threshold is satisfied by material new evidence and it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”
New clause 28—Duty to have regard to age and health of witnesses—
“(1) This section applies where an investigation under Part 3 of this Act, or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act, are being carried out.
(2) The Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members must, in exercising their functions in relation to investigations or inquisitorial proceedings, have specific regard to—
(a) the age and operational experience of any person at the time of the events being examined; and
(b) their current age, health and wellbeing when determining whether to compel participation or evidence.”
New clause 29—Presumption of anonymity for veterans—
“(1) A Veteran is entitled to anonymity in relation to—
(a) any investigation under Part 3,
(b) any inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and
(c) any publication, report or disclosure made under, or by virtue of, this Act, unless the Secretary of State determines that the disclosure of the veteran’s name or identity is necessary in the public interest.
(2) In determining whether disclosure is necessary in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to—
(a) the significance of disclosing the information to public understanding of the conduct or event to which it relates;
(b) the extent to which non-disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice; and
(c) the degree of risk to the veteran’s safety, welfare or private life that disclosure would be likely to cause.”
New clause 55—Transfer of Troubles-related Coroners inquests to the Legacy Commission—
“Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Presiding Coroner for Northern Ireland must—
(a) identify, and notify the Legacy Commission of, all inquests which had been initiated, including where a coroner had not yet been allocated, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern (Ireland) 1959;
(b) transfer to the Legacy Commission all relevant records relating to the inquests specified in subsection (a); and
(c) notify families and affected participants of the transfer of these cases from the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland to the Legacy Commission.”
New clause 56—Inquisitorial proceedings: duty of candour and assistance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that any duty of candour and assistance which is contained in any Act of Parliament which results from the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026-27, applies to inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act.
(2) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 79, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“‘veteran’ is a person who—
(a) has served for at least one day in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, whether as a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces,
(b) has served as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
(c) has served as a prison officer, including service in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, or
(d) has served in a police support, reserve, or auxiliary role connected with the maintenance of security during the Troubles, as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
but has not at any time been a member of, or acted in support of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000, or knowingly taken part in, assisted, or enabled the carrying out of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”
This amendment provides a definition of “veteran” for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment 276, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“‘veteran’ means a former member of—
(a) the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown; or
(b) the police services who by reason of service was present, deployed, or acting in connection with Troubles-related operations, this excludes any person who—
(i) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or
(ii) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;
‘victim’ means a person who has suffered physical or psychological injury, loss or harm directly caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles, whether such harm arose from an act of violence, threat, intimidation, or other conflict-related event, this excludes any person who—
(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or
(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;
‘survivor’ means a person who has experienced or continues to experience psychological injury, trauma, or other lasting harm arising directly or indirectly from conduct forming part of the Troubles, this excludes any person who—
(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or
(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”
This amendment inserts definitions of “veteran”, “victim” and “survivor” for the purposes of the Act.
Chris Bryant
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. Today, we will debate parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of those tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including those that amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the Bill.
First, I want to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow. That is important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers. It is important that the Bill is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background and whoever the probable perpetrator. It is important, too, that it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice. That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country.
The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including Government amendment 143—the first amendment we are considering—which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to matters raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other hon. Members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with those more substantive matters under three main headings.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Bryant
I have not even got to my headings yet, but, as the right hon. Member knows, I am fond of him.
David Davis
Our exchanges on fondness will get the Secretary of State into trouble. He talks about balance; who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Will he tell the Committee how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish Government before they were brought to the Committee?
Chris Bryant
I have not shared a single amendment. I have talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some members of the Irish Government, but I have not shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish Government. I think the first they ever saw of the amendments was when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else. On occasion, as part of the consultation with various special forces groups and others, we have, of course, talked about some of the broad issues. I have wanted to consult as widely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, the Special Forces Association and to some of the generals and others, but we certainly have not done that with any other Governments.
The first of my three headings is improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the commission. The second is ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. The third is addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence.
First, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learned in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The legacy commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the commission’s investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases, and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group. It is why the Bill repeals the immunity scheme—which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow—and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements with the Irish authorities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for setting the scene and we look forward to his comments. In relation to the Republic of Ireland, we have seen the news in the paper today—others will have seen it as well; I know I am not the only person who reads the papers—about Brian Stack, a prison officer down south who was murdered. His son says in the paper today that he knows who the murderers are. He has given the names to the Garda Síochána, but nothing has happened. How can the legislation before us today make the Republic of Ireland more accountable and ensure that those who killed Brian Stack, a prison officer in the Republic, are made accountable? That is what we all want to see. I want to see it, and so does Brian Stack’s family.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is similar to a point he made last week in the carry-over debate. I agree with him. Of course, the Irish Government have to provide all the information that could possibly lead to further families being able to get the answers they need. Of course, there are instances where the answers will not lie in any of the paperwork the UK Government have, but might lie somewhere in the archives and records of the Irish Government.
One of the most significant achievements that was secured by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), was the co-operation with the Irish Government. In the previous debates, people were worried that we were going to introduce our legislation and the Irish Government would then introduce theirs, but they have already put together and published their heads of terms—the equivalent of a draft Bill—and they have committed, both privately to me and publicly, that they will work in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day. That is an important part of guaranteeing that people will get the answers they need.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State consider extending the remit of the commission to include September 1998, and thus the Omagh bombing? He will know that the Irish agencies, and the Irish Government specifically, will have quite a lot to say on the subject, given the events of September 1998, but as things stand, there will be no way for victims and families to get the answers that he has mentioned in his preamble.
Chris Bryant
That is the subject of an amendment that has been tabled by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I am going to resist that amendment. Whatever date we choose would be, in one sense, an arbitrary one. I think the best date, which worked for the previous legislation and would also work in relation to this legislation, is the date of the Good Friday agreement, and that is what we are sticking to. I understand the point that is being made about Omagh. A public inquiry is ongoing, and it is important that the Irish Government can co-operate fully with that process. Indeed, I raised some of these matters directly with my counterpart, Jim O’Callaghan, the other day.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. If we are going to discuss these things, I think it is important to be accurate. The Omagh tragedy occurred in Northern Ireland in August 1998.
Chris Bryant
I think the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was making was just that he wanted to extend the date to accommodate the amendment that has been tabled, but I understand—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is talking while I am talking, which makes it difficult for me to hear, but she has made her point.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and then come back to the leader of the DUP.
Sir Julian Smith
On the Irish legislation, how confident is the Secretary of State that, if there is a Sinn Féin-led Government, that legislation will not be overturned?
Chris Bryant
It will be legislation of the Government. Of course, whatever the Government at the time, they cannot bind their successors, but I am very confident that this legislation will stand the test of time in the Republic of Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
Can I express my profound disappointment that, at the start of two days in Committee, the Secretary of State has already indicated that he wishes to resist one of the most inoffensive but constructive amendments, which has cross-party support across this Chamber, is not to one side’s benefit or another’s, and would assist the families of the Omagh victims in achieving the answers they deserve, most notably from the Irish Republic and the Irish Government? There is no point lamenting that two days are not enough if the Secretary of State has already made his mind up and has no interest in discussing the substance of any of the amendments before us this afternoon.
Chris Bryant
I think that is a slightly ungenerous interpretation. I am happy to listen to the debate, and will respond to it at the end of the day. I am trying to proceed as much as I can on a cross-party basis. I was asked about an amendment and I am simply expressing a view, which is that most legislators in this country have tended use the date of the Good Friday agreement as the cut-off date.
Chris Bryant
I will give way first to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).
Simon Hoare
May I take the Secretary of State back to the point he was making about the Irish Government’s legislative progress being in lockstep with that of the UK Government? Will he assure the Committee—this is a pivotal point, as he knows—that the usual channels will timetable the progress of his legislation to ensure that it would not go for Royal Assent until the Irish legislation was in its final stages, to ensure that it is absolutely in lockstep, as he said?
Chris Bryant
That is one part of what we might do, but it might be more convenient for everybody concerned if we simply said that certain clauses would not be commenced until such time as both parties had agreed. In addition, I have tabled an amendment, which is remarkably similar to one tabled by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in relation to issuing a written ministerial statement to clarify how consistent the Irish Government have been with their obligations. I hope that, between all those different elements, we will manage to land on working in lockstep.
I think that all hon. Members would expect me, while first of all congratulating the Irish Government when they have provided important material, and wanting to co-operate with them entirely and fully, to be robust in pushing them where we feel that that has sometimes fallen short. For instance, one issue that was raised with me last week was the evidence that has been given to the Omagh inquiry. Some questions have already been asked by the leading counsel, and I have put those to Jim O’Callaghan, who I expect will be responding to me. Then there is the issue of gelignite. I am also conscious that, only a few weeks ago, I stood in a field where people were digging to see whether they could find the body of a man who was murdered some 30 years ago. Some of the answers to those issues will also lie with the Irish Government, rather than in our paperwork.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful yet again, but I make the point that there is not one defined cut-off point for the troubles. Everyone in this House accepts that the Omagh atrocity was the largest atrocity of them all, and it happened outside the Secretary of State’s defined date for the troubles. If he does not like amendment 23, then he should look to amendment 24, which has the date 12 April 2010. Why was that picked? It is because this House legislated for the troubles-related pension entitlement going to that date. It is therefore just wrong to indicate to this Committee that there is one agreed date. Legislators have chosen a number of dates, and all we are asking is at least to include the largest atrocity of the troubles in its totality.
Chris Bryant
I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.
Chris Bryant
Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him.
Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation.
As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.
Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it.
A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests.
I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
How can this House support the Government on that when we have a political party called Sinn Féin whose members supported violence and the killing of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, of Her Majesty’s armed forces personnel and of civilians? How can we stand here in all consciousness and support a Bill that potentially will allow people who supported that in a political party to be on the board? That is just not right.
Chris Bryant
I note the point that the hon. Member makes, but if he looks at clause 8(4)(b), he will see that it states that the Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that it is
“balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.”
The whole group has to meet not only that requirement, but the requirement of supporting victims. I hear what he says, but I am afraid that his amendment would not be proportionate, although I am happy to listen to his contribution later.
Dr Murrison
The Secretary of State is characteristically generous in giving way. Clauses 4 and 5 govern the appointment of members of the commission and directors of investigations, and mandate that some of those should be drawn from people with experience outside Northern Ireland. Can he explain why that is, who these people will be and of which countries he believes they will have experience? I assume that means the Republic of Ireland.
Chris Bryant
No, I do not think that was the intention at all. One of the complaints about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, the body established by the legacy Act in 2023, was that there were potential conflicts of interest. That is why the idea of having two directors was introduced—that is the important part of the change to the legacy commission. The idea was that one would definitely have experience of Northern Ireland and one would have experience of elsewhere. It was not specifically that this should be in relation to Ireland. I would have thought it more likely that somebody would have experience of other parts of the United Kingdom.
Full disclosure by public authorities to the commission is vital to enable families to get answers about what happened to their loved ones, which is why it is required that the commission sees everything. To build on that, Government amendments 155 to 160 will allow directors of investigations and judicial panel members of the legacy commission to impose a timescale on state authorities when requesting disclosure—that is another key ask of the families. The amendments tabled by hon. Members relate primarily to the onward disclosure from the commission to the public—in other words, after the commission has reviewed the disclosure and is preparing its report.
I must be clear: the primary responsibility of any Government is national security, and I am accountable to Parliament on matters of national security as they pertain to Northern Ireland. Some information, even if it is historical, has present-day implications for the life and safety of individuals, for national security or for international relations. That is why schedule 5— [Interruption.] Sorry, I did not hear what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was saying.
Chris Bryant
Just for the record, Ms Ghani, he was chuntering and he admits it.
That is why schedule 5 provides essential safeguards, allowing the Secretary of State to prohibit the onward sharing of sensitive information by the commission only where the disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Bill already changes the legacy Act’s onward disclosure regime in a number of important ways. Material will no longer be designated as “sensitive” based on the organisation that owns it, and the Secretary of State will be required to conduct a balancing exercise when considering disclosure of sensitive information, and give reasons for decisions not to disclose. I cannot, however, accept amendments that would change that balance, which is designed to ensure the maximum possible disclosure of information to families while ensuring that we do not compromise national security.
I now turn to the question of how we ensure that those who served the state are treated with dignity and respect during any legacy process.
Sir Julian Smith
I apologise for not intervening earlier, but I want to ask a question about cost and funding. The Secretary of State has outlined the expansion of the commission’s remit, but what assessment has he made of the time other public bodies and the commission will need, and of the Treasury funding required, to deliver for victims on the commitment he is making?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I pay tribute to his previous work on this subject. It is important that we do not over-promise in the Bill. I recently saw the first ICRIR report into the death of Rory O’Kelly. I spoke to his daughter, Anne O’Kelly, and she was very moved and felt a great sense of liberation by its publication, but it does not come to perfect answers. I am guessing that many of the families will not get perfect answers, although they may get a degree of closure and healing because of being able to go through the process. I am very keen to ensure that the commission’s remit does not increase dramatically and make it more difficult for it to meet its obligations, and I am of course in discussions with the Treasury to ensure that finances are available to do the job properly.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, as he is about to come to the central and important part of his speech. He will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the privilege to sit, has raised concerns that the duty of candour that this Government introduced under the Hillsborough law might not necessarily apply equally to coronial inquests as it would to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission. Will he confirm that it is his intention that the duty of candour will apply to both streams, and that if that is not made clear in Committee, it will be made crystal clear as the Bill progresses through both Houses?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its request for us to look at this issue. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Hillsborough law has not completed its progress through the House of Lords, where it is still in Committee, and we want to ensure that we can mesh the two pieces of legislation together when it comes to that issue. The Hillsborough law’s commitment to truth and information recovery is mirrored in this legislation, which is why I am proud to say that we would want to able to, wherever possible, ensure that it applies.
New inquests that proceed under the Bill will automatically be in scope of the duty of candour included in the Hillsborough law, and the processes of the legacy commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime. We agree that the duty of candour needs to apply to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission, and I note the Committee’s recommendation. I am confident that when it comes to the House of Lords’ processes, we will be able to mesh these two pieces of legislation together.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
I think and hope that all hon. Members agree that there is no moral equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and the barbaric acts of terrorism for which paramilitaries were responsible, as Members including the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have set out through their amendments. Government new clause 32 makes it clear that the lawful actions of soldiers in the course of duty cannot be treated by the legacy commission as equivalent to the actions of terrorists.
Alicia Kearns
The Secretary of State talks about protections for those who served our country. One key achievement of the legacy Act was stopping new inquests that could threaten to expose those who served our country to vexatious claims, particularly in the case of Loughgall, which is one of the best known cases. Do his amendments definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again?
Chris Bryant
The term “vexatious claim” could in itself be argued to be vexatious. A phrase that I have used a couple of times is “rinse and repeat”. I will come to that a little later. I am keen to ensure that nobody is subjected to being brought back time and again to face the same kind of process.
Chris Bryant
Much as I am fond of the right hon. Gentleman, I need to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim first.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State refers to new clause 32, which introduces certain protections in respect of the security forces in regard to the legacy commission and to inquests. For example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account, the orders that they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, and so on. All of that is good, so why do the same provisions not extend to cover any trial of such a person, should that occur? If it is right for the legacy commission and coroners to take those matters into account, why is it not right for a Diplock court also to take them into account, if it were investigating a criminal trial?
Chris Bryant
I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I will finish this point and then I will come to the right hon. Members for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, the intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of those soldiers.
David Davis
The Secretary of State, with every good intention, talks about preventing “rinse and repeat”, yet the moment we introduce this situation into a coroner’s inquest, the opportunity for judicial review arises—multiple stages of judicial review. As we have already seen with inquests, “rinse and repeat” cannot be stopped, so a soldier may be going through three or four judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the Government say.
Chris Bryant
I am conscious of judicial review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judiciously reviewed. [Interruption.] I meant to say judicially reviewed—whether it is judicious is a matter for the courts to decide, not me; I am not challenging their authority.
We have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It is about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual. That is a really important distinction to make.
Chris Bryant
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, then I must make some progress.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for making the point about there being no moral equivalence. Does he recognise—I hope he does—that there must be legal equivalence between everybody who goes before this process? A particular question arises about the fact that if somebody is found to have been guilty of a murder, no matter how heinous it was and no matter how many people were killed, the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 would still apply. Nobody—whether it is a terrorist or a soldier who committed a murder—will go to jail for more than two years. We have to recognise that when we are talking about the search for justice, there will not really be any justice in terms of the sentence reflecting the gravity of the crime.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things he said to me last week was that he would be very grateful if I said in this debate that there is no moral equivalence, and I have done exactly as he asked. He is right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I am very reluctant to give way too many times, because I am conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and catch your eye, Ms Ghani.
Chris Bryant
I have not given way much to Members on this side of the House, so I will take one intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I will also take an intervention from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and then I promise that I will really crack on, Ms Ghani.
Colum Eastwood
It would be good if the Secretary of State cleared something up for the House. We have heard a lot about justice, vexatious claims and everything else. Will he tell us how many of the 25,000-odd people who served time as a result of troubles-related crimes were members of the security forces?
Chris Bryant
I am not sure whether this is a quiz. I do not know the precise answer to that question, but I think my hon. Friend has made his point.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked a very specific question about the Loughgall inquest and whether any of this paperwork and legislation will stop it from going ahead. Last Tuesday, in the Defence Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence that question and he gave me a pretty definitive answer, so I am intrigued to hear the answer of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Chris Bryant
The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no.
We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement.
I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information.
Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. It also requires the commission to consider
“whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”,
and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness.
This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses. If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying those points. He knows—because I have raised this point with him before—that those protections cover veterans and former military personnel. Will they also extend to former police officers who served?
Chris Bryant
Yes.
This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place.
We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as
“a direct threat to national security.”
General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.
Chris Bryant
What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?
Mr Francois
I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.
Mr Francois
Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.
This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—
Mr Francois
Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.
Chris Bryant
I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.
Mr Francois
No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.
Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:
“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”
Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.
Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.
New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.
The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.
Mr Francois
If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will.
The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said:
“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”.
As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked a lot about the republican movement. Maybe it would be worth it if he took the opportunity to make it clear for those listening that not every victim of state violence was involved in the republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British forces on that day. Can he make it clear that there are lots of people out there today crying out for truth and justice if possible, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the republican movement or any other organisation?
Mr Francois
I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year:
“There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?”
That is a very realistic point.
With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words:
“Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.”
On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement:
“The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.”
Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion:
“The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.”
It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the amendments that he has tabled. Notwithstanding what we have just heard, I think that they show beyond doubt that the Government have listened to the points made by many Members, veterans and others. They have been carefully thought out. They are balanced, reasonable and fair. They maintain the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Amendment 47, tabled by Opposition Members, would not ensure that, because it singles out one group for special treatment. The Government amendments recognise the special circumstances in which all those who served with such distinction in Operation Banner found themselves, and in my view, those amendments will enable the House to send the Bill to the other place with confidence.
The Bill, and the amendments, are needed for two principal reasons: first, because of the manifest failings of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and secondly because we need a system that can command confidence and provide help for all those people who are still searching for answers after all these years. That is what this is about—how their loved ones died, and at whose hands. I say “all those people”, because if I have a cause for regret, it is that it strikes me, when I reflect on the debate on the Bill in the House over the last year and a bit, that much of it has focused on just some of the people who were involved. Veterans are hugely important—many of them were killed, and many of their families are looking for answers on how and at whose hands their loved ones died—but if we are honest, we must recognise that we have failed collectively, as a House, to reflect the hurt, pain and suffering of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, and that is what I want to focus on in my brief remarks.
Some conversations and stories that we hear as Members of Parliament never leave us. Some remain with us and are imprinted on our very soul. I can think of many that I have had in Northern Ireland, including the first time I went to WAVE, a wonderful organisation that supports so many people affected by the troubles. I had a meeting in Newry with Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which was found by an inquest—I shall return to this point—to have been carried out by the IRA; Eugene Reavey, whose three brothers were shot on the same day by the Ulster Volunteer Force and all died; and Michael O’Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot and killed by a soldier while on her way to mass.
I remember standing in the bleakness of Bragan bog, to which reference was made earlier, with Columba McVeigh’s family as the search teams continued patiently to scrape, bit by bit, the surface of the black and grey earth, trying to find his last resting place. He was 19 years of age when he was kidnapped and murdered by the IRA. I remember the family of Private Tony Harrison, who was shot dead by the IRA on his fiancée’s sofa in her home in Belfast, and so many others. I am not alone; many Members of this House have heard such stories. Too many times, I have heard people say that somebody came from the police and said, “Don’t worry; we will leave no stone unturned to find out what happened,” but they never heard another word.
I think all of us understand that, at the height of the troubles, the number of killings was so great, and the circumstances in which investigation would need to have been carried out were so challenging—indeed, in some places, downright dangerous—that it was difficult for that work to be done. That is why it is so important that we now have a mechanism that allows such work to be completed, and in which all families in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence.
I have criticised the 2023 Act many times in exchanges. Much of it failed to command support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland, or from victims and survivors. We should not forget that the legacy commission, which the Act established, has the power to undertake criminal investigations as well as fact finding. People listening to debates that we have had about this Bill might think that it introduces a new thing called criminal investigation, but it does not; that was provided for in the Act. However, the Act did establish the legacy commission.
When the report on the murder of Rory O’Kelly came out, I think it proved what the commission is there to do. For me, most important of all was the reaction of his family. Even though they could not name who was responsible for the killing, his daughter said that when they heard the details of what happened, it moved the family into
“a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”
It has always been the case that the success or failure of the commission rests in the hands of the families who go to it, and on the judgment that they pass when the commission comes back with answers, in so far as it is possible to find them.
I would say this about inquests, which we will debate in detail tomorrow. I have heard some people make the criticism that they achieve nothing. I disagree profoundly, even though the inquests will now come to an end. Eight had started—and in my view, it was profoundly wrong to cut off an inquest that a family had seen begin—and the Solicitor General will deal with the remaining ones. I was puzzled when I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because I had grown up thinking that, if there is a suspicious death, there is an inquest, but I found that there were many cases in which there had been no inquest at all for over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. We only have to look at the impact on the family of the recent Springhill inquest, its findings and the apology that the former Prime Minister made from the Dispatch Box to see what it meant to the family, who had been waiting for 54 years to hear that their loved ones who had been killed, including children, had presented no threat to anyone.
Jim Shannon
First, I thank the former Secretary of State for his words and the incredible speech that he is making. I think as well of Raymond McCord—many of us in this Chamber will know him—whose son Raymond McCord Junior was murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force because he stood up to the UVF in the Shankill Road; he was a strong person who had also been a member of the RAF Reserve. Since 9 November 1997, Raymond has sought an inquiry and justice for his son, and not once in all those years has he been able to find that. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about finding justice, and justice is what I want. If I get a chance to speak, I will be speaking for justice. If Raymond McCord is watching on TV—he is not able to come here today—he will be watching for justice for his boy, and he grieves his boy almost 30 years later.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member—my hon. Friend, if I might call him that—makes a very powerful point. Every family deserves, in so far as it is possible, to find an answer to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. We are debating all these amendments in order to create a means of finding those answers—a means that people can have confidence in; that was the point on which the previous legislation failed.
Hilary Benn
I want to finish, because many Members wish to speak.
This is unquestionably the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. Those who signed that extraordinary document knew that this issue had to be dealt with, and knew that it could not be done at the time. However, it is 12 years since the Stormont House agreement, and people think, “Right, we might be moving forward now.” Everyone is getting older, and sadly people are dying. The trauma is being passed from generation to generation. Is the legislation perfect? Of course it is not, but if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this. Now is the time to take forward this legislation, so that the families who still wait patiently for answers, after all these years, finally have the chance to find them.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It has been more than a year since the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was introduced to this House. In spite of the valiant efforts of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), to deal with the legacy left by the Conservatives, I fear that the Bill still does not achieve the admittedly difficult task of squaring the circle of enabling victims to find answers, while providing veterans with the protections that they need and deserve.
It is important to begin by recognising the impact that the protracted gestation of this Bill has had on those who fought bravely, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to uphold the rule of law and save lives during Operation Banner. It has been more than a year of anxiety, uncertainty and anguish for former service members who feared being dragged back to Northern Ireland for further investigation. It has been more than a year in which veterans have found no solace in the vague, uncertain promises of improved protection through recognition of the reality of the circumstances in which they served.
The issues that we face are by no means all the fault of the current Government. If the Conservatives had enacted a legacy Act that was fit for purpose and delivered a suitable mechanism for historical inquiries, this Bill would not have been necessary. Sadly, the Tories opted for a barely conditional immunity principle that drew an abhorrent equivalence between those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to exploit sectarian division to murder, maim and intimidate.
The Tory legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations to international human rights law under the European convention on human rights, the very convention that was so important to our soldiers—challenging inadequate equipment, unjust LGBT exclusion, and investigating sexual assault, bulling and welfare failures. At the time, that was just collateral damage: a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ cavalier attitude to the rule of law and to our international obligations, but it has now become central to their ill-conceived plans to leave the ECHR, thereby fatally undermining the Good Friday agreement.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman says that he supports new clause 21. Will he explain how it is right for Mrs Jones, when asking for a review and before turning up at the legacy commission, to somehow have to prove to a Supreme Court judge that there is new and compelling evidence? Is that not another process—another piece of lawfare? Has he checked whether the Supreme Court thinks that is at all possible for a Supreme Court judge?
Mr Kohler
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I much prefer our amendments 123 to 129. I absolutely agree. That is exactly why we need a Committee to discuss these issues. We need to talk together about these issues. At the moment, I prefer what the Tories have submitted to what the Secretary of State has submitted, but I most certainly prefer amendment 123. But we need a Committee upstairs to discuss these things.
Chris Bryant
Let me try again. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that a Supreme Court judge should be making the decision?
Mr Kohler
As I said, I prefer our solution: amendment 123. But the Tories’ solution is better than the Secretary of State’s, which is simply far too vague. I strongly support our amendment 123, as does the SAS Regimental Association.
My party will also support amendment 23, tabled by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to ensure that the Omagh bombing—the deadliest single attack of the troubles—is brought into the scope of the commission. I do not understand the Secretary of State’s reasons for not doing so. I am also proud to support amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), that allows victims of sexual violence access to the legacy commission’s work. I sincerely hope that the Government will support that crucial amendment, to allow as many as possible to heal and move forward.
The events of the past month in Drumcree have highlighted that divisions still exist. Concerted efforts must be made to heal the old animosities and ensure that current and future generations are able to grow up in a society characterised by mutual respect and tolerance—
“A Northern Ireland where a unionist never has to apologise for being British. Where a nationalist never has to apologise for being Irish”,
as the right hon. Member for Belfast East so eloquently put it.
Despite the hundreds of Government amendments, I do not believe that the Bill delivers on its essential goals of protecting our veterans, promoting reconciliation and delivering answers to the families who have waited decades. General Parker and General Wall have concluded that no amount of “legal ingenuity” can fix the issues with the Bill. The only path forward is for the Secretary of State to show political leadership by withdrawing the Bill and entering into further dialogue with the various communities and stakeholders who must be satisfied to ensure that we achieve truth, justice and reconciliation across all the communities and stakeholders affected by the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman
Order. I note that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) expressed disappointment about his amendments not being selected for a separate decision. May I remind him that selection decisions are a matter for the Chair and should not be questioned on the Floor of the House? I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his work on the Bill and for the way in which he engaged with our Committee, especially during our inquiry into the legacy of the troubles. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have heard at first hand from families whose lives were changed forever by the troubles and who decades later are still searching for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is why it is so important that we get the legislation right for all those who continue to carry the legacy of the past.
Amendment 286 reflects a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee following our extensive inquiry into the legacy of the troubles and speaks to the very heart of an issue we heard about time and again. Throughout our inquiry, victims, survivors and families spoke of the frustration of delay. Many have waited decades for answers, so we should be looking to remove obstacles to information recovery and not to create new ones. I pay tribute to Joe McVey, the Victims and Survivors Commissioner, who is in the Gallery, for the work he has done and for working with our Committee.
The Bill as drafted requires organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland to assess and classify material as “sensitive or prejudicial” before it can be transferred to the legacy commission. The Committee concluded that that requirement may be unnecessary and risks creating a substantial administrative burden. On a matter of principle, an independent commission should be trusted to make its own judgments about the handling and disclosure of information. If Parliament is establishing a body to investigate the past, that body should have direct access to the records it needs to do that work.
There is also a practical case for the amendment: much of the material needed for legacy investigations is actually held by the PSNI, often in records more than 30 years old and spread across multiple systems and archives. The chief constable has warned that locating, reviewing and disclosing such material is already a resource-intensive task, yet the Bill places further obligations on the PSNI to carry out sensitivity assessments before information can even reach the commission. Those concerns are not new. During our inquiry, the PSNI argued that direct access for the commission would be far more effective, pointing to Operation Kenova, which operated without such a requirement.
The chief constable recently wrote to the Government again to voice those concerns, warning that without dedicated capacity there is a material risk of delay and damage to confidence in the wider legacy process. Critically, no additional funding has been identified for the work, which creates a risk that resources are diverted from present-day policing to administer the past. The amendment would not remove safeguards for sensitive information. It would simply place responsibility where it belongs: with the independent commission.
Victims and families are not asking for additional bureaucracy; they are asking for answers, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out. If we are serious about delivering those answers, about building confidence in the process and about using public resources effectively, we should remove this unnecessary hurdle. I encourage the Government and the Secretary of State to reflect on the substance of amendment 286.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who speaks eloquently about this topic. I have spoken at length in almost every debate we have had about this matter, having served during the troubles myself, and I contemplated whether I should stand up and speak again today. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I do not want to say what has already been said over and over and waste time, but the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) spoke eloquently about the stories that never leave us. We have all heard the stories that never leave us.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is telling a remarkable story from his own experience and that of the officers he served with. One thing that this debate is perhaps not touching on, but should, is the number of lives that the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the PSNI saved. Indeed, many in this Chamber owe their lives to the investigations and the deterrent effect of the RUC and the British Army, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who had a bomb under his car, and myself as the Member for Strangford. The Castlewellan IRA unit were coming to get me, but they did not, because the RUC thwarted it. That is an example of the good things that they have done over the years, but that are never heard about. It is time they were.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises some valid points. A lot of people here have first-hand experience, and the RUC and the military did exceptional work during the troubles—beyond what it is possible even to explain here.
When I look at new clause 21 and amendment 47, I think about how we deal with memory and history. I will explain that in a bit more detail. The Secretary of State said that new clause 21 is illogical. I disagree. I believe that the bar should be exceptionally high.
I went to the Green Jackets reunion this summer. I had not been for 16 years, because—I have spoken of my history and my past—I had to have a break from my past. That is to say nothing against my friends, but I needed to move out of that environment until it was safe for me—given the violence, alcohol and other issues I have had—to go back into it. I had an amazing time at the reunion. I was with my colleagues, and people were telling me stories. Five of us all had exceptionally different memories of a story. People were telling me stories about when I got shot; I knew that they had joined the military five years after, but they were recounting it like they were there with me. It is not that they were making things up; they had heard it that many times that they believed they were there. You are reliving all of these points.
Let us have a look at what it was like to serve in Northern Ireland—this is the point that I want people to grasp in relation to amendment 47. I grew up in Hereford, and my dad was one of the first SAS soldiers to serve in Northern Ireland. We all knew people who had served in Northern Ireland. We knew young soldiers who would come back to the pub—I will not say what age I was first going to the pub—and people would say, “They’ve been over the water.” They did not talk about it; they did not want to talk about it. It was not that they were smashing the place up—some people did, but some reacted differently. They had seen things that their mind had not processed.
I have come through the other side of complex post-traumatic stress. I had therapy. I had witnessed and seen things in my life that my brain could not process. If you see something, you put it into a library in your brain. If you have a traumatic incident, you cannot process it and put it in the library, so it is sort of sat in the foyer. You cannot choose when you pull that up or when you do not. I went through therapy to reprocess all those things in my mind. I have many friends who I know have post-traumatic stress and have not dealt with it—they have just left those issues there. I went through EMDR—eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing— and cognitive behavioural therapy. That took me through things that I had no recollection of, but that the therapist was able to pull out of my brain. I had not remembered those things for many years.
We are going to ask people to go through that process with their memories. I am 50 now—I know that hon. Members are thinking, “You look a bit younger, Stu”—and I was at the very end of Op Banner. I was a teenager. We are asking one and two generations before me to recount things they might have suffered through post-traumatic stress—things that they do not want to remember or possibly cannot remember. If you ask two or three people about the same incident an hour after, they will all have a different reason for it. We have to stand for our veterans and draw a line under this. The Bill is not doing that.
The generals, some of whom I served with on operational tours, said that the Bill is a threat to national security, and I believe it is. It impacts on morale phenomenally. I am yet to find a group of veterans—people might disagree—who support it, and I have a very good network of people; my whole life has been spent in defence and security. I have not found anybody who supports what we are doing, and I believe that there will be unintended consequences. I do not believe that we are intentionally going after our veterans, but there will be unintended consequences and we will open the door to our veterans being in the dock for years to come.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking the time to meet me and a formidable local veteran from Ayrshire, Alan Middleton, who does fantastic work with the local Army Cadet Force under the West Lowland Battalion. My right hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and, most importantly, has listened to those of us who feel strongly about this legislation and to the veterans who have concerns, which deserve to be heard.
When the Bill was first introduced, many veterans feared that the new legacy framework would simply become another route to the repeated investigations that have caused so much anxiety, frustration and trauma over recent decades, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and that the amendments they have tabled significantly strengthen the Bill.
New clause 32, for instance, recognises the unique context in which members of the armed forces operated during the troubles. Amendments 192 and 195 help ensure that investigations are rigorous and evidence-led, with clear statutory duties on the director of investigations before cases progress further. Perhaps most importantly, new clause 45 protects veterans from unexpected or intrusive contact by investigators years or, in some cases, decades after their service has ended. It places safeguards in law, including the involvement of the Secretary of State, and helps to ensure that veterans are treated with the absolute dignity and respect they deserve.
Taken together, these changes have made the Bill more balanced and, as a result, have secured my support. Nobody is asking for immunity; nobody should be above the law, but equally, there should be no witch hunt against those who served our country honourably. Investigations should be driven by genuinely new evidence, not by the endless revisiting of matters that have already been examined time and again.
The conversations I have had with veterans in Ayrshire, including those who served during some of the most difficult periods of the troubles, have left me in no doubt about the anxiety that the repeated investigations, or even the prospect of such investigations, have caused for them even decades after their service has ended. What they seek is not special treatment, nor to be placed beyond the reach of the law; rather, they seek a process that is fair, proportionate and focused on genuinely new evidence.
Ultimately, this legislation must command confidence among victims and their families, the wider public, and those who served their country honourably. I believe that the changes made to the Bill will help us move closer to that objective. They strike the right balance between accountability and fairness. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Government’s approach, and I urge Members across the House to do so too.
Gavin Robinson
I thank you, Ms Ghani, for calling me so early. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), though I hope I might convince her not to follow the whole of the Government’s approach in respect of some of the amendments. I hope her ears are open, as well as her heart, to the arguments that we will make.
I indicated earlier in my interventions and, indeed, in the debate on the programme motion that the way in which we are considering these amendments today is far from optimal. In fact, we have had some good speeches and contributions already, and yet they did not touch on the amendments at all—that was subject to the Chair’s indulgence, of course—but were delivered in more general terms.
Amendment 52 was tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), and signed by me, my colleagues and those around me. Similarly, amendments 21 and 22 were tabled by me and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, and signed by those around us. Amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on a similar thread, and amendment 1 was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). There is a recurrent theme, yet whenever the Government table their own amendments to try to deal with the issues outlined in new clauses 33 and 34 they are totally deficient.
Chris Bryant
To be clear, I do not resist the idea that sexual violence was part of the troubles. Indeed, one problem with previous legacy legislation was that it made it impossible for such things to be investigated anywhere. We are making it possible for such matters to be investigated by the police. All police forces in the United Kingdom have suitable teams that are able to deal with the specifics of those kinds of incidents, and it would be inappropriate for the legacy commission to take on that piece of work without being able to set up a whole new team specifically to look at that. However, the legislation does allow police forces to take forward those crimes, and if there is clear evidence that that was related to a death as well, or to serious injury, it would be able to be investigated.
Gavin Robinson
I disagree fundamentally with the Secretary of State. Let us put it like this: sexual violence was used to pursue the same aims by the same depraved people who were prepared to take life, and they did. Whenever we listen to Máiría Cahill, and her experience, we must remember that this was continual trauma inflicted by people who were exerting coercive control in her community, and who threatened her continually and repeatedly that she could not dishonour the virtuous— in their view—republican name. Yet she was repeatedly raped by the same people who were committing murder on our streets. On the notion that we can argue the toss and say, “Well she can go to the police”, is there no concept or understanding in this Committee that people like Máiría grew up in republican west Belfast or other places where going to the police is still an alien concept? This is being portrayed as the Human Rights Act and article 2-compliant mechanism that people can go to for truth and justice, but not if they happen to be a victim of one sort of crime—sexual crime—rather than the other sort of crime. That is shameful.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Máiría Cahill has been a doughty campaigner on this issue for many years. At the weekend, she responded to a former Member of this House, Michelle Gildernew, who represented the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Máiría Cahill indicated that she had reported that sexual violence to that former Member of this House —a Sinn Féin MP—who did absolutely nothing about it
Gavin Robinson
My hon. Friend is right. Máiría Cahill was defending me from outrageous suggestions directed towards me in a tweet by Michelle Gildernew, who had the temerity to do so knowing that Máiría Cahill had confided in her in the 1990s and she did nothing. I thank Máiría for her steadfastness and her courage over many years on the issues that she has raised.
New clause 21 is another attempt by the official Opposition, among many others on the amendment paper, to ensure that any process understands the context of operations, the environment in which people served, the rules of engagement, the pressure and the threats. How often do we hear people talk of Bloody Sunday and never mention the days that preceded it—I say that not as an excuse or a challenge for what happened—and the two police officers who were murdered? Those two police officers, patrolling that city on a cross-community basis, were murdered on the streets.
I often remember a gentleman who was in the end very senior in the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland saying to me, “Gavin, I remember one day being out the top of the Land Rover. I heard a clink, turned around and thought I was going to be shot because two of my friends had been killed the day before. I nearly shot until I realised it was an elderly lady putting out two milk bottles.” What he was trying to indicate to me was that as a young, 20-year-old man he was so perplexed, scared and petrified—knowing he had lost friends yesterday, wondering whether he would get home that afternoon and not knowing the answer—that when he heard that clink first thing in the morning, he thought he was next and he nearly shot an unarmed civilian. Thank God he did not, but he shared that story with me so that I could understand. So I support new clause 21 entirely when it talks about “contemporaneous Rules” and the environment in which people operated.
The Government have tried to meet us on equivalence in some ways in their new clause 31, which replicates amendment 56 tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and amendment 10 tabled in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. New clause 9 has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who has put in efforts about “on the runs” and putting those beyond the pale. I understand that the Government have moved their position on that, but they could engage and support rather than always tabling their own new clauses.
New clause 5 deals with support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no apologies for saying that support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be before this House. We talk all the time about veterans, and rightly so. My grandfather served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, although not during the troubles. He served his community. Some 302 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary served their community and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is was right that they were honoured with the George Cross, but it was wrong that they were so disgracefully dishonoured through the changes that were brought about in policing. Yet here we are, just weeks away from celebrating or acknowledging 25 years of renewed policing in Northern Ireland, with questions around support for the police.
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). I acknowledge that he has engaged with many victims, but while he was speaking I received a text message from a member of a victims’ group who had hoped for a visit from him when he was Secretary of State. He did not visit, although he sent a junior Minister. I remember visiting that same victim on the main street in Omagh. He served as a police officer on 15 August 1998. He showed me the shop where he was laying bodies that day—28 people lost their lives, as well as two unborn children. He then took me into the entry next door, where he had had to bring other bodies because there simply was not sufficient room in the front of the shop. He and his colleagues have been demonised for years, but this RUC man was weeping when he was sharing with me the pain he still had, although that was not his intention, and the pain he still harboured from those days. He has asked the Government to support him and his colleagues whenever they engage with the Omagh inquiry. He has lamented the fact that the Omagh inquiry is but a partial piece of the jigsaw.
The Omagh inquiry has only the terms of reference that allow it to answer the question, “What could the British state authorities have done to prevent Omagh?” What could we have done to prevent an act of terror? Omagh was blown up because dissident republicans from the Republic of Ireland sought vehicles in the Republic of Ireland, moved through the Republic of Ireland and came to Northern Ireland to destroy that market town. And so they did. But our inquiry will answer only what we could have done to prevent that. Time after time we have raised the issue about the legacy commission’s dates. Why are we, as a House of Commons, still prepared to pass legislation that says that the troubles ended in April 1998, when we know the Omagh attack occurred on 15 August 1998?
Whenever we raise these issues, it is, “Oh, you are just having a go at the Irish. The Irish have promised that they are going to give information,” but no, they have not. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said earlier, this issue was raised at the Omagh inquiry last week in evidence given by John Ware, a “Panorama” journalist. He made reference to a call that was received by the Finner Irish army camp in Ballyshannon on 14 August 1998. Colleagues may remember me raising this last week, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised it as well. The reason John Ware made those comments was that he and core participants felt that the details he was about to outline in the inquiry were with them mistakenly, and that had he not read them out—and had the Irish Government realised they had let them slip—they would have been rescinded. That is why I got a call four weeks ago giving me the details on a similar basis, so that they could not be rescinded.
Jim Allister
Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government on how they were going to co-operate in the Omagh inquiry, yet we find they were sitting on information and when 50-plus questions were sent to them, they answered two.
Gavin Robinson
There is a recurring theme. We were told that the Irish Government would have a Garda legacy unit and that they would answer this mythical telephone, but they do not answer. They do not provide answers, they do not respond to emails and they still have an inter-state case against our Government—they expect much of us but give nothing in return.
On 14 August 1998, a telephone call was made to the Finner camp. According to an Irish army document—handwritten—the call came in at half-past 10, and a male caller,
“who sounded reasonable and did not appear to be drunk”,
said:
“Pay attention to the back roads around Kinlough”—
border control checkpoints 197 and 198—
“Inform the GS and NISF”—
Garda Síochána and Northern Ireland Security Forces—
“road leads to Enniskillen, Irvinestown and Clogher.”
Then he stopped and said:
“Forget Clogher, Omagh, Omagh, Omagh”.
Garda Síochána spoke to the barracks orderly sergeant and the barracks detachment staff, whose names are redacted, on 16 August, when they decided for themselves that it was not a warning—it was—with the most devastating consequences. Ten days later, there was another effort to try to retrofit the call. But why am I mentioning any of this? I am mentioning these things because there was Government knowledge, Garda Síochána knowledge and intelligence service knowledge of the call that came in on 14 August, yet Baroness O’Loan in the other place, who was the first Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, conducted an inquiry into Omagh. For two years, she investigated the Omagh bomb. Was she aware of those calls? No, she was not. The revelation last week was a revelation to her.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).
I thank the Government for putting forward their amendments. I support the no-equivalence measure, the highest bar for evidence and the double lock on prosecutions. I also thank the veterans who have come here today to observe this debate; all parties, for having a conscientious and solid debate on this issue; the Veterans’ Commissioners; and all those observing this debate from afar. If there is one takeaway from this debate, it is that this issue really should be above politics. It has gone on for so long, with so much pain among so many people, and coming to a solution in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland should be above politics.
I have tabled several amendments to highlight the overarching problems that I think exist in the Bill. Although I support many of the amendments brought forward by the Government, I am still deeply concerned that this Bill opens the floodgates for hundreds of lawyers to pursue what can only be described as a strategic effort to rewrite history, to paint the state as the aggressor and to use the process as a punishment to hit back at our brave servicemen and servicewomen who served in Northern Ireland.
I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. It was not the most kinetic environment then, but I went through the same training that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen went through before they deployed to Northern Ireland. There was a requirement for split-second decision making and to engage with a population that, in some cases, did not like us or want us to be there. It was a very difficult operating environment. I was a young troop commander at the time, but I went on to serve in Afghanistan and a multitude of other operational theatres, where those skills became very useful. I know what it feels like.
I went on to be the Minister for Veterans and People, and I was opened up to another side of the debate that I had not necessarily engaged with when I was a young troop commander in the Marines: speaking to victims. I spoke to victims of all sorts and all creeds, from different sides, who were seeking truth. Many had given up on the chance of justice, but they were seeking truth for loved ones and closure, usually in relation to people who had been lost during the troubles.
My new clause 55, which I do not intend to push to a vote, is quite simple: it would move all inquests into the legacy commission, creating one simple body for truth and reconciliation, with an acceptance that the likelihood of justice and “prosecutions” is vanishingly small. There is a question around justice, whether we are ever going to get it, and whether truth and reconciliation should be the priority. Overnight, my new clause would worry a great deal of lawyers in Northern Ireland, as it would cut off what has become an exceptionally lucrative business. With inquests costing hundreds of millions of pounds, not only would my new clause save the taxpayer a fortune, but I believe it would centralise and revitalise, and it would create one central mechanism for troubles-related incidents.
Why can that not take place? Because it breaks the framework agreement with the Irish. I am Scottish; I have an affinity with the Irish. But do we in this House—in this great place—expect the Irish to open up their police and military intelligence files and provide us with the wealth of information and intelligence that must exist on cross-border IRA activities over 30 years? Just think about that from a political perspective. We are all politicians here. Would we be keen to open up 30 years of evidence? Think of the political blowback. Think of the legal issues. Importantly, think about how that would potentially pull us or individuals involved back into the system.
There are many accounts, from various sources, stating that the Republic of Ireland was used to store capabilities, weapons and explosives, and even used for terrorists to flee security forces south of the border. Are we really going to see, as the framework agreement states, reciprocal evidence gathering and exposure of IRA activities from the Republic of Ireland? To my mind, the answer is that that is highly, highly unlikely. Doing so would result in every sliver of evidence being legally scrutinised, people being held accountable and the reputation of Ireland being called into question, and it would have political consequences. I just do not think that it is going to happen in the way in which we would want it to happen.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has conducted his campaign. As he knows, he has informed many of the amendments that we have tabled today. I do not want to give the Irish Government a free pass on this issue. We need to be ambitious. Just as there should be a duty of candour for us, so there must be a duty of candour for the Irish Government. Every time that I have raised this matter with my counterparts in Dublin, they have insisted that they intend to stand by their commitments, and I think we must make sure that they do.
Al Carns
I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has approached this Bill. The engagement with all parties has been second to none, and I absolutely support that engagement. I have so many people phoning me and talking to me about the positivity of that engagement, so the Bill is being taken forward through the right mechanisms.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member is right to bring up the role of the Republic of Ireland, and what it does or does not do. I think of the case of the two superintendents, Breen and Buchanan, who were murdered at the border. It was Garda Síochána who colluded with the IRA to let them know what was going on. Now we find that not only did the IRA kill those men, but the Republic of Ireland and its Government in particular fell very far short. There are many other cases—my cousin is an example —but I also think of Jack Lynch. If the hon. Member casts his mind back, he will remember that Jack Lynch was the Taoiseach for the Republic of Ireland who was going to arm nationalists against the Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is where the canker lies—at the very top.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and for his consistent analysis, scrutiny and support of all things Northern Ireland.
As my new clause is not going forward, we will continue —unfortunately, in my mind—with a twin-track approach. We will have the legacy commission on one hand, which in some cases is underfunded, and inquests on the other hand. We will waste a huge amount of money through that process, because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is very unlikely to come about. We will allow the process to drift on, potentially for up to 15 years. Think about what that means to someone who is 80, 75 or 70 years old—15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether they will be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form about an incident 30 or 40 years ago. Sometimes, I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. We will keep our brave veterans, who I think have served valiantly, waiting in limbo.
Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors, the first of which is the willingness of Ireland to support us. I completely support the Secretary of State’s move to hold Ireland to account for what it has said it will do, but let us see whether that happens. The second factor is the costs, which are astronomical. At minimum, an inquest costs £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go, and even if they go into the legacy commission, we are still talking about £5 million per inquest. That is significant. Then we have politics to think about. As this process progresses, it will consider Sinn Féin’s activity—either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland—and how that affects both the legislation and the agreements Sinn Féin have made recently. On top of all of that, if new evidence—new biometrics, the smoking gun—is found, people will only go to prison for two years, so what is the point?
As for information recovery, there is no new information unless it comes from Ireland.
Colum Eastwood
I respect the hon. Member’s opinion on this, but does he accept that over the last week and a half, there have been two former paramilitaries in court on the basis of things that happened long ago? It is not the case that these cases are not being brought forward. The hon. Member’s biggest complaint is that too many cases are being brought forward; now, he is saying that there is no chance of new evidence. I do not really understand this argument.
Al Carns
The likelihood of having a huge amount of new evidence that justifies the amount of money spent, and the pain and anguish that all these people are going to be put through, just does not weigh up. There needs to be one single delivery process; instead, we have a twin-track approach that is going to cost a huge amount of money, and the victims sat underneath cannot decide which way to go. It is completely contradictory. I agree that if there is new evidence, by all means bring it forward —of course we should do that. That is in line with the rule of law, but it has to be balanced with the greater aim, which is truth and reconciliation.
From my perspective—this is perhaps equally important —we will also allow those in Northern Ireland who were defeated in a military campaign to now engage in a political one—one that uses every operation to rewrite history, paint the state as the aggressor, and convince the good people of Northern Ireland that reunification is the answer to all of their problems. For a 15-year-old in Northern Ireland now, if they have to put up with five, 10 or 15 years of this going through the courts consistently, it will paint the state in a negative light. Morally and ethically, this approach does not support our veterans as it should, and strategically, it deals the best possible hand to our adversaries.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Before I make some brief remarks about a narrow section of the Bill, I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the quality of debate we are having. This is an incredibly difficult topic to deal with, and the vast majority of Members, particularly today, have engaged with it in the spirit in which it should be engaged with.
Colum Eastwood
It is frustrating sometimes, going through these debates. I know from speaking to victims, as many of us in this House do—although not enough of us—how frustrated they have been by some of the language that has been used in our many debates on this issue. I feel that the first people we should always talk about are those who were murdered and those who were left behind, not those who did the shooting. That is what I feel.
We let ourselves down in this Chamber by focusing far too much on veterans. People in this place are entitled to be proud of the British Army if they want, but why is the focus nearly wholly on those who have been charged, or should be charged, with shooting children, for example? Some 26% of the children killed during the troubles were killed by somebody in a uniform. People would not really understand that, listening to some of those in this room. I get that Members want to represent veterans, and I understand the politics around all of that. Yes, veterans might be worried about getting a knock on the door, but there are other people who got knocks on the door over 30 years. They might have got only one knock on the door from a police officer and never heard from anybody else about the matter ever again. Those are the people we should be concerned about.
I listened this morning to the “Today” programme. Someone I know very well, Emmett McConomy, was on representing his brother, Stephen. How about this for a split-second decision? Stephen was 11 years old, playing with his friends in front of lots of witnesses on Fahan Street in Derry. A British soldier shot him in the back of the head with a plastic bullet. He died a couple of days later. The soldier was pulled in, interviewed for about half an hour and let go again. Not long after, the police and the Army raided Stephen’s mother’s house. The bishop of Derry at the time, Bishop Daly, said they were in the house longer than the soldier was in the interview suite. Was that a split-second decision? Should the soldier who did that not be hauled in front of a court? They would have been, if this had happened on the streets of Manchester, Liverpool or Edinburgh. People who most Members of this House would see as British citizens were shot and murdered by the British Army or a British police force. Should those people not be entitled to the same level of justice, if it can be achieved, as any other citizen in the United Kingdom? I do not understand the argument against it.
Many people have made the argument, including victims, that justice is becoming more and more difficult to achieve—I get that—and that many victims want different things. However, they are entitled to seek justice, and they should not be barred from seeking it by any Government; their rights should be upheld, just as any of us would expect our rights to be upheld.
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), gave a fantastic and important speech. He reminded us who this debate should be about. He talked about Majella O’Hare. I spoke to her brother Michael today, as I do most times when these issues are coming up. I want us to remember what that was about. She was a 12-year-old girl going to chapel, to go to confession. She was shot by a member of the Parachute Regiment and killed. That was not a split-second decision. Majella did not have a rifle in her hand, or a coffee jar, or anything else.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) gave a powerful speech, and I understand his personal experience and I respect it, but he talked about the issue of memory loss, as have some others; I do not know about other Members in this room, but if I shot a child of 12 years old on her way to chapel, I would remember it until my dying day. That argument cannot be used as an excuse for not doing anything.
Last week, WAVE trauma centre, a fantastic organisation, brought some victims to this Chamber. I know that many people met them. They had good experiences and bad experiences with some of the people they met. Patsy Gillespie’s daughter Jennifer was among them. A braver family you could not meet. Jennifer was 12 when the IRA came into her house, held her and her mother at gunpoint, took her father Patsy away, chained him to a van full of explosives and made him drive that van into the British Army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry, killing Patsy and five soldiers. Patsy tried to warn the soldiers, but the IRA remotely detonated the explosives. Jennifer is no supporter of the republican movement. She wants truth and the justice possible for every victim that can get it.
We also met Mo Norton and her husband. Her brother, a soldier, was killed in the M62 bus bombing. She said a very powerful thing to me: “Why are we never talked about when they talk about veterans? What about all the soldiers and police who were murdered, or the families who were left behind? Are they not entitled to seek truth and justice?” That is where the argument that some people are making would lead us. I just do not understand why we do not talk about those soldiers when we talk about this issue.
I was at an event last week with the family of Sean Brown, who was the chairman of Bellaghy Gaelic athletic club. He was closing the gates when he was taken away and shot repeatedly and left outside his car. There have been two court cases already. Five High Court judges, the Lord Chief Justice included, have mandated this Government to open a public inquiry into what happened. We think 25-odd people were involved in that murder, and the state has admitted that they included state agents. Next week, we will have to go to the Supreme Court, because this Government are appealing the judgment that mandates this Government to bring about a public inquiry. I appeal to the Government today to take the opportunity to listen to what Bridie Brown has had to go through. She is an elderly woman, and her husband was brutally murdered. She is demanding a public inquiry, and she should be entitled to it, because the court has said that she is entitled to it. I ask the Government to drop that appeal.
One of the reasons why I am opposed to some of the disclosure elements in this Bill is that I looked at the files that were released to the Sean Brown family. It was black pages from start to finish. I have seen that a thousand times with victims. They have to fight and fight to get disclosure, and all they get are blanked-out pages. There are cases right now of dead children where the families still have not got access to their files and will not for many years.
We have issues with some of the provisions. We have issues with the national security veto, which has been used many times before. It is a national embarrassment and should not be used again. However, this is the last chance we have. I have been working on this issue for 20 or 25 years, and others have been working on it for much longer. Victims have had to think about it every day. I get that some veterans are worried, but my first concern is for the victims and those who were left behind. We have amendments, and we will support other people’s amendments—even people with whom we do not normally agree. The bottom line is this: if we do not pass this legislation, we will not pass any legislation on this issue. It will not happen. We saw what the last Government tried to do: they tried to close down access to truth and justice. Let us take this opportunity, despite all our issues with this Bill, to give those who have been left behind by the process some chance of truth, and the hope—the vanishing hope—of a prosecution.
Dr Murrison
We have heard some extraordinarily powerful speeches this afternoon. They have all been first rate, up to this point. I will start by laying out what I am. I am the Member of Parliament for a part of Wiltshire that has, I suspect, as many servicemen and ex-servicemen as any other part of the south of England—probably rather more so. I am proud to represent them. It is important I say that, because my perspective is probably very different from that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), given the people he talks to and the people I talk to, and we will differ. But that in no way takes anything away from my respect for the hon. Gentleman and the thoughts and sympathies that he has expressed.
Chris Bryant
I was not twitching; I was trying to intervene. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his case. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the first report produced by ICRIR into the murder of Rory O’Kelly. It was striking to me that, although it did not come up with perfect answers to everything, it was felt as an enormous release to Anne O’Kelly. Although I do not want to oversell what we can achieve, we should not underestimate the significance of this legislation in getting answers for families, including many armed forces families. Mrs Jones is as likely to be somebody whose husband served in the military or in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Dr Murrison
I accept that point and I appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State framed Mrs Jones, and it is perfectly reasonable that he does so. My point is that we do ourselves and Mrs Jones a great disservice if we suggest that this process will bring answers, when answers there may very well come none—because of the passage of time, because of fading memories, because of people who have passed away, or because of evidence that has degraded or been deliberately or unwittingly destroyed.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the people involved in the Hillsborough campaign, the contaminated blood campaign and the many campaigns that have highlighted state cover-ups in this country should just give up because of the passage of time.
Dr Murrison
That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.
Mr Francois
The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity?
The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn.
In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.
Mr Francois
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.
Dr Murrison
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Al Carns
If we step back and have a think about where we are, a terrorist, a solider or an individual who was engaged in the troubles over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, who remembers having engaged in kinetic activity—having killed someone or conducted something of violence—and who wants to seek solace and to give evidence, will be prosecuted if they do give evidence. It is just worth thinking about that when we talk about justice. A lot of people will want to come forward and clear the deck on the past. If they do, they will be dragged into the courts.
Dr Murrison
The question is how we can best recover the information—how we can extract it—even at this late date, so that we can give some solace and comfort to those who have been wrapped up in these terrible events, from whatever side of the divide they hail.
In the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast East, I would like to address one or two specifics on clauses 4 and 5, relating to the appointment of the commissioners and the directors of investigations. Clause 4(2) states specifically:
“In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must so far as practicable ensure that one or more of the Commissioners have experience gained outside the United Kingdom”.
That was not what the Secretary of State told me. He is quite right that, under clause 5, one director of investigations should have
“experience of conducting criminal investigations outside Northern Ireland”,
so it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they may be drawn from people operating in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that appears not to be the case in relation to the commissioners. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State, when he makes his winding-up remarks, was able to clarify that for me—or now, if he wants to.
Chris Bryant
Could the right hon. Gentleman just clarify what question he is asking? I am not sure whether he is asking about the commissioners or the directors of investigation. While I am on my feet, may I gently suggest to him that his figures about recruitment in the armed forces are wrong? Actually, for the first time in a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving. Recruitment is up by 7% and outflow is down by 7%.
Dr Murrison
I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on special forces, but I do suggest that he look at special forces specifically, which is what I was talking about earlier. If he wants to heap laurels on me, as a former Minister for defence people, since these things take a very long time, I am perfectly happy to take some of the credit. I am grateful to him for that, but I do not think that it was the intent of his remarks.
My question to him was about clause 4(2). He satisfied me in relation to the directors of investigations, but it is the commissioners about whom I am concerned. I think that, unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I should be grateful if he could clarify that for me at some point.
Government amendment 259 and new clause 34 concern, respectively, commissioners and members of the victims and survivors advisory group. There is a mandate that commissioners cannot have been convicted of an offence “anywhere in the world”. That needs a bit of further thought, because in some parts of our benighted world today, people are convicted by jurisdictions for which I do not think we would have a great deal of respect. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely—but convicted nevertheless—in such a jurisdiction. I feel that we may need to revise the wording, either here or in the other place, to be clear about the Government’s intent. Neither is there any mention of the rehabilitation of offenders. New clause 34 does at least place a limit of three months on a custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think that this part of the Bill needs a bit of redrafting so that it makes more sense.
Government amendment 162 touches on the provision of information via a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get-out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticability test. What I am not sure about, and what I seek clarification on, is what circumstances would make it “impracticable” for a person to provide information through live audio or video links.
Comments have been made about the part that the Irish Government play in all this through the framework agreement. There is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on the Bill, and we have heard—particularly in relation to Omagh—why that should be. I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Irish Government have not been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and, indeed, had not seen the amendments before their publication, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State expects the Irish Government to implement, through their legislative channels, the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary to provide some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point it has been untapped, and until it is tapped, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin in trying to provide answers to many of the problems about which we have heard today.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was right to say that this is all about victims. It is also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There must be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years. There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles, and it is our job to do what we can to remedy that, difficult and imperfect though the process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s endeavours—he approaches this matter in good faith, as did his predecessor —but I fear that what we have at the moment simply will not do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill since he was appointed. He has built on the good work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in the Chamber but who gave a powerful speech about why the Bill is so important for victims as well as others who are affected. I think that it should reassure veterans that the process of repeated investigations is coming to an end, and it should give survivors and the families of victims—many of whom are soldiers and police officers themselves—a stronger route to finding answers, and a route to justice for crimes committed during the troubles.
I want to speak about the new protections for veterans, and about why I think they address the real concerns of those who were worried about repeated investigations. I also intend to mention concerns that victims groups have raised with me about their privacy and the anonymity of the process.
Let me deal first with the additional protections for veterans. I know how difficult it was to serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) spoke powerfully about the difficulties that those veterans faced. I did not serve there myself, but I worked alongside many soldiers and Marines who had, and some of them told me that it was more difficult to serve in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan because of the complexities of the environment in which they were operating. We should accept that, and we should thank the veterans, including those who were in the Gallery earlier, for the service that they gave. I think it right for the new legacy commission to consider that.
I strongly welcome new clause 32, which requires the commission or any inquest to take into account the context in which soldiers are operating. It is now made explicit that training, experience and perceived threats, among other factors, must be considered by the commission in any inquests. I also welcome the statement in the new clause that the investigators
“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”
Many people have made that point, and it is important for it to be in the legislation.
However, the biggest concern that I have heard about from veterans in Halesowen and veterans groups across the country, as well as many Members, is about repeated investigations. Under the existing legislation, soldiers have been worried about being asked to come back time and again to go over evidence that they have already given. Government amendment 192 directly addresses that by requiring the director of investigations to consider what information can be obtained from public authorities before unnecessarily duplicating work. That adds to the Bill’s existing protections against the duplication of previous investigative work.
When I discussed the veterans’ concern explicitly with senior members of ICRIR last week, they told me that many of these cases have been investigated in the past. There have been many inquests and other cases in which veterans have been accused of crimes, that more than enough evidence is already available in public bodies. They did not believe that the case of any veteran under investigation would be taken forward by the legacy commission under this new legislation, and I think that veterans should take reassurance from what has been said by the people who are involved in conducting these investigations.
At the same time, there have been improvements in evidence collection—for example, through DNA or technical evidence—since the 1970s and 1980s, when many of these crimes were committed. We know that ICRIR is examining the links between different types of evidence, looking at, for example, the campaign of bombings in England during the 1970s: the M62 bombing, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and the Guildford pub bombings and others. The commission thinks that there are connections that may lead to further investigations that might give answers to some of the victims. We should bear in mind that many of those victims are family members of servicemen who were killed in England.
ICRIR felt that, on occasion, veterans who were witnesses to those crimes might be asked to give evidence to the commission to add value to the new evidence that is coming forward. I think veterans would appreciate that, because they would be giving evidence that might give answers to the family members of their colleagues who were killed by terrorists. That is something that the commission is doing correctly. Indeed, it is protecting veterans while at the same time getting answers for victims.
There are other welcome amendments and new clauses. Government amendment 162 allows witnesses to give remote evidence, meaning that they would not have to travel to Northern Ireland, while Government new clause 45 and Government amendment 240 ensure that veterans will not be approached by the commission directly, so there will be there are no cold calls. I know that that was a big concern.
Although there are many improvements to the protections for veterans, some veterans’ groups have said publicly in the last few days that they still do not feel that the Bill goes far enough in providing those protections. The protections give a lot of support against repeated investigations, but there needs to be a backstop to ensure that they are working properly. That is why I am really pleased that new clause 53 requires, within two years, an independent review of whether the protections will give veterans the safeguards that they need against repeated investigations.
Robin Swann
I thank the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), and the Minister for Veterans and the former Minister of Veterans, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for their engagement on this Bill. It has been a long time getting to this stage, but there has been engagement. For Northern Ireland MPs, it has sometimes felt like a struggle to have our concerns heard. I thank Members who have spoken in today’s debate, because it has had a very different tone and tenor from the one that we had on the carry-over motion. As a Northern Ireland MP, I welcome that on behalf of veterans and victims’ organisations, who will be listening intently to how the debate is handled.
As we consider this legislation, I believe that our focus should remain where it belongs: those who bear the scars of the Northern Ireland troubles. It is not about veteran against victim or victim against veteran; it is about those people who suffered at the hands of terrorism and who have seen loved ones lost, loved ones traumatised and loved ones still carrying the scars, be they Northern Ireland victims or veterans. I know that some Labour Members think that the victims of war are on their side of the House and the veterans are on this side. Sometimes we feel that mismatch as well, because the veterans talked about by the Conservatives are not the same as the veterans we talk about. When we talk about veterans, it is about members of the Ulster Defence Regiment or the RUC, who did not serve a tour of duty and return home. It is about the veterans who, after they had finished a day’s work, went out and conducted the vehicle checkpoints that the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about earlier, and who still went in and did a day’s work the next day.
The challenge of this debate is that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned, sometimes we feel that our voice is not heard. That is reflected in the voices of our veterans and victims’ organisations. Rushing through legislation, or even attempting to force through measures without proper scrutiny and consensus, only deepens distrust. This is an opportunity to get the process right, to find a balance, to establish institutions that command broad public confidence, and to resolve these matters for good.
Mention has been made of ICRIR’s work and of its first published report, which is on Rory O’Kelly. A member of his extended family contacted me about the work that was done, and I raised it with the Secretary of State in the debate on the carry-over motion. What concerns me, which is not the same as what concerns those on the Opposition Front Bench, is that victims and their families have lost confidence in ICRIR, because they see yet another process and the creation of another body. I hope the Secretary of State can provide reassurance that the victims and families who do engage will receive full support, and that cumbersome bureaucracy does not mean that they have to restart the whole process over again.
Chris Bryant
I can absolutely provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. It is really important that we take from ICRIR what is good and build on that, but also that we sort out some of the problems that have existed. He will have seen the Peter May report and some of the problems that there have been in the courts. We will put all of that right, but we are not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.
Robin Swann
I thank the Secretary of State for that reassurance, because some of the concerns are raised in the amendments. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned that the second director of investigations must have experience of working outside the UK, and the Secretary of State has provided reassurance on what that means in today’s debate.
I want to talk specifically about the amendments that I have tabled, supported by the Ulster Unionist party. I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, but I will start by focusing on amendment 4, which I hope will be for separate decision. I seek support for the amendment this evening, because it would give victims of troubles-related sexual violence the right to a legacy commission investigation. That proposal has support from parties across the House, but it has also been signed by Members from all the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in this place. I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for his comments and for supporting the amendment.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, in its report on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, included a recommendation for the Government to address the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. The response to that ask has been incredibly disappointing for victims, because the Government have advised that legacy commission investigations are only for those who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State reiterated that point earlier.
That is not good enough, because we have heard that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is overstretched and underfunded as things stand, and the chief constable has raised concerns about the duties that will be put on him and his officers through the legislation we are discussing tonight. The PSNI simply cannot provide the best possible investigation for such victims, because the trauma and the lasting physical and mental injury that these crimes have caused cannot be dismissed. We know that paramilitaries used rape and sexual violence to instil fear and maintain control, which has been overlooked for far too long.
Máiría Cahill, who is known by many in this House, is a victim of sexual violence at the hands of the IRA. Last week, she shared with me and others the real impact of these crimes. She told me:
“My abuser used a conversation about guns to frighten me into silence about his horrendous yearlong abuse of me as a 16-year-old.
His comrades in the IRA later forced me into the same room as him in a yearlong forced so-called investigation into that abuse. When I eventually went to the criminal justice system, it failed us so much that Sir Keir Starmer’s report led to an apology from the then DPP.”
She went on to say:
“Worse still, police intelligence showed that the RUC knew from the year 2000 that my abuser was abusing children—and did nothing. A retired Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that they would not have been interested in the child abuse aspect, because they were focused on the terrorism.”
Ms Cahill, like me, is worried that this Labour Government are going to ignore troubles-related sexual crime victims all over again. That is why amendment 4 is so important, because those victims must be central and they must have access to justice.
Another victim, Paudie McGahon, was raped by a north Belfast IRA man Seamus Marley, when he was in an IRA safe house. He threatened his victims that, if they told anyone about it, they would be found dead on a border road. Marley was later convicted in the Republic of Ireland, but the Provisional IRA members who forced their victims into a kangaroo court—some of them were from Northern Ireland—were not prosecuted. There are other victims out there for whom the criminal justice system is inadequate, because it cannot cope with paramilitary forced interrogations into victims of rape or abuse.
In Máiría Cahill’s own words:
“Sexual crimes have for too long been swept under the cloak of conflict—as have paramilitary actions. If Labour votes down this amendment, my abuser can access the shield of this Troubles Bill and seek amnesty for any of his IRA activities carried out while abusing me—but it affords me no protection whatsoever as his victim.”
Almost 30 years later, Máiría wanted me to share with the Committee that she is still receiving psychological care because of what happened to her as a 16-year-old. These victims deserve an investigation and they deserve justice.
Máiría also asked me to remind Labour Ministers that the then shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), convinced the Conservative Government to include troubles-related rape in the last iteration of this legacy Bill. He raised a fundamental concern that the legislation, as originally drafted, could allow perpetrators of rape and other sexual offences committed during the troubles to benefit from immunity from prosecution. He warned that the Bill contained no specific prohibition on immunity for sexual violence, so he tabled the then amendment 115 to exclude certain sexual offences explicitly from the immunity provisions. That amendment was supported in Committee, and the Government subsequently brought forward a replacement provision expressly excluding troubles-related sexual offences from immunity.
I will work with the Government and the Secretary of State in remedying this, but it is important that amendment 4 is made tonight, because the context matters. It would demonstrate that Parliament has previously recognised the need to address sexual violence explicitly in troubles legislation, rather than simply assume that existing provisions will adequately protect victims. My amendment addresses an equally important gap in the current Bill, because it would allow victims of sexual crimes committed as part of the troubles, who suffered physical or mental harm, to request an investigation. We must not allow sexual violence or abuse to become an overlooked part of the history of the troubles, nor should victims be left without an effective route to seek answers about what happened. That intervention demonstrated the importance of putting protections into the legislation itself, and I am asking this Committee to apply the same principle on the right of victims to seek an investigation.
This is not about party politics; it is about recognising the experiences of victims, ensuring that sexual violence is properly acknowledged in the historical record and making certain that the legislation does not leave that behind. If Parliament has accepted that sexual offences require explicit protection in the context of immunity, it should also give serious consideration to ensuring the victims of those offences are not excluded from the process of seeking truth and accountability. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she was the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, acknowledged in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that in conflict societies sexual violence should be recognised as part of the reality of conflict. She added:
“Of course, anyone who suffered sexual violence because of conflict should be taken account of.”
She also stressed that victims’ experiences must be handled sensitively to avoid retraumatisation.
The hon. Member’s evidence reinforces the principle behind my amendment, because victims of sexual violence during the troubles deserve recognition and the opportunity for their experiences to be properly investigated. I listened to the Secretary of State this morning when he said he wanted to bring forward
“a balanced Bill which gives as many people answers as possible”.
So I ask him to listen to those people. I have tabled a number of other amendments about different factors, but that is the main one I want to put forward.
Chris Bryant
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member. I hope he understands that I think everybody in the Committee wants to ensure that people are not barred from taking forward these issues through the commission. However, as he has just said, this may need to be dealt with so sensitively that the legacy commission might not be the place where they want it to be addressed—they might want it to be addressed somewhere else. I am not sure that his amendment is necessary to achieve what he is trying to achieve. I am very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I am just not sure that this measure is necessary.
Robin Swann
With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, the reason I want to put this into the Bill is that it is not there. When we look at the list in clause 27(3), we see:
“‘Serious physical or mental harm’ means…paraplegia;… quadriplegia;…severe brain injury or damage;…severe psychiatric damage;…total blindness;…total deafness;…loss of one or more limbs;…severe scarring or disfigurement.”
The list does not include sexual crime, which does not fall under any of those harms. Previous answers from his Department said that this would cover people who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That could be said about any victim coming forward in this regard. I ask him to seriously consider where sexual violence and crime could fit into the Bill. It is not a wide section of victims, nor will it add multiple cases, but it will bring reassurance to some. I seriously believe that is what the Government want to bring about with this Bill, so I am keen to work with them in regard to this specific experience of many victims and survivors.
We do not feel that the amendment regarding the second investigator or the director of investigations in the commission is necessary, because it undermines the current provision. There has been no serious complaint about the operation of either the commission’s chief executive or the director of investigations that we see would make a second position necessary. I ask Members to support my amendment 4.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I support this Bill for victims and veterans. I support this Bill for truth, justice and the rule of law. I support this Bill for Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and peace. I welcome the amendments from the Government. I know they have come about following deep and constructive engagement with many people in the House and outside it, and I think they strengthen what we have before us.
The Good Friday agreement is rightly one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It changed the course of history. While praise is understandably lavished on the politicians who negotiated its terms, they would be the first to tell us that its success is not theirs to own, but that it is owned by the people of Northern Ireland, who, day in and day out, make that progress possible. They do so without fanfare and they embrace it. It is not that they have forgotten the pain and suffering—how could they?—but they chose a different future, and in so doing they wrote a different story for Northern Ireland.
What a story the people are writing! The economy is exciting, and the creative industries, the defence sector and technology are booming. They have the lowest unemployment in the whole of the UK and the highest growth. Excellent schools are helping to equip the next generation—a generation not growing up knowing the sound of a bomb, and not growing up to fear a Protestant or a Catholic. Brilliant charities and community groups are helping a generation to see that they have more in common with one another. I believe that, if we are to protect that progress, we need a legacy process that commands confidence, and I think that is helped by these amendments.
None of that, of course, is to pretend that there are not problems in modern day Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have shown us that the peace we have is not a replacement for the pain, and it has not changed what happened in the past—that can never be changed, and we should never ignore it. Let us be clear: that pain will also be known by those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the police, and by their families. The amendments that I support, including stopping repeat investigations, matter a great deal to them, and I will always be in admiration of those who stood in harm’s way to keep people safe. They lost far too much; the way they were tested in their service of our country, I would wish on no person.
Whenever the issue has been debated before in this House, there has been a contingent of veterans in the Public Gallery. Each time, I have learnt so much by going to speak to them. I have learnt about the horrors they encountered. I have learnt how rightly proud they are of their service, and how frustrated they are about the injustices that they, their friends and their comrades faced. Our conversations often turned to whether they would want immunity for that period; they do not. They told me that they fought to defend the rule of law, not to be above it. They simply want equality before it.
Surely, we in this House agree that it is all those people—those who have helped to make Northern Ireland what it is today and to make peace possible—who we should put first. If the Bill helps a father in his late 80s end the torture of not knowing what happened to his daughter in her final moments, can we say that he is not worth our support? Should we tell him how glad we are that he never allowed his grief and devastation to stop his commitment to a peaceful Northern Ireland, but we cannot pass those provisions for him? If the Bill helps a widow of a veteran murdered by a terrorist group get the justice that she has been denied for decades, can we say that that is not worth our support? Should we tell her that her pain and anguish—her children having to grow up without knowing their father—is really awful, and we are sorry, but we cannot do this for her?
It is clearly not right that those brave veterans who helped contain the worst of the violence should be forced into the dock to relive the worst day of their life, when they have already been cleared by an investigation that looked into all of the evidence. They were asked by our state to act; they do not deserve to be tried again and again until a different result is found. That is precisely why the protection from repeat investigations is so important. It is why I welcome the amendment set out by the Secretary of State that strengthens that very protection. That is how we honour the sacrifice of people who went out to defend the rule of law, without cruelly and needlessly making them relive the very worst moment of their lives.
I do not think this Bill will be as totemic as the Good Friday agreement. It will not go down in the history books in quite the same way. But it can deliver with fairness for all those who I mentioned at the start of my speech. This Bill might bring answers—maybe even justice—to people who have lived with very deep pain for many, many years and put their country first. They put peace first. Those are the people who make progress possible, each and every day. I am proud to support them, and I am proud to support the Bill.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to make some remarks on the amendments that I have tabled, and some more general remarks, given the debate so far. I will discuss amendments 39 to 42, which, in my opinion, the Government amendments have not addressed.
Amendments 39 to 42 provide for judicial panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Judicial appointments should remain within NIJAC’s remit to maintain independence and public confidence in the process, as well as to safeguard against future politicisation. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government’s amendments make no provision to address this, despite concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and UN experts. Indeed, the Committee on the Administration of Justice also notes that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appointing judges would reverse the process put in place after the Good Friday agreement reforms, which created NIJAC as an independent body to appoint the judiciary.
The Secretary of State’s broad powers mean that a future Secretary of State for Northern Ireland opposed to an independent rule of law legacy investigation could make further appointments to frustrate the legacy commission’s purpose. One example would be appointing judicial commissioners to write the findings of legacy commission reports after investigations. Indeed, there is precedent for the risk: the irregular appointment of the second police ombudsman was followed by a lowering of the office’s independence in legacy investigations, leading to an independent inspection and suspension of the historic function of that office.
I will now turn to some of my greatest concerns in the amendments we are discussing today—there are also concerns about what we will discuss tomorrow. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has already started to tease out some of the issues with the national security veto, as has the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This issue really bothers me, and I feel that it should bother other Members. The veto can hide state involvement in killings. Indeed, it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge and start to deal with that aspect of our past. The Bill lets the Secretary of State redact legacy commission reports to families on national security grounds. That is not limited to protecting lawful covert methods; it can conceal the role of state agents and informants in killings currently attributed solely to non-state actors.
If you will briefly indulge me, Madam Chair, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and his amendment 4, which I will support—as I have done already. We discussed that amendment within the realms of paramilitary offenders—the hon. Member eloquently articulated that point—but there were also state agents who were paedophiles and operated with impunity. We were told after the fact that they were involved in saving numerous lives. That is obviously a question of hindsight, and very conveniently difficult to disaggregate. However, on record there are paedophiles who were used by the state. Indeed, it is often a mirror image, but they were there to serve a purpose. We knew about the paedophilia and child abuse, but we let that go because we felt there was a security value. I will just let that sit with Members for a moment.
The relevant Secretary of State could be marking their own homework. The joint framework suggests that the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary could also redact reports, even though MI5 and Military Intelligence are potential subjects of the investigations in question. That has already been found unlawful, but the Government have pressed ahead anyway. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found the equivalent provisions in the legacy Act 2023 incompatible with the ECHR—in the Dillon judgment. The Government’s appeal is before the Supreme Court but undetermined, yet they have still included the provisions and certified the Bill as ECHR-compatible on the strength of an “expectation” of winning.
There is a conflict with international and ECHR standards. UN special rapporteurs warned that the veto could curtail victims’ right to know the truth and be incompatible with international law. The Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” stance—earlier this year much maligned, to the stage of being mocked, with the Stakeknife case—showed that the involvement of agents at all should not be disclosed. This cannot be squared with the ECHR duty to hold effective investigations capable of establishing state agents’ involvement in a death. No comparable jurisdiction gives Ministers that power over transitional justice reports.
I want to draw attention to a theme that has been present throughout this debate and many others. We live with this every day in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that those veterans who live in England or further afield do not either—but this dictates our policy in Northern Ireland of how we do things today. It is still there. As other Members have alluded to, those members who served for Northern Ireland did not get to leave. They did not go away; they served their tour of duty on their home patch.
The reverse is true as well: many victims of paramilitary violence will still see the perpetrators today. Many of them will know things through hearsay, rumour or gossip, but they are not quite sure. If the Bill provides a way to try and give those people the knowledge and understanding of who pulled the trigger, and where and when, then I will support it.
I thank the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn); I am glad that he is in his place. I want to get something off my conscience that has bothered me since the day and hour that I set foot in this House and took part in these debates: we have not done justice to all the victims through these debates—we just haven’t—and it hurts, and I think it is shameful. I stand here as somebody who has veterans in her house. I am proud of them; I do not try to diminish or do away with that. But I also stand here as part of a family who have suffered from paramilitary violence, through nothing other than sectarianism. I am not going to pretend that that was an unusual happening.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). She made a powerful speech. I commend her for her honesty, and for sharing her personal experiences. I also commend the many other Members who have done so in this important debate.
The Bill is about one thing: how do we deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland? In my view, we cannot deal with that legacy unless we focus on three things: truth, justice and, ultimately, reconciliation. Everyone affected by the troubles deserves truth and justice—that seems to be the core of what the legacy commission is about—but if we are honest, the difficulty achieving an adequate balance between the two fundamentals of truth and justice is why this Bill and the last Government’s legacy Act 2023 have been so contested. It is why, at times, there has been more heat than light in debates. It is why victims and veterans have so often been rhetorically pitted against each other in these debates. As we have seen today, that is a false dichotomy. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made a good point: so often, veterans are victims of the troubles.
We have to ask: why is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill necessary at all, 28 years after the Good Friday agreement? The answer is that all parties to the conflict have failed to take the steps necessary to deal with its legacy, so here we are, literally re-litigating the troubles.
First, truth is important, and the legacy commission will enable important work to establish the truth, including for hundreds—arguably thousands—of veterans and their families. Regardless of what has happened in their life, many victims and survivors of the troubles need the closure of knowing who did what, when, to their loved ones. Both the reformed legacy commission and the independent commission on information retrieval, which will be discussed tomorrow, create the possibility of our learning those truths. Furthermore, in the legacy framework, there is a seminal commitment by the Irish Government to introducing new legislation that ensures the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities on legacy issues, including through a new Garda unit. That opens up new opportunities to uncover the full truth and is truly historic.
The commitments made by our partners in the Irish Government must be followed through with. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to confirm that the entirety of the framework, including our pledge to reopen a limited number of paused inquests, is contingent on the Irish Government putting their commitments under the framework into Irish law at the same time as this Bill becomes law.
The second key foundational element is justice. As we have heard, justice is so necessary, but the people of Northern Ireland really need to determine what form of justice will satisfy them. We heard from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), about the South African truth and reconciliation commission. The Good Friday agreement avoided any extensive public or social quasi-judicial process, so we have been left with not just the legacy of the troubles but the legacy of the last 28 years of smouldering, pent-up frustration about the lack of justice for, and at times even acknowledgment of, the events of the preceding 30 years.
In part 5 of the Bill, the legacy commission allows for the uncovering of truth in a quasi-judicial setting through an “inquisitorial proceedings” approach. Suspected crimes that are uncovered in that way can be referred to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that the criminal justice route remains possible for troubles-related crimes.
The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is not in his place, talked about giving false hope to Mrs Jones, but at times, it is the absence of a process, as much as anything else, that brings people fear, disappointment and frustration. Even if they cannot get full justice—whatever that may be, and however we define it—the opportunity to look into how their loved one was affected, killed or maimed is itself part of justice.
It is important that any attempts to wage lawfare against veterans are confounded. I therefore welcome new clause 50, under which the Attorney General would have to give consent to all serious troubles-related prosecutions. I also welcome new clause 32, on the explicit requirement on coroners or the commission to recognise the operational circumstances in which veterans served—the fact that they had to make split-second decisions, and so on—and amendment 192, which requires the commission to consider whether there is compelling new evidence before contacting witnesses. But the question must be asked: at what point will we all realise that we cannot litigate or prosecute our way out of the legacy of the troubles?
I come to my last point, on reconciliation. The missing piece in Northern Ireland—the whole reason why we are in the Chamber—is the failure to pursue and deliver what we might call positive peace. In many ways, the Good Friday agreement has been a huge success; it stopped a large majority of the violence we saw in the troubles, and there is no question but that Northern Ireland is a better place today than it was in 1998—I saw that improvement with my own eyes, as I lived there between 2002 and 2007—but the mere absence of violence is not enough to enable us to deal with the legacy of the past, let alone build the future that Northern Ireland deserves. That is the reason why, despite the much more peaceful society that we see today, Northern Ireland still feels frozen to some degree at a moment in time—in 1998, to be precise. How else can we explain the visceral response we witnessed so recently on Garvaghy Road?
Some may say that Governments cannot make people or communities reconcile. That is correct, but that cannot mean that Governments, and politicians like us, cease to have a role in fostering reconciliation. Clause 11 outlines that the first principle of the legacy commission is that reconciliation must be promoted. However, there is scant, if any, detail thereafter on how that will be achieved, even if part 4 of the legacy Act is taken forward. That is why I put my name to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and grouped for consideration tomorrow, which would commit the Government to engaging seriously with efforts to foster reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the troubles.
Some people want to see justice done; others want to see truth uncovered. Those are legitimate desires, and the Bill seeks to help them come to fruition, but when it comes to the legacy of the troubles, there is clearly a great social and corporate need for acknowledgment, and even contrition, on all sides. A generation after Trimble and Hume won the Nobel peace prize, our ambitions for reconciliation have fallen silent. We politicians need to lead by example. This is not familiar territory for any Government; truth and justice are easier to deal with than the fragilities of confession, forgiveness and, ultimately, love.
When President Mandela spoke in Cape Town cathedral at the commissioning service for the South African truth and reconciliation commission, he led by example, acknowledging:
“The whole South African nation has been a victim, and it is in that context that we should address the restoration of dignity and the issue of reparation. The healing process is meant for the individual, the family and the community. However, above all the healing process involves the nation, because it is the nation itself that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself.”
I ask us: what could it mean if the people of these islands—Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland—could convene moments in which we could acknowledge, repent and heal? What could it achieve if the UK, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments convened, resourced and facilitated memorialisation of the troubles and symbols of forgiveness and reconciliation? As we have seen throughout the world, it is only Governments who have the scale and authority to create such spaces and moments.
Alex Easton
I have examined clauses 1 to 72 and the Government’s amendments with care and as best I could in the short period we had, and I regret to say that I still have grave concerns. The central question is whether clear blue water is drawn between those who served to protect the public and those who pursued terrorism. Security forces were responsible for about 10% of troubles-related deaths and terrorist organisations were responsible for about 90%, yet many who served have lived with the prospect of being summonsed to court while some suspected of terrorist offences received so-called letters of comfort, as has been addressed. For veterans and their families, that contrast has created a deep sense of injustice.
I am not asking the House to place anyone above the law—where there is evidence of wrongdoing, that must be examined—but a fair legacy process must recognise the profound difference between someone who wore a uniform to protect life and someone who deliberately set out to take it. Nor should the Republic of Ireland’s role escape scrutiny. Families seeking answers about attacks planned or supported across the border deserve meaningful co-operation and access to relevant information. A legacy process that looks only where it is easiest will not command confidence. Justice must not stop at the border.
We can look at the recent examples that have come out where the Republic of Ireland’s Government failed to give information. We see what has happened with Omagh. We know that in the early part of the troubles the Irish Government supplied weapons to the IRA. We know about Breen and Buchanan, the superintendents murdered on their way home from Dundalk. The Garda Síochána were involved, yet they were never brought to justice and no information was given to our Government.
I welcome the Government’s decision to bar former paramilitaries from the victims and survivors advisory group and to provide a place for a veteran—I hope that it will be more than just one veteran. Those are important changes and they have partly engaged with my amendment 52, but they do not fully address my concerns about appointing someone who belongs, or has belonged, to a political party linked to or supportive of a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. Victims and survivors must be able to trust the independence of those appointed to speak on their behalf. I implore the Government not to divide the House on my amendment. We cannot allow those from any political party to go on to the victims and survivors advisory group if they believe that the troubles were justified, that the murder of a PSNI officer was justified, that the murder of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces was justified, or that a civilian murder was justified for their cause. Murder is never justified, no matter who took part.
Alex Easton
Let me get on a wee bit; I will maybe let the hon. Member in later.
If such individuals were allowed, even unintentionally, they would make a mockery of the victims and survivors advisory group. They would use it for their own agenda, and nobody would have any confidence in that group. I ask the Secretary of State please to do the right thing and not divide the House on this amendment. It would strengthen the Bill, not weaken it. We must not allow anyone to be on the victims and survivors advisory group who believes that a terrorist campaign was right or give them the opportunity to use that position to rewrite history, because if they are allowed on it, they will do that.
Magna Carta declares:
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”
That promise must always apply to every family seeking answers, and to every veteran who has lived for years under the shadow of possible prosecution. Passing a Bill is not in itself progress. The test is whether it delivers a process that is fair, credible and worthy of the trust of those it is meant to serve. I recognise that no legislation can undo the grief of the troubles, but this House has a duty not to compound it. We owe victims the truth, veterans fairness and the public a process that distinguishes service from terrorism without placing anyone beyond the reach of the law.
The Government’s amendments are a step, but they are not enough. For this reason, I cannot support the Bill. I implore the Secretary of State to listen to what I am saying. As a Unionist, throughout my life I have watched politics coming through Westminster and all the different deals that have been done. From the Belfast agreement and the Anglo-Irish agreement right through to the Windsor framework, I have seen every successive Government not listening to me or my predecessor Unionists about our concerns. We feel unloved. We feel that we are never listened to. Secretary of State, you have a chance here to reach out to Unionism and our genuine concerns. Please listen to us, because we have to get this right. If we do not, it is just going to be a complete disaster.
Ian Byrne
As we debate this Bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose decades-long fight for truth and justice has brought us here: mothers who have waited 50 years to understand why their children were killed; siblings told to move on; widows denied information about their husbands’ deaths; and children who grew up without a parent and still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones but whether parts of it were involved in, enabled or concealed what happened. Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to repair the damage caused by the legacy Act, but that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know.
The Government published substantial amendments shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes will have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet Members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles-related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests were met, a Government Law Officer could withhold consent.
I agree with Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families’ confidence. Where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power, families will understandably question why a Government member should have the final say. Whatever the Government’s intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear.
We must also remember the Dillon litigation. The courts in Northern Ireland found the legacy Act’s immunity provisions incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force. The Government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respects their human rights obligations. The protections underpinning the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. As a Labour Government, we have a particular responsibility to protect that achievement and never, ever undermine it.
Nor do the concerns end with prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State’s control over sensitive information, restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings and the independence of appointments to the judicial panel. These are fundamental issues: who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe that state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence. The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear.
That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part 4 of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both Houses. The principle is straightforward: public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant evidence and actively help to establish the facts.
Chris Bryant
I want to be absolutely clear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of candour. Just as we argued for it in the Hillsborough law—which is still making its way through the House of Lords; it is still in Committee stage down there—so I want us to be as open and transparent as possible. I undertake to work with him and others in this House to ensure that principle is adhered to when we mesh together the two Bills—this Bill and the Hillsborough law—in the House of Lords.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out in the House of Lords is the Hillsborough law, that it does exactly what we wanted and that it applies to Northern Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions whose conduct is being examined, or face a lesser standard of candour because their case is before the legacy commission rather than a coroner.
Amnesty International UK has highlighted the importance of disclosure, transparency and accountability in legacy cases. The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report on this Bill recommends that the Hillsborough law duty of candour must apply equally to revived coroners’ inquests and proceedings conducted by the legacy commission. New clause 56 would apply these principles directly to these proceedings, and I thank the Secretary of State for his words.
An investigation can establish the truth only if evidence is brought forward. If public bodies withhold information, provide incomplete accounts or protect themselves, families are forced to fight the same battles again and again. That is how allegations of collusion remain unresolved, suspicion becomes distrust and justice is denied for generations. We should do everything possible to prevent that. As a survivor of Hillsborough, I know the damage caused when the state closes ranks against the people it has failed. Ninety-seven people were unlawfully killed. Their families and survivors endured decades of lies, smears and cover-up. The consequences continue today.
Families should never have to fight to establish why their loved ones died. Survivors should never have to defend themselves against lies. Public authorities have a duty to tell the truth and assist in establishing it. Instead, those same institutions protected themselves. Evidence was withheld, and the truth obstructed. That experience is why we fought for, and fight for, the Hillsborough law to require public bodies and officials to be honest, to disclose evidence and to assist the search for truth, not block it.
Lincoln Jopp
I must start by declaring an interest: this legislation would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland, serving in the Scots Guards. The first was in Belfast in 1992. We lost Guardsman Damian Shackleton—murdered by the IRA. We lost Guardsman Andrew Wason—murdered by the IRA. We also had two guardsmen who were subsequently convicted in a Diplock court for murder and given life sentences for a judgmental shooting situation in north Belfast.
On that tour, as a platoon commander, I remember being at a pig point just outside the Divis flats—basically, a vehicle control point, stopping ingress to and egress from the city centre. My road man, who was the guy who stopped the people at the checkpoint, called over to me. He had his hand on the driver’s shoulder. He said, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” This guy looked me in the eye and said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this vehicle.” Now, fortunately, I knew that he was lying, but the drill at the time was that you grabbed a hold of this witness, took him out of the car and did not let go until the bomb disposal people turned up, because they needed to question them to find out what the situation was and how long the vehicle had been taken away to get the bomb in the back of it. The IRA’s tactics at the time were all designed not only to kill and maim, but to put the British forces and the police on the horns of a series of dilemmas to make their job incredibly difficult.
On my second tour, I was an operations officer in east Tyrone, on a tour that spanned the ceasefire. Right up until midnight on the day the ceasefire kicked in, the IRA was trying to mortar, bomb and murder our people in RUC Pomeroy. I was then a company commander, accompanied by my wife and children, and we were based out of Ballykinler. We would go away for five weeks at a time, predominantly to south Armagh and Portadown, particularly Drumcree. My last job was for two years as a policy officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland in Lisburn.
Through that progression, the challenges I faced and the insights I gleaned were very different. By the time I got to the top—John Reid was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time—we were doing the demilitarisation of south Armagh and the Golf towers. There was the Downing Street declaration. I asked my boss, who was a brilliant civil servant, “Who won?” He did actually answer that question, but the answer he gave me is probably not something that would help our debate today. Suffice it to say that the Good Friday agreement left that out there as a question—who won? That was necessary; it was a peace agreement. It was very important not to rub people’s noses in it—that one side had very clearly won and another side had very clearly lost.
Because of that grey area, people subsequently have sought to use various ways of answering that question not just to relitigate the case, but to rewrite history. I particularly remember an instance when Stormont had to be recalled to debate the colour of flowers. It was Easter recess, and someone had put some flowers in the lobby at Stormont. Everyone had to be recalled to debate the colour of the flowers. That sounds absurd but, of course, the colour of those flowers was an answer to the question, “Who won?”
The trouble is that our considerations today are not as apparently innocuous as the colour of flowers. Our debate is about the way in which those four guardsmen I mentioned went to Northern Ireland, received orders and had rifles strapped around their necks. They were given very few powers additional to those of a private citizen. They were told to go out into the streets of the United Kingdom and protect the police while people tried to kill them. It is in that context that I see the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled.
What we are witnessing is an extension of the troubles by other means. The Secretary of State, I think in good faith, has been attempting to bring various parties together and ensure that this legislation has—I think this was the phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—the confidence of all parties. The trouble is that it does not. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), various veterans’ organisations have said that they do not have confidence in this legislation or the amendments to it. The former Secretary of State said that “if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this.” Well, I do not want perfect, but I do want something that protects our veterans from the rinse and repeat. This is not it, as the Secretary of State well knows.
I introduced a private Member’s Bill that said there should be no new investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless there was new compelling evidence in the eyes of a Supreme Court judge. The Government successfully talked that out, so our Front Benchers have brought forward new clause 21, which essentially re-presents it. I wish that the Government had taken me up on the offer, and simply had it as one of their amendments. This is the crucial amendment that has the support of all the veterans organisations—because they wrote it. That is how I know they support new clause 21.
The word “essential”, which has been substituted for “new and compelling”, does not do it for me, because I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning, saying, “‘Essential’ to my mind means completely new evidence or a new forensic procedure,” but that is the Secretary of State’s interpretation of it. Who is to say how this non-legalese word “essential” will be interpreted in the future? There are just far too many cracks in the pavement into which our service personnel could again fall and be rinsed and repeated.
The fact is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has admitted that the Bill does nothing to stop the Loughgall inquest going ahead. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that when he came in front of the Defence Committee last week. I asked him whether anything in the amendments trumped the requirement under the framework for Loughgall to go ahead, or whether the inquests would automatically be restarted. I asked,
“will the interpretation of ‘essential’ be, ‘Well yes, because we have committed to it in the framework’?”
The Secretary of State for Defence said,
“In terms of those particular inquests, there is just not a way of circumventing that particular issue that is consistent with our treaty obligations. With the amendments we have laid, we have got to a place where it deals with some of the fundamental concerns that I as a Member of Parliament, let alone colleagues, had.”
So both Secretaries of State admit that these amendments will not stop that inquest going ahead.
The combination of veterans’ groups not supporting the Bill and the fact that, by their own admission, the Government cannot get round what they have already given away in terms of those inquests means that I cannot support the Bill, and I will be supporting new clause 21.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member referred to his own private Member’s Bill, which said that a Supreme Court judge should decide whether something was “new and compelling” evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he, indeed, approached the Supreme Court?
Lincoln Jopp
Funnily enough, I have not actually approached the Supreme Court, but that is the sort of thing the Secretary of State should have been doing, because that is what the veterans told him would be a sufficiently high bar for them to have confidence in this legislation.
Hon. Members across the Committee are being asked to vote tonight. I was going to ask the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether, when he was considering all the people affected by this legislation, he thought that the 1,572 veterans in his constituency just do not matter. All hon. Members have veterans who live in their—
Ian Byrne
That is a very poor point. Of course they matter, but lots of people are speaking out for veterans tonight. I wanted to give the families the voice and give my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability, so that is what I focused on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoken about veterans with great expertise and, of course, I have met veterans in my community and sat down with them, and I have friends who are veterans. It was a pretty poor point that the hon. Member just made.
Lincoln Jopp
I do not think it is a poor point, because we all have to make judgments in this place and to vote with our conscience.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Where he is coming from.
Sorcha Eastwood
I apologise. I have mentioned veterans tonight who I know are prepared to support the Bill, and there are veterans’ groups who have a different view of it. I completely appreciate that there are veterans’ groups that are absolutely against it—some of them are my constituents, too. It would be wrong to say, though, that there is a homogeneous view among all veterans, and I think that is worth restating. I would just express my gratitude for the hon. Member’s service—it sounds like he was very close to my home whenever he was in Lisburn. He will remember that last week was the 30th anniversary of the bombing of Thiepval Barracks, in which one soldier died. I completely understand where he is coming from.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogeneous group, but the closest we can approximate to that is the veterans’ organisations that have come together and spoken with one voice, saying that they do not think there are sufficient protections in the Bill for them not to suffer the rinse and repeat. For that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
I am pleased to be able to participate in today’s debate. I did not serve in Northern Ireland, but I did spend time as a Parachute Regiment reservist—an experience that laid the foundations of my path to becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford. It afforded me opportunities I would never have otherwise experienced, and I know the same is true for countless others.
Paratroopers served alongside members of our armed forces and the Northern Irish security forces throughout Operation Banner, often in the most dangerous situations. They were asked to do an immensely difficult job in the hope of delivering lasting peace. Many of those soldiers, now in their 70s and 80s, have spent decades fearing a knock at their door. The unjust reality is that most who are fearful of historical prosecutions are largely working-class men who served in their late teens or 20s.
I want to speak to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) about justice for victims and civilians, which I fully understand. What I would say is those young service personnel are victims, too. They saw and experienced things that they cannot unsee. They were deployed to Northern Ireland on the instructions of the British Government and fulfilled their duties as commanded by their chain of command. That is why I feel so passionately about the Bill and the protections it must offer.
For more than a quarter of a century, the job of properly addressing the legacy of the troubles has been kicked down the road by successive Governments. This legislation is an attempt to end that unwillingness and to deliver justice to all those affected. What it is not is an attempt to unfairly target British soldiers with legal proceedings or to reopen wounds that are barely healed. The truth is that if this legislation is not passed, those who served in Operation Banner would be completely exposed to spurious prosecution and would lack the immunity that they were falsely promised.
This legislation will offer veterans new protections, including strict guidelines on what can be considered new and compelling evidence, measures to adequately recognise the context in which soldiers were operating, and the explicit rejection of equivalence between service personnel and insurgents. That is why, despite my concerns about certain details of the Bill, I have worked extensively with the veteran community, most notably the Parachute Regimental Association, throughout this process. I commend it for the good-faith nature in which it has engaged.
This Bill is not perfect, but it is a marked improvement on the flawed legislation passed in 2023. The consequences of not getting this Bill right are very real, and while the failure of the process would belong to us all, its impact will be felt hardest by those we claim to support. If we are unable to talk, listen and make good-faith compromises, we risk repeating the mistakes that this legislation seeks to correct. No one here wants to see our children and our grandchildren patrolling the streets of Belfast again. We have a duty to prevent that cycle of violence from reigniting. I want this Bill to go even further in protecting our veterans, and I will keep working with the veteran community and the Government to make that happen. We do need justice, we need closure, and families need answers, but, most of all, we need long-lasting peace.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I would like to speak to amendment 130 and clause 36. My son, myself, my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather—and pretty well all my ancestors forever—have served in the Army. I was a subaltern in Northern Ireland at the peak of the troubles in 1984, and my regiment, the Queen’s Own Highlanders, saw the death of the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel David Blair, and 17 more soldiers who were killed in the two explosives in Warrenpoint in 1979. The pain of those deaths was still very live among many of the regiment who were serving five years later when I was serving, but despite the pain, I do not recollect a single person who felt any desire to take revenge. The professionalism of the British soldier could be depended on.
I have a son who has just left the Army after several years as a trooper. I told him that I was coming to this debate, and he told me an anecdote. He said, “Well, let me tell you a story. There are four guys, all armed, and they are clearing a building in the middle east. They go upstairs, and as they go along the corridor, out of the back of the building comes a man, and in front of him is a female. Over her shoulder he is firing AK-47 bullets, and spraying them. They shoot that man and that woman—they kill them, but they had no option. It happened on the spur of the moment, and they could not really decide how to get out of it, or they would all have been dead.”
Is there any chance that those British soldiers could be charged with murder? If there is, I would strongly recommend the young I meet not to join the Army. British soldiers in my day were always able to depend on the support of the British public, the Government and the judiciary. In my time in Northern Ireland, we knew that we had our backs covered, and that we had to abide by the law. What we did not have then was sharp-suited lawyers looking for any opportunity to pursue us in court, possibly for decades. The recruitment of soldiers is extremely poor at the moment, and unless the concerns of those serving, and of veterans, are put to rest, we will not be able to rebuild our fighting force to the strength we need.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the challenge of legacy remains unsolved. That is so important to remember when agreeing on the amendments tonight and moving forward with the Bill tomorrow. It is an honour to be part of a process that will be so historic for the future of Northern Ireland. I praise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for all their work on the Bill and for bringing us to this place. I also thank the victims groups and individual victims, many of whom have not spoken out in this process, but of whom we are thinking.
I praise the veterans—my grandfather is from Northern Ireland and served in the British Army—as well as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are bringing forward legislation all the time to create a peace for Northern Ireland, and the community leaders who are building that peace every day. I say to people across Northern Ireland that we hope that passing this Bill and agreeing to the Government amendments, which I support, will bring us closer to the permanent peace, justice and reconciliation that everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the UK, can build on.
As we proceed this Committee stage, every clause and amendment should be judged by one simple test: will it help victims and bereaved families to finally get the answers that they have waited decades to receive? They have woken up waiting for those answers every single morning, and although they do not want to, they are passing that wait on to future generations—to their own children—and looking ahead to it being passed on and on with despair. We want to draw a line, and the Bill should enable peace and reconciliation to set everyone in Northern Ireland free from the dark past. Earlier this afternoon, members of the Victims and Survivors Forum spoke to MPs about parents, siblings and grandparents killed during the troubles. One victim said:
“It has now been 53 years since my father was murdered. I have moved on from justice. I just want the truth.”
That window of truth, and the potential for getting that truth, is closing.
More than 3,500 people lost their lives during the troubles, and nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved. Behind every case is a family still living with those unanswered questions. The greatest risk before us is delay, so for those Members who are considering voting no to the Government amendments and no to the Bill, that is what is before us. Every year that passes makes establishing the truth harder. Witnesses pass away, memories fade and evidence is lost. Doing nothing means accepting that some families may never learn what happened to their loved ones, instead of accepting this carefully balanced Bill. The former Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have stopped and listened so carefully to victims, and have brought forward the Bill and the amendments.
As has been said, the previous legacy Act failed to command confidence across Northern Ireland. It closed down routes that families had pursued for years and left many feeling further away from truth and accountability. The Bill takes a different approach. The reformed legacy commission will have stronger investigative and disclosure powers, and a clear focus on providing families with as much information as possible, as well as learning from the Kenova inquiry and that victim-led process—a way of taking action that means asking victims at every stage what they want to know. Not every case will lead to a prosecution. Many are now 40 or 50 years old. However, where prosecutions are possible—it has been proven already that they are—families should have the fullest possible account of what happened.
I welcome Government amendment 192, which ensures that documentary evidence is considered before witnesses are contacted, and requires compelling new evidence before individuals are approached. I welcome new clauses 33 and 34, and amendments 148 and 149, which establish a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. This is so important—I see that it has come from many conversations with WAVE, which has been mentioned before, as well as other victims groups. Those groups have asked for a statutory place where victims’ voices will be heard. If the process is to command confidence, victims’ voices must be at its heart, as they will be with the new advisory group. I also welcome new clause 35, which states that the legacy commission must carry out its duties
“in a way that avoids any unnecessary cost”,
because too often, lawyers are the only winners in this process. However, can the Secretary of State explain how unnecessary costs in the process will be checked and reported to the House?
The provisions relating to inquests are equally important. Families who have fought for years for answers deserve a process that is effective, independent and focused on delivering outcomes. Alongside that victim-centred approach, the Bill contains important protections for veterans. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—we have gratitude for them—did so with courage, professionalism and distinction. I welcome the statutory duty to avoid the unnecessary duplication of previous investigations—the rinse and repeat clause—as well as new clause 32, which recognises the operational circumstances in which veterans served. These amendments provide real clarity for some things that were in the Bill already but were needed to provide assurance.
I welcome amendment 240 and new clauses 45 and 46, which protect veterans from inappropriate cold-calling by requiring contact to be made through the Ministry of Defence. The provisions protecting older witnesses are also sensible and proportionate, and a result of many conversations with veterans groups. Supporting victims and protecting veterans are not competing objectives—there needs to be a careful balance, and a credible legacy framework must do both. It was never going to be easy, but the Bill achieves that balance.
The Secretary of State has reiterated in this debate that there can be no moral equivalence between those who served lawfully in our armed forces and police service, and those who carried out acts of terrorism. The IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Irish National Liberation Army were responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths during the troubles. Nobody involved in such acts should receive immunity from accountability. I therefore welcome the removal of the previous Act’s immunity provisions and the restoration of routes to accountability under the rule of law.
I also welcome the greater consistency and oversight sought through new clauses 49 and 50. However, on new clause 50, which would require the Attorney General’s consent for serious troubles-related prosecutions, victims and survivors have raised with me concerns about independence and how the safeguard will be perceived. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the new clause will not create the impression that there is a special hurdle for Crown-related cases, and that prosecutorial—that is a hard word; I must practise it more—decisions will continue to be taken independently, and will be applied equally to all those under investigation? This is about being equal under the law.
Chris Bryant
I might as well answer that now: yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful clarification, which will be welcomed by many of the victims and survivors I have spoken to.
More than 25 years after the Good Friday agreement and 12 years after the Stormont agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed, as I saw time and again, and as I see now. Growth is much higher than in the rest of the UK and unemployment is lower; there is much to build on. However, too many families still carry the burden of unanswered questions, and that holds Northern Ireland back in many ways. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the passage of time does not become the final barrier to truth. I also welcome part 4 of the legacy Act. It has been mentioned only one other time in the debate, but it is a really important part of the legislation.
I support the Government’s approach, because it offers the best chance in a generation to deliver what victims and families have sought for far too long: answers.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
In the seven years that I have been a Member of this House, I do not think that I have been in a more respectful, positive and high-quality debate. There have been some absolutely outstanding contributions from across the House. I am not going to reach that standard, but I am proud to participate in the debate. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made by colleagues from Northern Ireland. Having visited a number of times recently, I can attest that they do politics pretty well there; there is a standard of speech-making that reflects the seriousness of politics there, and we have all benefited from that this evening.
My observation about the Bill and the amendments brought forward by the Government is that they essentially still fail on a core moral principle, which I will come to. The amendments that have been adduced as improving the Bill and addressing the concerns that have been raised do not, I am afraid, offer new protections. Many of them relate to measures that are already in force and could be applied, particularly those on the opportunities for anonymity and remote hearings.
The amendments and the new clauses are mostly simply important moral statements of what should be obvious. In particular, new clause 32 states that there is no equivalence between terrorist action and legal actions. It is extraordinary that it needs to be said that “a relevant person” in an inquest or proceedings
“must have regard to…the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent unlawful violence”.
And what a thing to need to say that lawful action is not equivalent to terrorism! Why would that have to be stated in law, unless the Bill might be thought to suggest the opposite—that the law as it stands, and the Bill, could imply that equivalence?
At the heart of why the Bill remains inadequate is the essential imbalance in the legal procedures that the legacy of Northern Ireland applies. I pay tribute to a group of veterans I met recently—some special forces and some others—led by Dr Robert Parr, an academic at Oxford who was a Royal Marine and in special forces. He has written a very powerful paper that makes the simple point that the legal system—this is not addressed by the Bill; in fact, the Bill consolidates it—
“privileges the claims of former paramilitaries over those of the men and women who served the Crown”.
Of course, that is not intentional—the intention is to provide equity and parity—but the problem is structural.
The fact is that only a 10th of the deaths that happened during the troubles were caused by the security services, but it is men and women in uniform who must bear almost the whole institutional burden under the law as it stands, and that will not change under this Bill. The IRA and other paramilitary organisations got letters of comfort, early release and pardons. They had their weapons decommissioned without any forensic testing being done. Meanwhile, the British Army kept its records—indeed, it operated under the chain of command. It had accountability built into the work that it did; in fact, it had all the elements that made its decisions as safe as possible, as a military operating under the laws of a democracy. It is those elements that are now used against the Army, and that is the structural imbalance we face. That was apparent right at the beginning, when the Good Friday agreement was being implemented.
A letter has been released recently from John Reid, the Northern Ireland Secretary in 2001. He was writing to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and he made it clear that the proposed arrangement, in which an amnesty would be offered to terrorists but not to British veterans, was asymmetric and unjust, but that for reasons of political necessity, that is how it had to be. As Dr Parr has pointed out, the asymmetric exclusion of the security forces was therefore not the product of principled legal reasoning or an honest assessment of comparative culpability; it was the price of republican acquiescence in a political settlement. Just consider the insult that that represents to our soldiers.
I pay tribute to and honour the point that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made. Our soldiers beat the IRA to a standstill. They fought it to the negotiating table, and then they had to take the final indignity, which is that they, not the IRA, would face the threat of the law and of prosecution.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Member pays tribute to the armed forces of the time. Does he agree that we enjoy peace today partly because of the work that many of our special forces did in penetrating paramilitaries, to the point that we found out only later about people such as Stakeknife? That was the reason why the paramilitaries were forced to the peace table; it was not that they voluntarily sought peace.
Danny Kruger
That is absolutely right.
There was a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) earlier about who won. The answer is that, in so far as this was a military conflict, we know who won: it was the British Army, particularly with the help of special forces, but it had to suffer that indignity in consequence. It accepted as the price of peace the indignity and injustice of being exposed to the principle of liability and the threat of prosecution, while the IRA was indemnified. That was a bitter enough pill, but the actual practice of repeat prosecutions on the scale that we have seen—not the threat, but the reality—is unacceptable. That is not what was expected or accepted at the time, but back in those days, people reckoned without the European convention on human rights, the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the lawfare that the convention has brought into reality in our time, in this century. In particular, article 2 of the ECHR applies retrospectively to the investigations, based on the inadequacy of the investigations under standards that did not apply back in those days. That is the essential injustice of the law as it stands and of this Bill; there is a fundamental violation of the principle of legal certainty. Let me quote Dr Parr again. He says that
“the requirement that individuals be able to foresee the legal consequences of their actions at the time of those actions”
is itself
“a foundational element of the rule of law to which the ECHR is ostensibly committed.”
In passing, let me turn to one other indignity and injustice that, I am afraid, has been consolidated by this Bill. No accountability has ever been forthcoming from the Irish state, elements of which were arguably responsible for enabling, colluding with and covering up the actions of terrorists during the troubles, and none is expected in the future, despite the warm words of the Secretary of State. Thanks to this Bill, though, the Irish Government will play a crucial role in our own justice system. That is wrong.
What is happening is that the Government—and I honour them for doing this—are trying to reconcile common sense and decency, and the obvious appeal for justice on behalf of veterans, with the human rights framework that we have. I am afraid to say that that simply cannot be done, so I will end with a few thoughts about the future and the system that we need. We must start by reverting to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and to the principles that Tony Blair oversaw back then. He chose peace over justice, and he was right to do so. That was the right principle. Now, in our time, we need to choose truth over individual justice for people who can never realistically hope to attain individual justice. That is the way to heal a community; evidence from transitional justice programmes around the world, particularly in South Africa, demonstrates that that is the way to achieve healing in a community. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) put it very well when he talked about the need for positive peace—national peace and reconciliation. Mrs Jones, the lady we have adverted to throughout this debate, is not going to get justice through the law, but if we genuinely open the archives—including the archives in Dublin—and encourage truthfulness, she could get the truth.
Going forward, we need to stop all future prosecutions of the sort that have persecuted our veterans, and we need a Bill that draws a line under the Northern Irish troubles, as well as the Haddon-Cave inquiry. We need a new process for war crimes under English law, and a new legal basis for military conduct without European law. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and the private Member’s Bill he has introduced; I think that Bill goes in the right direction, but we can go even further. It particularly emphasises—this is the core point—that the chain of command is ultimately responsible for the actions of soldiers on the ground, and Ministers are ultimately responsible for the use of force, not the poor bloke who had to take a decision in a split-second, at risk of life.
I suggest that something more is needed even than what the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington suggests. We need to go further—we need to pull out of the ECHR altogether. There are many reasons for leaving it, and my party makes those points repeatedly. It protects terrorists and stops the deportation of illegal immigrants, but the most important reason is that it enables the prosecution of our soldiers. On those grounds, we must leave it.
Danny Kruger
We are very familiar with that argument. I do not think this is the time to have that debate, but I am confident—and there has been a lot of learned advice to this effect—that it is totally possible to withdraw from the ECHR while maintaining our obligations under the Good Friday agreement.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate. On the whole, the debate has been wide-ranging, honest and balanced, recognising the complexity of this matter. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for his honest and personal account, which reminded us that everybody—regardless of our background and the roles we have played—reacts as a human being. Regardless of the circumstances we have lived in and come to this debate from, when we are scared, we can react differently at times. Nobody should be held to account for being scared.
We have talked a lot about WAVE and the other victims groups. Many survivors and family support groups have given evidence and lobbied, whether in the past couple of weeks, over the past year in which we have been debating this Bill, or before that. They are people who come from very different perspectives, with very different backgrounds.
However, all of those people have given their time and talked about their experiences, their trauma and their families’ trauma. They have said how they are trying not to pass that trauma on to the next generation, but the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren cannot help but experience what their families have lived through, because of everything that we carry with us. I thank them for every time that they have addressed us and every time that they spoke to those who came before us. I hope to God that they never have to come back to this place after this Bill is passed to do it again.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.
Jim Allister
There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.
It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:
“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”
Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.
I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:
“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.
It is the one that records the fact that we
“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”
It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s
“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”
the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that
“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,
whether it appeared that the
“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,
and the extent to which they
“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”
Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?
We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that
“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.
Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.
The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.
There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The issue that we are discussing today goes back decades, and we in this place still have unfinished business to deal with. Today is an attempt, although not a perfect one by any means, to do our duty. It reminds us of our duty of care to the people of the whole of this country—in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere—who have been so badly affected, so traumatised, with lives lost, as a result of what is euphemistically called “the troubles”. Today I have listened to harrowing accounts from Members of what they have experienced themselves or have heard from others. We, as Members of this place, have a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves—those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles, and those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth of, or justice for, what happened to their loved ones.
Today we are once again trying to right some of those wrongs of the past, but let us be clear about the fact that we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is ensure, or try our best to ensure, that people who have suffered in all their different ways can, if not get closure—we have heard about that again today—at least find out more about what happened to those they lost.
During the debate it has been said a number of times that we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our Government to try to keep the peace—because that is what it was to start with: an attempt to keep the peace, not to fight and win a war, because nobody won out of those troubles. The end of those troubles began, apparently, in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, but the violence went on, did it not? Since then, successive Governments have tried to bring about some form of justice, some way of bringing back the truth about the people who suffered in that violence, and time and again, that has not happened. I wish to God that, as a Member of Parliament elected only two years ago, I did not have to deal with this, but I know that, actually, I do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it.
I cannot speak for all the victims, but we have heard much about them today. I want to focus on a group of my constituents who have come to me and asked for answers and reassurance. They are a group of local veterans who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They were not trustful, because they saw an attempt to take away their protections under the legacy Act and thought that we in this place were going to leave them exposed. I said, “Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s find out about this.”
I can tell Members that when we sat down, it was a very tense environment. I thought, “I’d better not talk now. I’d better just listen.” I listened to them go through, one by one, what had happened to them when they were serving for Her late Majesty in Northern Ireland. Each had their own traumatic experiences, and a couple were in tears. One said to me, “Will this ever end? I still live this trauma, and I don’t see how you or this Government are going to protect me.” I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to the Government. We went through their concerns, and we summed them up in just two points. They were not saying, as has been said before, that we should not talk about the past or that we should just brush it under the carpet and repress it. They wanted to know that if and when anyone asks them, “What were you doing there?”, they will not be judged guilty from the start but will be protected.
The veterans were scared of receiving a letter from a commissioner, a lawyer or whoever, and one said, “Will the MOD not protect me?” I took that question on board. Another said, “What happens if I do have to give evidence or get involved in proceedings that I don’t understand? Will the Government be there to give me the support that I need?” I took those points away, and I know that the Government have been listening to many individuals, groups and Members of this place since then. I am pleased to see that there is progress on that. I am particularly pleased that we will not be cold-calling veterans, who still need support. I have said that I will give them that support, and after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again. I will listen to them again and say, “Does that give you reassurance?” If it does not, I am pleased—and I will say this to them—that it does not end here. We cannot ever draw a line under the troubles, and we must remember that. We will listen again, and I am pleased that that provision is included in the Bill.
We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served and all the people we represent, who expect us to do the right thing. We should not talk about “traitors” or “betrayals”. We are trying to do the best we can, because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. We have a chance again to make things a bit better, and some of the amendments that have been tabled do that. I will support the Government amendments later, but it does not stop here.
I want to say to everyone listening, whether they are a victim, a veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening: we have a duty of care to you all.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I will always stand on the side of innocent victims and with those who put on a uniform to protect them, but regardless of whether this Bill passes or not, veterans sadly continue to live in a state of uncertainty and are continually faced with the threat of future lawfare and vexatious investigations. We need only recall the outrageous persecution of Soldier F. Despite the slurs and inaccurate comments from Members in this place last week, I want to remind the Committee that Soldier F was acquitted. He was found not guilty of murder, but how much of his life in his elderly years was spent defending himself against a prosecution in which the evidence fell well short? Veterans live with this fear every single day, and while some of the amendments may be superficially attractive, the Secretary of State must explain how they will actually protect those who serve. We cannot accept provisions that are, in substance, legally ineffective.
Loughgall has been mentioned throughout the debate. The Secretary of State’s clarity is stark, and it is not lost on veterans. Those in the East Tyrone IRA killing wing were bloodthirsty. They went to that police station armed to the teeth with guns and a bomb. They were not scouts going to the police station. They went there to kill, and they met real soldiers, who stopped them and saved hundreds of lives as a result. We cannot allow their murderous intent to be forgotten while those soldiers face further proceedings almost 40 years later.
There has already been an inquest, which concluded in 1995, and there is no need for a further inquest. The Secretary of State is not taking the opportunity to protect those who saved countless lives, because this Bill will allow for the 2015 proceedings to resume. I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), which I and my hon. Friends have signed, to prevent this resumption. Those soldiers were sent by this country to confront the IRA, and they did so courageously and bravely. This Government now need to explain what protection they are actually going to give them.
On further protections for veterans, we are told that they will get a warning before being contacted and can give evidence via video link. Under new clause 45, the warning procedure does not even apply when someone is contacted because they are suspected of an offence, but that is exactly what many veterans fear. Even for witnesses, contact can proceed after 14 days whether or not the warning has reached them. The ability to give evidence remotely remains subject to whether that is considered practical. Does the Secretary of State think that veterans will stop worrying because they can answer questions from their living room? The veteran’s family will still be living with the same fear about what comes next. Basic courtesy and a broadband connection are not meaningful protections for our veterans.
Amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which I have signed, would prevent people being appointed to the victims and survivors advisory group if they are or have been members of political parties with links to or that support paramilitary or terrorist organisations, past or present. Why should innocent victims be expected to accept people with those political associations on a group established to represent their interests? They should not, and I, along with my hon. Friends, will be supporting that amendment.
On the on-the-run letters, the Secretary of State will know that I tabled new clause 9, supported by my hon. Friends, to make it clear that the on-the-runs administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution. I am pleased—the Secretary of State should take note, because that does not often happen—that the Government have tabled new clause 51 to prevent criminal proceedings being stopped or decisions to prosecute being quashed on grounds founded on the content of those abhorrent letters. Leaving aside the fact that this rotten scheme should never have been secretly contrived by the Blair Labour Government in the first place, it is welcome that the Government are legislating to have their legal effect extinguished.
However, I do have one concern. The Committee will be aware of the ongoing prosecution of John Downey, who previously escaped justice for bombing England via reliance on the OTR letter he had received. He is currently being prosecuted for other terrorist offences, and this prosecution has commenced. Therefore, new clause 51 must ensure that its provisions encompass proceedings that have already commenced but not concluded. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity tonight to expressly confirm that? Will he also confirm that no transitional or saving provision will preserve reliance on those letters in such cases? We cannot see another prosecution stopped because of an OTR letter issued under the Labour Government’s abhorrent scheme.
There are also serious shortcomings in the scope of the Bill. By its definition, the troubles end on 10 April 1998. That leaves out the Omagh bombing, the single deadliest atrocity of the troubles. Members have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) give his commentary on that important issue, and I urge them to support amendment 23. On 15 August 1998, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins—31 lives were taken. It is simply wrong that an atrocity of that magnitude falls outside the scope of legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles. The Government should accept the amendment. I sincerely ask sincerely: what is the problem?
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues.
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order.
We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.
We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation.
Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented
“a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”.
However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded:
“The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.”
As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them.
The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made.
We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key.
To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case.
The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs.
I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee.
As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined.
The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members.
Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.
Jim Shannon
It is indeed a pleasure to speak in the debate. I will focus on the victims and justice—justice has never been delivered, actually—and those who are no longer here but gave their lives for Queen, King and country. The Secretary of State will know that I have mentioned my cousin and Daniel McCormick. That was 55 years ago, and I have given an example of what that means: the legal mechanisms of this land have seen no justice.
I think of the Ballydugan four—the four UDR men—three of whom I knew personally. I think of John Birch, who was a twin. I am old enough to remember the day he was born. I also think of Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop; I knew him well. The day I saw him, I said, “He’s going to be a soldier,” and he was. He joined the Territorial Army, which I was in for a number of years, and him and I did a guard duty together up at Magilligan camp. I remember well the time we had together. He is dead, murdered by the IRA.
I think of Steven Smart, a Newtownards man—his family is well known in Newtownards. He was also murdered in the Ballydugan bomb in April 1990. I did not know John Bradley. Those are examples of men who served in uniform and gave their lives for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I think of the Kingsmill massacre, where again civilians were murdered because they were Protestants. Where is the justice for them in this process and the Bill before us tonight?
I think of the La Mon fire in my constituency, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I had our party conference a while ago. I well remember the night of that fire bomb. I was in Comber with my friend when the news came over the air. Again, those people were killed by the IRA team from Belfast and nobody was ever made accountable. When it comes to justice for victims, I do not see that coming through whatsoever.
Private Robert William Hill, a 22-year-old part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment—a young man who I never knew but whose family are constituents of mine who live in Ballynahinch—was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 1 July 1996 by an under-car booby trap bomb outside his girlfriend’s home. The ferocity of the bomb was such that the personal weapon he carried was blown to pieces; we can understand what happened to him. Again, his family have no justice. There is a victim who served in uniform and delivered for this great country—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and his family have never had justice.
I think of Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever killed—outside my Aunt Isobel’s gate down in Clady. As the IRA team reversed down the road, that was probably the time when the reality came to many. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun out of the back window of a car. He was in uniform, serving this country. No justice. Again, just where does this end?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I tabled a dozen amendments. There is not time to go through any of those now; in the few minutes I have, let me briefly explain what those amendments were all about.
I do not think anyone else in the Chamber was here in ’97 and ’98 when the Good Friday agreement discussions were taking place. It was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. People had to go out, convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process. Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners, which was a huge breakthrough. They were prisoners on all sides—it was not sectarian. One of the constituencies we had to convince, as well as part of the Irish diaspora in this country, were the families of victims on all sides. We had to try to get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. To be frank, I do not believe that we can have peace without justice.
I desperately want to support this legislation, but I am struggling. I am worried about the message that we are getting from victims. I do not know whether people have seen the letter from the Relatives for Justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that—we have veterans among us—but we need to take heed of the victims. Let me quote very briefly from the letter, which is from 200 families. It states:
“We have listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict.
We have read government statements and press releases and followed debates in parliament and recent media interventions made on the legacy—our legacy.
It is as if we don’t exist and the only ‘real victims’ are veterans.”
I worry that, if we lose the confidence of the victims’ families, we lose the confidence in the overall process. The architecture that we designed was intended to give them confidence. One of the key elements of it was the independence of the legal system. In 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations that we installed in part of the agreement. It stated that
“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.”
It is also stated:
“The functions of the Director”
of Public Prosecutions
“shall be exercised…independently of any other person”.
The problem is that we are now undermining that architecture. We are giving power to the Attorney General to determine cases and, if necessary, even to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward; power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information; and power over appointments to the judicial panel. I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave with regard to the exercise of that power, but that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the term “national security”. We are no longer talking about the threat to actual national security. We are talking about the “risk” to national security. That puts into people’s minds a concern that the breadth of the interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of decision making. We have even undermined our own legislation, which I believe we supported, in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein decision making, for instance, about the issuing of warrants on national security grounds is at least determined by a test of whether it the warrants are necessary and proportionate. That test is not built into the Bill.
The debate has been dominated by the issue of veterans. As someone said, 300,000 veterans served. Between 2010 and 2024, there have been 25 prosecutions. Six of them were of veterans, and there was only one conviction. Let us get this in context. Victims are standing to one side, thinking that they are not even being heard or listened to. The independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. We are on a dangerous edge here, and I hope that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that can restore confidence, not just for the victims and their families, but for some of us who were here during that very difficult and precarious period in which peace was secured.
Chris Bryant
This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate.
A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital. In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them.
I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury. There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way, if the hon. Member does not mind, because I need to make progress. The other point I would make to him is that I am not sure that we have quite got this right yet. I am happy to work with him on ensuring that we do get it right. I do not think his amendment works, simply because clause 27(2) says,
“Where conduct forming part of the Troubles caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”
I think that already includes precisely the incidents that he is talking about, but if we have not got that right, and if we have not been able to provide enough assurance, then I am happy to work with him and others—I am quite happy to gather people from all across the House—to ensure that we get that right in the House of Lords. That is a firm undertaking from me and the whole ministerial team. We will get that right when it gets to the House of Lords.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked why the equivalence issue and the operational context do not apply to prosecutors. He will know, because he is a very clever man, that many of the aspects of the clause are already well-established tenets of criminal law, which we are putting beyond doubt for the specific role of the commission and coroners. I think these things are already in existence.
My great and hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee, asks on behalf of the Committee, through her amendment 286, about the pressures on the PSNI. I am very aware of them, and my predecessor made commitments about trying to get to the right place, because I do not want to overload the PSNI when it already has a very difficult workload. I will work with her and the team to try to get to the right place. I do not want to completely surrender on this point yet, but I am happy to work with her.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised the timing of the Omagh bombing inquiry. The terms of reference for the Omagh bombing inquiry are very clear. They refer directly to authorities in the Republic of Ireland on two occasions, and make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the bombing. The Irish Government have passed legislation to enable co-operation with the inquiry, and they are co-operating. However, the inquiry clearly expects more and has made that clear, and has explicitly stated that it will push the Irish for more and continued co-operation. I will ensure that that co-operation will be forthcoming.
Mr Francois
Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?
Chris Bryant
It does actually, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands quite how our amendment operates. Let me turn to new clause 21, which I think he thinks is key, and which we oppose for several reasons. First, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews, and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. That includes cases in which the Government have already been found by the European Court of Human Rights to have failed to discharge their obligations. The Opposition have clearly learned absolutely nothing from their own legacy Act.
Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required, and that creates more legal process not less. That is why the Government have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Opposition new clause seeks to introduce a judge—a Supreme Court judge no less—at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, thereby changing long-standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court. I note that having asked everybody who has advocated for this new clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court there is absolute silence from Opposition Members, because they know perfectly well that it is a completely and utterly unworkable proposal.
Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that
“individual personnel acted in good faith”
unless
“the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.”
This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process: that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because his proposal is completely and utterly incoherent and irresponsible—[Interruption.] I am not giving way to him.
Several hon. Members have referred to the issue of candour, which is really important. Candour matters first because it is a fundamental principle that all officers of the state should always show complete candour. More importantly, it matters because we as a House and as a country have to be absolutely honest about our past. Both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have always known that and recognise it fully. They apologised for the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, in Ballymurphy and in Springhill.
Indeed, I remember sitting in the House when David Cameron made his apology for Bloody Sunday—it was one of the finest moments that I can remember in this Chamber. As he said then,
“we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]
He was absolutely right. I yield to nobody in my respect for those who have served, and have served with honour, in our security forces. More than 300,000 served in Operation Banner and I say to them, “Thank you for your service.” Incidentally, I say that to all those in the House who have informed our debates because they served themselves, not least the former Veterans Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke earlier.
Finally, some have said that so many years have passed since the troubles that there is no point to all of this—they say it is completely irrelevant because how could anybody possibly remember what happened all those years ago. I simply do not buy that argument. Nor do I buy the argument that some have made that somehow members of the wider armed forces family do not deserve answers because somehow or other their service was their service. I do not buy either of those arguments.
Trauma, especially the trauma of losing a close family member in violent circumstances, has a very long tail. Any psychiatrist, any child psychiatrist or anybody who has worked with families in Northern Ireland will tell people that. Sometimes the anger, the grief and the feelings of revenge or the desire for revenge surface many years after or in new generations. The sins, we might say, of the fathers are often visited on future generations and for many generations to come.
I want to turn the argument about so many years having passed that we cannot possibly deal with this completely and utterly on its head. Just as the Hillsborough families had to wait for far, far too long to get their answers, so have thousands of families in Northern Ireland had to wait far, far too long. We can put that right. We can only put it right with a balanced set of amendments and a balanced Bill, but we must put it right. We can do it tonight, which is why I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments that we have tabled and support the Bill when we come to the final vote tomorrow evening.
Amendment 143 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Meaning of “the Troubles” and related expressions
Amendment proposed: 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Tuesday 20th October 2026
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2026 - large print - (20 Oct 2026)
17:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:49 - divided: - Ayes: 117 / Noes: 331 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:03 - divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 178 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable.
Clause 72
The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 73 to 76 stand part.
Government amendment 232.
Clause 77 stand part.
Clauses 78 to 81 stand part.
Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and
(h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”.
Clause 82 stand part.
Government amendments 233 to 235.
Clause 83 stand part.
Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.”
Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(ab) for subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’
(ac) Omit subsection (3).’”
This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process.
Government amendments 236 and 237.
Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert—
“(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68.
Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12.
This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission’s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings.
Government amendment 238.
Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.
Government amendment 239.
Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.
Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless—
(a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,
(b) in their view, the duplication is essential.”
This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps.
Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert
“, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert
“who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”.
Government amendment 240.
Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70.
Government amendments 241 to 243.
Clause 84 stand part.
Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”
Clauses 85 to 87 stand part.
Government amendment 244.
Clause 88 stand part.
Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions.
Clause 89 stand part.
Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out
“does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”.
This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice.
Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Clause 90 stand part.
Government new clause 49—Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales.
Government new clause 50—Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences.
Government new clause 51—On the run letters.
Government new clause 52—Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles.
Government new clause 53—Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces.
New clause 7—Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”).
(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must—
(a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom;
(b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;
(c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;
(d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service;
(e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces.
(3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
(4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.
(5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces.
(6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.”
New clause 12—Duty to promote reconciliation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act.
(2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to—
(a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future;
(b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and
(c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors.
(3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Legacy Commission;
(b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;
(c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.
(5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.
New clause 22—Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence—
“(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where—
(a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and
(b) no new and compelling evidence has become available.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which—
(a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and
(b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome.
(3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that—
(a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and
(b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed.
(4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in finality of investigations,
(b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and
(c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).”
This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened.
New clause 30—Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate—
“(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with—
(a) an investigation under Part 3;
(b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or
(c) a resumed inquest under Part 7.
(2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies.
(3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence.
(4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual.
(5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification.
(6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means—
(a) the relevant Director of Investigations;
(b) the relevant judicial panel member; or
(c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).”
New clause 31—Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans—
“(1) This section applies where a decision is made under—
(a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons);
(b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations);
(c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or
(d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests).
(2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to—
(a) the Attorney General for England and Wales;
(b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who—
(i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and
(ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland.
(4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may—
(a) confirm the decision;
(b) quash the decision;
(c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.”
This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland.
New clause 54—Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”).
(2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to—
(a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act.
(b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed.
(c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.”
This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26.
Government amendment 245.
Clause 91 stand part.
Government amendments 267 to 275.
Schedule 6 stand part.
Clause 92 stand part.
Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “,
(ea) F is a grandparent of D,
(eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D,
(ec) F is a niece or nephew of D,
(ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”.
This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.
Government amendments 246 to 248.
Clause 93 stand part.
Government amendments 249 and 250.
Clause 94 stand part.
Clauses 95 and 96 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert
“and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”.
This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46.
Government amendment 251.
Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on—
(a) a cross-border body on information retrieval,
(b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána,
(c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.”
Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
One day more, Ms Ghani.
Today we are debating parts 6 to 9 of the Bill. Part 6 sets up on a pilot basis the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The commission will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means to retrieve information about troubles-related deaths. Part 7 covers the restoration of a limited number of troubles-related inquests. Part 8 covers further provisions, including the lifting of the prohibition set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 on investigations by the police of other troubles-related offences, including sexual offences, ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place. It also covers the provisions regarding interim custody orders.
I will turn first to inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests. However, when the legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on 1 May 2024, we committed in opposition to restoring some of them, as we knew the hurt and anxiety it caused many families in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As we said at that time, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims, who felt that 1 May marked a door being shut in their faces, in particular for those who had been involved in inquests.
The truth is that many families have received answers through inquests, and only through inquests. I rather agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) when he said yesterday that he had been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death.
That is why the Bill strikes a balance on how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off midway on 1 May 2024. We believe that those families deserve to have that process continue, as we have said from the outset. For inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they would be best handled by the legacy commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the commission for cases involving sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the commission to take such material into account in producing reports. This is covered directly in clause 84.
There are understandable concerns about how we ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure that they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence, and to ensure that the operational context in which they served is fully recognised. Let me repeat: these also apply to inquests, not just to the legacy commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential.
Let me turn to the matter of when this process comes to an end, which is something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) tabled amendment 50, which sought to remove clause 85. I agree with him, so I have added my name to the amendment—it is now a Government amendment. This means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the commission comes to an end. In practice, it means that we will simply vote for clause 85 not to stand part of the Bill, when we get to that moment. I believe that this will provide a clear end to troubles-related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and for his gratitude when I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests—full stop, punto final.
As several Members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work, as was demonstrated by the legacy Act. As Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has repeatedly made clear to me, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South—and the public, co-operation from the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the commission’s ability to find answers for families. That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework, and it is why we are committed to implementing it.
Let us be clear about what that means. Records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers about how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. However, we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information that is vital to this process.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
That matter is particularly pertinent when it comes to consideration of the Omagh bombing. Given the material that we are discussing today, what indication has the Secretary of State had from the Irish Government that they will withdraw their inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights? It seems to me that they are very reluctant to act at all.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. By the time we finish considering the Bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with its inter-state case at all. I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in the Dillon judgment, but the legislation that we are advancing today is fully human rights-compliant, and that there is therefore no argument for them maintaining their inter-state case.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State says that he very much hopes that the Dublin Government would move at the conclusion of today’s consideration. Has he had that conversation with them, and have they given him the assurance that that is what they intend to do?
Chris Bryant
Yes, to the first part. As I have just said, I have said this very robustly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee on several occasions. They have kept their own counsel for the moment, but it seems to me inconceivable that, by the time the Bill gets to the House of Lords, there could be an argument for them maintaining the inter-state case, and I therefore hope that they will withdraw it. I am being as clear as I can with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it is good to have power sharing in Northern Ireland and that I should not be running Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think it is important that the Secretary of State has reiterated the point that the commission will have the ability to take information from the Irish Government. However, without revisiting yesterday’s debates, does that not put into stark relief the fact that while information has been available for the last 28 years, it was revealed only last week? There will be many other instances of information that could beneficially have been considered and led to a change. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned that the history that we repeat time and again with the Irish Government, where they are not forthcoming with the full information and they withhold information, should be a cause for concern for this House and how we deal with the legacy of the past?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. The question then is simply how one addresses that and ensures that one gets the future co-operation that has been promised and committed to by the Irish Government. I am more hopeful than he is, I guess—he may say that is because he has more scars on his back than I have in this regard. I think that between the two of us, with his scepticism and my hope, we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes.
On the Omagh bombing, it is inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the same conversations today as we had yesterday, as Members understandably referred then to issues that we are voting on today. However, I would just say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire that with my understanding of the terms of reference of the Omagh inquiry, we slightly disagree on this matter. I think it will be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. More importantly, however, as I said yesterday, it is really important that the fullest possible co-operation is shown, and, where the chief counsel has already said that they are not happy with that co-operation, it is incumbent on the Irish Government to step up to the plate.
Chris Bryant
Yes, although this is all on one sentence, and it is the right hon. Gentleman’s second go.
Dr Murrison
I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate the importance of this point, as it does touch on the events of late 1998. There will be people out there watching the process of the Bill and wondering why they are, in effect, excluded from it. With the Bill as drafted, the suspicion may very well be that that is to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, as the material that has been referred to would then come into scope if we were to extend this, perfectly reasonably, to the end of 1998, rather than confining it to the events prior to April 1998. If I may say so, the Secretary of State gave no compelling reason yesterday why the amendments that have been tabled to that effect would not be accepted by the Government.
Chris Bryant
You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.
Jim Allister
Good grace. [Laughter.] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?
Chris Bryant
The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date.
Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution. In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep.
I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.
The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.
However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language. To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite what others in the Chamber may think, it is vital that both the British and Irish Governments work together? Indeed, if we do not have that arrangement in place and there are issues around the disclosure or onward passing of facts, those will never be flushed out?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done in this field. It is really important that people understand how significant the potential of close co-operation in this field is in getting answers for people, and in particular those whose concerns may be about what happened in the south and came up into the north. One of the issues I have raised directly—a couple of hon. Members have raised this with me—is about gelignite, which came before Semtex, and how it seems that in Northern Ireland we were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe, but there was one quarry in the Republic that managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite. Those are the issues that we really do need to progress, because if we are going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, the clue will be not just in what happened in Northern Ireland but in what happened across the piece. That is why it is so important.
Because I am a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I therefore think that co-operation is the best way to proceed. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is on manoeuvres.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On that point, clause 72(5) says that the independent commission on information retrieval
“must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland”.
Who will make the assessment of whether something that the ICIR is looking at could risk the national security of the Republic of Ireland?
Chris Bryant
That is a good question, to which I do not have the answer. With any luck, I will be inspired by the time the hon. Member gets to his feet and catches your eye, Ms Ghani, and I will come back to him.
Chris Bryant
I have a horrible fear that this has set off my old sparring partner.
David Davis
To add to that point, when the Secretary of State looks at that, will he also look at elements written into the Irish constitution, particularly with respect to the operation of the Garda and its duty to protect the reputation of the Irish state? That will also cripple any attempt to expose information.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member makes a very good point. The Irish constitution has sometimes made it far more difficult for the Irish Government to be able to co-operate, and that is why they have had to legislate in some of these areas in a way that we would not have to in the United Kingdom. That is why the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South is so important and why the legislation they are advancing answers many of these precise issues in direct terms. These issues, which we do need to address, are not lost on Ministers in Dublin.
We have always been committed to repealing those parts of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023—that were incompatible with our human rights obligations and which we felt were morally wrong as they risked providing equal immunity to terrorists and denying UK citizens their historic right to seek civil redress. In the interests of providing swift and early clarity, we had proposed to do that via the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was with us yesterday—among others argued that putting those measures in the Bill would allow greater scrutiny without undue delay. Consequently, Government new clause 52 alongside amendments 244, 245, 268 and others move the operative provisions of the remedial order into the Bill. That brings the whole package together, ensuring that there is a clear transition between the legacy Act and the troubles Bill.
On Second Reading and in our engagement on the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the so-called on-the-runs letters to which a couple of hon. Members referred yesterday. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) have tabled amendments on the matter that aim to put the status of those letters beyond doubt. I know that I referred to this yesterday, but, because this matter is before us today, I do want to return to it.
Those letters did not provide any individual with immunity from prosecution, and they are not legally binding guarantees against future prosecution. That has been confirmed by the 2014 Hallett review and by numerous Ministers under successive Administrations, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron. It has also been reiterated by the current chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher. However, I recognise the ongoing concern in relation to such letters, so I tabled new clause 51 to make it clear that they cannot be used to prevent or frustrate a prosecution.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to put my thanks on the record again. But at the crux of this discussion is how it must go out from the House that terrorism was always wrong, and that people in Northern Ireland and across the UK need to understand now that these letters never had been, never will and shall not be used to frustrate or deny any potential prosecutions that may come forward. Too many people in Northern Ireland have felt that too many had been cosying up with terrorists in the past. I hope that people will take comfort from knowing that these letters never will and never had that effect.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with every single word that the hon. Lady said. It absolutely needs to go out from the House that terrorism was and remains wrong in every single regard. Those who resorted to violence did so for reasons of their own, but not reasons that we could possibly countenance, and which we do not countenance in the legislation that we are advancing today.
As I have said, 90% of the 3,500 or more who were killed in the troubles were killed by paramilitaries. I would go further: a lot of families whom I have spoken to in Northern Ireland felt that on-the-run letters were part of a sort of amnesty that was granted to some people and not to others, or was granted to everyone, and that that meant they would never get answers to what happened to their loved ones. That was always wrong. I understand why people made difficult decisions when it came to the Good Friday agreement, but as one hon. Member said yesterday, we do not get peace without justice. I think the line in the Bible is that justice and peace shall kiss one another. That is what we have to achieve.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
With regards to the OTR letters, the Secretary of State will know that I spoke yesterday on that very issue. The fact that there is clarity today that you are progressing the amendment is welcome. However, on-the-run letters did have effect, as the Hyde Park bomber got away with his misdemeanours because of them. They did have effect. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I asked yesterday, whether the letters will have effect on the ongoing new prosecution of John Downey who, by the way, is hiding in the Republic of Ireland undercover? Will that have effect on the current prosecution he is facing?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.
Chris Bryant
And it is not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings being undergone either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. I will not comment on the specific incidents. I have made my views clear about why there should not be any amnesty for people involved. There was legislation introduced that meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand the kind of arrangement that that was. There were people and political parties who did not support the Good Friday agreement, and maybe these are some of the issues that were always troublesome for them. For me, it is important that at this stage we recognise that we need to get as many answers as possible for people, and that there cannot be that kind of immunity, amnesty—whatever we may call it.
The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now.
The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction. Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work.
Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control.
Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through. Anyway, finally—
Chris Bryant
Very good.
Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government do not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This Government believe wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions on prosecutions taken by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are always taken independently, in the light of the individual facts and circumstances. However, there is a public interest in how such cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman will let me do these two proposals, I will come back to him.
Yesterday we debated the amendments that will improve transparency around the approach to prosecutions within the legacy commission. We are also introducing two significant amendments to the prosecution of troubles-related offences. First, in new clause 49, we will require the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales to work together on joint guidance on applying the relevant code for prosecutors in respect of troubles-related offences in each jurisdiction. Although the vast majority of troubles-related offences occurred in Northern Ireland, such offences were committed across the UK and there is a shared interest and obligation in addressing the legacy of the past. The guidance will also be able to cover issues such as dealing with the complexity of historical evidence and the public-interest considerations in such cases. I have a “secondly” to come, but I feel the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has been quite patient.
Gavin Robinson
It is “finally” from me, in respect of interventions. The Secretary of State should be cautious when trying to push back against the notion that there are vexatious prosecutions. There are; there have been. We have seen prosecutions in Northern Ireland where the evidential test was not met the first time. It was revised and the evidential test was still not met, but it was suggested that the prosecution should proceed. At no stage during an abuse of process application or a no bail application, or at any other time during the case, did the evidence amount to anything close to meeting the prosecutorial test of likelihood of prosecution—we will leave aside that of public interest. The cases collapsed and the judge concluded that at the very start, the whole process was frail and the evidence did not amount to satisfying the test. Whenever we say—and we should not have fear to say this—that there are vexatious prosecutions, there are very good examples as to why that is said.
Chris Bryant
I hate to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House, Ms Ghani, but I do not think that will be his final contribution today, so it is not really his “finally”.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I have heard from a lot of people, and which I understand, about the very significant frustrations that have been felt, in particular by people in the veterans community. However, I think he meant to say that the prosecutorial decision is obviously about the likelihood of a successful prosecution, or in other words, a conviction. Sometimes the prosecuting authorities are wrong because a jury or a court decides that there is not a case to answer, and so on. I hear what he says, but I think he was only urging me to exercise caution in using the phrase, so I will do so.
Chris Bryant
I note that the right hon. Gentleman says thank you. Secondly—[Interruption.] I will do my “secondly”, if he does not mind, because otherwise the logic of my speech will fall apart. [Interruption.] Ms Ghani, you are not meant to look at me as if the logic of my speech has already fallen apart.
Secondly, to provide greater assurance, confidence and consistency in decisions to prosecute, we are introducing a requirement for the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to provide consent for prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences. To be clear, when making such decisions the Attorney General must act quasi-judicially and independently of the Government. There is precedent for that approach. Some have questioned it, but it was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and since most troubles-related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland but some were in Great Britain, that will provide a single and therefore consistent last determinant. Let me be clear: that in no way obviates the role of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland or the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales—in fact, we are strengthening their role—but I think it gives the right balance.
I trust that the Government amendments address the concerns raised by various Members in respect of the decisions to prosecute, including those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who tabled an amendment to insert additional steps in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I am now coming to my final “finally”, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would like to intervene.
Jim Allister
I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I am always in favour of consistency, and I am sure that that is how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their guidance.
Finally, I look forward to listening to the further contributions of hon. Members today as we continue to consider amendments and that clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. I really hope that we are able to get the Bill right today. It is about achieving a balance, and I hope that that is what our amendments will do.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.
In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.
Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill.
Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.
I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles-related crimes. On the question of those who have escaped across the border, I have had opportunity to mention Gerry McMonagle. He was taken to court for the murder of Hugh “Lexie” Cummings in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and in the time it took to correct it at the Omagh court, that gentleman escaped across the border. He has risen to be a significant member of Sinn Féin. He has been the mayor of Donegal county council. The fact of the matter is that he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? Should this not be one of the cases on which the Republic of Ireland works with the Government here, to ensure that that man is jailed?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working
“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]
I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.
Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee should be aware that the Omagh families are this very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish Government’s perspective as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?
Alex Burghart
That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.
Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.
In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.
Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.
The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I just want to make sure that I understood him; he said that inquests have not dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, they have: the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill inquest brought truth to families almost 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. If we are going to talk about this, let us talk about it in the round.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman.
In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on.
Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that the Government will at the very least accept that, where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the legacy commission.
Jim Shannon
I am very mindful, as we often are in Northern Ireland, of the experiences we have with many people. I think of the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan. The person who did that was Colum Marks. When Colum Marks was later in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC in Downpatrick, he was shot. He deserved to have that capital punishment in Downpatrick. The family should never try to engineer an inquiry for someone who was quite clearly the head of the IRA in the area. When he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He is burning in hell today—couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said last week:
“If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.]
There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?
Alex Burghart
While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.
Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday.
I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it:
“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”,
but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations.
The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?
Alex Burghart
The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential.
The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.
The Chairman
Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.
Alex Burghart
You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.
Chris Bryant
Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.
Alex Burghart
As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.
Chris Bryant
I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.
Alex Burghart
it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.
“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.
Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was
“eroding the will to fight”.
In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.
Colum Eastwood
Can I clarify the point the hon. Member is making? Is he putting forward an argument that if special forces are not allowed to do whatever they want, in whatever theatre, outside legal boundaries, people will not join up?
Alex Burghart
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.
David Davis
Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.
This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure.
I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.
I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues.
Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. Our family’s experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community, inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and, yes, hope that lie at the heart of this debate.
This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments.
The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this Bill and all the amendments before us with care, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.
Adam Jogee
We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today.
The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier.
The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.
It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.
We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government.
Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree.
I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point. Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently.
My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this?
As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill. I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct.
The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice. In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution. If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers.
Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles.
The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened. Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing.
Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation.
I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The peace that Northern Ireland has today rests on the reconciliation process that we have seen in recent decades, civil rights and the rule of law, as well as the recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, and with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition.
The peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They did not go from Sunderland to Northern Ireland to be on either side; they went because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland. They stood on Northern Ireland’s streets, overwhelmingly as a protective force, on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians, on constant alert against those who were trying to kill. Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1,441 of our British service personnel died; 722 were killed by paramilitaries.
I listened carefully to the debate yesterday. As others have said, there were many fantastic and moving contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is not in his place today. The contribution that moved me most, and most closely reflected the experience of my veterans in Sunderland, came from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is not in his place today. He described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland, and not knowing, when a civilian raised their hand, whether they were making a purely innocuous gesture, or about to throw an incendiary device. That was the experience of the constituents I met at our local Gunners Club in the recess just gone, for a two-hour roundtable to discuss the issue.
The reality is that without the Army’s deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far more bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced. Those who served held the line for decades—long enough for politics to finally take its place—and we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is not right to set veterans against victims, and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves. Serving both, and all, allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, but that will take changes to the law, through this Bill, and full co-operation and transparency from the British and Irish Governments.
I am clear that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed on multiple counts. It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland, and it undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation, which recent weeks show is still absolutely essential. It also failed victims of every background, including the families of the British soldiers murdered by the IRA in Guildford and on the M62, whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous Government’s legacy approach; indeed, they were part of the legal action against it.
Many who came home still carry the cost. In the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their life still, and how, when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge from the British state. The reality is that there were 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, and six prosecutions of them. However, too often since the Good Friday agreement, it has felt as if the legal system was built to scrutinise the split-second actions of frontline soldiers—process as punishment. At the same time, comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people the soldiers were sent to protect civilians from. That system has also felt focused on individual frontline soldiers, not on failings in the chain of command, although in some cases, its decisions profoundly affected civilians. Those who served with honour deserve to live out their life in peace, with our country’s thanks, not fearing a knock at the door. They were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous Government, and they did not feel that the Bill as introduced was appropriate.
In that spirit, I have engaged with our Ministers on this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), over the past year. For a significant time, I was clear, in our private meetings, that I could not support the legislation unamended. I sought many amendments, and some of them were discussed yesterday. New clause 32, which was agreed to, is clear that action taken in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. New clause 43 sets a tight time limit of 14 days for an application for judicial review; that will give some clarity about whether be lawfare can take place long after legal proceedings seem to have closed.
I am pleased that the amendments that we are discussing today go further on the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the past year. As the Secretary of State said, under new clause 50, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles-related offences without the consent of the Attorney General. That applies to everyone, so it is not an amnesty. The peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group. The new clause offers a senior independent check from outside Northern Ireland’s politics. That will go some way towards winning the trust of veterans who have lost faith in the system. The reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions.
A second point about the amendments that we are considering today is that they offer no special exit for terrorists. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the collapse of the trial on the Hyde Park bombing—an attack that killed four soldiers—was the result of an apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly said that such terrorist action was always wrong; there should never have been any doubt about this House’s condemnation of that. Veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying that they were not wanted. That ends today.
Thirdly, and for most veterans most importantly, there will be an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday’s amendments mean that investigators must go through the state’s own records first, and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence. Under new clause 84, which we are discussing today, a resumed inquest must not repeat what has already been done, unless that is essential. I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should not be made to relive the same night, and answer the same questions, every few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) underlined, there will be protections for veterans against cold calling and returning to Northern Ireland, which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion.
I will support the Bill, as the amendments are sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans. However, the Bill cannot be the end of Parliament’s interest in the issue. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South about how the changes will be kept under review. I welcome the fact that under amendment 251, there will be an independent inspection of the legacy commission, and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish Governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in the Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part in holding both Governments to their promises.
If this legislation passes, veterans will have significantly more protections than at any time since the Good Friday agreement—protections written into law, and protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some veterans feel today that we are not yet there; too many have been told that. My local veterans’ charity receives calls from people who served 30 years ago who have never been subject to any questioning or doubt. They have been picking up the phone and saying, “What’s this I hear about the Government wanting to come after me?” What they have heard is clearly not accurate. Of course, I respect the right of anyone in this House to scrutinise the Government through each of our votes.
However, anyone who says that they care about veterans’ welfare is acting absolutely shamefully if they scaremonger, raising fears among 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about their conduct, and the honour with which they served. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring; the latter does no service to our veterans, and I hope that the rest of the debate is the former. Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they laid, through their service, that the reconciliation that we see across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue. In honour of those who have served and every victim of the troubles, I will support today’s amendments and the Bill tonight.
David Davis
I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his speech. While I disagree with some of its substance, I agree with a lot of his sentiment, and his support for our veterans is welcome.
May I thank the Secretary of State for his telephone call at home to tell me that he was going to support my amendment 50? I should have realised—I have been here long enough—when I looked at the Order Paper for amendment 50 in the name of David Davis that it would have become Government amendment 50. I feel as if I have been nationalised. It is the only time that I will approve of a nationalisation. I thank him for that.
I commend the Secretary of State for the elegance and tone of his speaking over the past couple of days. This is the most formidable and difficult of Bills facing the House, as I think anybody would recognise, and he has navigated it with great charm. He has reinforced my view that he should have been in the Cabinet long ago, and I thank him.
Gavin Robinson
He has already signed it, David—there is no need to lick up.
David Davis
I am trying to do as much damage as possible. [Laughter.]
I stand to speak principally to amendment 51 and, to some extent, to amendment 49, which would stop existing paused inquests going forward. Amendment 51 would address directly the paused inquest relating to Loughgall. I picked that event out because it is the most controversial and central to what the IRA were trying to achieve. It is emblematic of many of the reasons why we should not pursue any of these inquests, but should put them in their proper place with the legacy commission, which could deal with them dispassionately.
Before I go any further, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and not just this year but in previous years. They relate to the fact that I was the trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for well over a decade—I cannot remember how many years.
All parties in the debate so far, yesterday and today, have quite properly focused on the need to get closure for victims and, at the same time, to deliver justice for our veterans. Nobody can argue with those two aims. I am focusing mostly on getting justice for veterans by preventing them being punished by the process, but, before I pursue that line in detail, I will address some of the words and definitions that we are using, particularly the definition of “victim” in the operation of inquests in Northern Ireland.
We all have in our minds a fairly clear idea of what a victim is, but unfortunately it is a little different in Northern Ireland. The difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government in article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which changed the definition of “victim” and ruled that anyone affected by the troubles through loss, trauma or injury would be classed as a victim. That means that proven murderers killed in an attempt to carry out another murder count as victims. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.
This issue is still relevant. In September last year, the Democratic Unionist party used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. Most of us would think of that as a tautology, but the motion was defeated by Sinn Féin, supported by Alliance. That is incredibly central to this matter, because the word “innocent” exposes the truth and draws a line between terrorists and their victims.
In response to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, “veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms, but “terrorists” and “victims” are. That is the significance of the amendments I am talking about. In the IRA active service unit killed at Loughgall, there were any number of people to whom that applied. The clearest example was Jim Lynagh, who was guilty of at least 20 murders and probably more than 30. His nickname was “the executioner”. He was not an innocent victim by any rational judgment of the word.
Why Loughgall? It was the greatest single defeat of the IRA—the one that they are most sore about and still feel the scars of. Why is that? Because it involved the defeat of what they considered their most successful unit, the East Tyrone brigade. What was the measure of that success? That so-called brigade killed 250 innocent people. The defeat at Loughgall was seen as a humiliation for the IRA, and that means that they are now desperate to rewrite history and cast their murderers as heroes and British soldiers as amoral killers. That is why they want a coroner’s inquest, rather than a legacy commission.
I am afraid that in Northern Ireland a coroner’s inquest is in many ways public theatre; it is just different. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), made this point, but I will reiterate it. In the rest of the United Kingdom, an inquest is not allowed to pursue a case if it becomes at all apparent that it may lead to a criminal prosecution, such as the finding of an unlawful killing, but in Northern Ireland the reverse is true.
Even Northern Irish judges recognise the ludicrous nature of that situation. We saw that in the Coagh case with Soldier B, where there was judicial review attempt after judicial review attempt, which led to the judge talking about the
“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”
The judge in that sequence talked about having to make views or judgments in slow motion or freeze frame on decisions. Those were life-and-death decisions, for the individuals concerned, and they were made in fractions of a second. That is the central reason for my objection.
Why are operations such as Loughgall, Clonoe, Coagh or any of the others challenged by supporters of the IRA and others? The peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland made this sort of operation necessary. How is that? The IRA knew how to frustrate justice. They would murder or intimidate not just anybody who thought that they might be a witness, but their families. If I were in that circumstance in Northern Ireland, I would baulk at giving evidence if I felt that my family might be murdered as a result of doing so, and I would baulk at serving on a jury for the same reason. That is why we ended up with Diplock trials, which had judges without juries, because that was simply not viable. When Diplock recommended those trials, he gave the example of a man who was executed in front of his young son the day before he was due to give evidence in a terrorist trial. That is the background and the circumstances.
However, the IRA did not stop there. They understood that, as well as witnesses, the other thing that matters in court cases is forensics. That is why they wore a strange uniform of boiler suits, rubber gloves, shoe coverings or wellingtons and balaclavas, because they knew that they had to deny the evidence, but that was not all. When they had carried out their crime, the cars used were frequently abandoned and burned to destroy the evidence. There are plenty of examples—I think Clonoe was one of them—where a crowd prevented the authorities from getting close to a car until it had burned out, for the very simple reason that it destroyed the evidence. Even in the case of the murder of a previous Speaker at Stormont, Norman Stronge, and his son, the IRA set fire to the house, with the same aim.
Mr Campbell
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the IRA’s determination to deal with forensics, does he know that they also blew up the forensics laboratory in south Belfast, where the forensic information had been gathered?
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That serves to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy. This did not happen by accident, and the IRA did not just take to wearing boiler suits as uniforms; this was a deliberate strategy.
The IRA’s strategy faced the state with a conundrum. Doing nothing and sitting back does not work—if the jury processes and other judicial processes do not work, that is not an option. Why do I say that? Let me go back and take the East Tyrone brigade as an example. It killed 250 people before Loughgall. During the late ’80s, it was killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant that 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state was not fulfilling its duty, so the only way to stop it was to catch the East Tyrone brigade in flagrante—in the act of carrying out a crime—and try to arrest them. Of course, the first aim of the state is always to act with minimum force if possible, but the circumstances did not always allow that. This was an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody, who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, “Excuse me, you’re under arrest.” We saw from many of these events how dangerous that was. At Coagh—the case that went through all those judicial reviews—an SAS soldier effectively had to dress up as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.
At Clonoe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned, there was another problem: the intelligence was wrong, which made it even more difficult. There they were facing a double-barrelled dushka machine gun, .50 calibre and capable of bringing down light armour or aircraft. A three-second burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. That was the sort of thing we were asking our soldiers to do. I will come back to the Loughgall example, which is even worse in many ways. That was the sort of thing that we said to our soldiers, “You must do this to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if you have to.” This is not theoretical; in the specific context of the special forces, which is what these three cases relate to, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland. If Members want to look into this, I recommend that they look up the example of Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot at the moment of challenge, or that of Captain Westmacott. There are others, but those cases give the Committee clear examples of the sorts of risks that had to be taken—and were taken—by our brave, honourable, decent and law-abiding soldiers.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said:
“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?
David Davis
I agree with David Johnstone—by the way, I think he is a very brave commissioner. His predecessor was effectively fired for standing up, and he is still standing up. He is right, and to go off on a slight tangent, our other enemies learn from this, as we are seeing elsewhere in the world today. If we are not very careful, we will end up without one of the best parts of our armed forces, because we ourselves will have destroyed it.
Let me come back to Loughgall. The aim at Loughgall was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who would be coming off shift at 7 pm—the attack was timed for 7 pm. It was not the first such operation, but the third; it came after Ballygawley, where the IRA shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station, and the Birches, where they machine-gunned the station—fortunately, they missed people—before blowing it up. At Loughgall, the IRA team attacked the police station in two units. One unit was in a van, carrying a team armed with automatic weapons with the intention of killing the three police officers as they came off duty, and the other unit—of three men, I think—was in a JCB-style digger that was carrying in its bucket a 300 lb to 400 lb bomb.
The attack happened at 7 pm, when the police officers were due to come off shift. Inside the station at the time, because of intelligence that was known, there were three police officers and three SAS soldiers. To be frank, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage it takes to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by a 300 lb or 400 lb bomb. It is beyond my imagination, but that is what they did.
The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds; I do not know whether all of them were fired at the police station, but I imagine most of them were. Inside the station, people reported being hit by fragments of bullets as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. The digger then crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants. “Injuring” is too mild a term, frankly—one occupant had a fractured skull, while others had broken bones, and two of the soldiers fell about 10 feet on to rubble. Others sustained hearing injuries.
Colum Eastwood
Can I ask the right hon. Member to put on the record that another man, Anthony Hughes, was killed on that day in that operation? He was a totally, completely and utterly innocent civilian who was not involved in any IRA activity, or in any other organisation.
David Davis
I was about to come to that point, and I will probably come back to it again. That is the real tragedy of that day—he was the real victim, as was his son, I think, who was wounded as well. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with this, but one of the things about the British state is that we take our judicial responsibilities in these matters seriously, and we have prosecuted our own soldiers. The name Clegg jumps to mind, but there are others who were prosecuted and sent to prison even for acting irresponsibly, let alone malevolently. Of course that is the worst tragedy of that day—that is literally in my next paragraph. I will give the hon. Gentleman my notes after this debate, so that he can see for himself.
Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why I say that this case should go to the legacy commission. It is a really important thing to investigate, but it should be investigated in a cool, analytical manner, not in the theatre of the court. Why do the IRA want to have a coroner’s inquest rather than a legacy commission investigation? Because they were humiliated at Loughgall, and they want to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and British soldiers as the villains. Let me give the Committee an early sign of the sort of thing they will try to claim.
We have been hearing recently that these IRA people were only aiming to destroy the building—they were not aiming to kill anybody. That would have been completely different from the first operation, where they murdered people in cold blood before blowing up the station. That also does not explain why the IRA fired 78 rounds at the building—bullets kill people, not buildings. It does not explain why they were there at the shift change, when the RUC men were about to come out of the building. It is plainly nonsense, but it is the sort of nonsense that they want to perpetuate in a court. That is another reason why I would rather see the dispassionate actions of the commission than the activities of IRA lawyers in the courts.
Carla Lockhart
The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Loughgall is in my constituency, and he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA was the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. It is important to remind the Committee of the names of Eva Martin, Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, the four UDR soldiers killed by the Ballygawley landmine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, and Harold Henry of Henry Brothers, all of whom were murdered by these people. When we look at their CV, it certainly does not say that they were just going to blow up a building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh in this regard. He was under investigation for Sir Norman Stronge’s murder at the time of Loughgall. Pádraig McKearney had been convicted of firearms offences, too.
As we discuss this Bill, the Government have the opportunity to stop the second inquest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do the right thing and include within the legislation your amendment 51 to stop the second inquest and to show that when these people met real soldiers, it saved lives?
The Chairman
Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.
David Davis
I am very close to the end, Madam Chairman. The hon. Lady is exactly right, and that is the entire thrust of amendment 51. If I had had my way, I would have said that amendment 49 was better, because it would have stopped all these inquests. The amendments would not get rid of the investigations, but would put them into a better process, which the Government have designed.
I will finish on coroners courts. I have listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and the Committee can guess who I am talking about, but they are tough, intelligent soldiers. However, the court is not their environment, when they are being harassed by a lawyer not to get to the truth, but to get a story out of them. I spoke this morning to one of them who has been through more of these court cases than most, both inquests and judicial reviews. He told me that IRA lawyers are, in his words, “more interested in drama than justice”.
David Davis
No, not on this point. I am nearly at the end. I have already been rebuked by the Chairman for going on.
What that soldier said is, I am afraid, consistent with what I saw. I have never appeared in an inquest, but I have appeared in a Diplock court in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Sorry, am I being heckled? I saw the same: the lawyers were interested in rewriting history. The IRA would welcome the restarting of the Loughgall inquest. They would view that as a victory in its own right, because it would allow them yet another attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles.
I will make an aside, which in a way goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), although it is the converse of it. One of the soldiers at Loughgall got the military medal. In my view, many of them should have done, but he got it for putting himself at extra risk to save civilians and to prevent the death of civilians. That tells us what we are dealing with in relation to British soldiers in Northern Ireland.
My last point is that this operation was approved in detail by the general officer commanding, Northern Ireland. I believe that it was approved in detail by the Secretary of State. It was reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all of the information to hand—forensics, witnesses, the lot. We should remember that RUC people would not have been involved directly, but would have given witness statements. Do we want to run that through a circumstance where the evidence is degraded, where people’s memories have gone and where some have died? One of the individuals involved has dementia. Is that what we want to do, or do we want to do it properly, by dispassionate method, using an instrument that is designed for the process and that those on both sides of the House agree will work?
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank all those who have contributed to what has been a relatively constructive debate over the past two days. It is not lost on me that our work in this Chamber, and over the coming days in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is about the legacy of the troubles, paramilitary transition and a 1990s parading dispute, as if we did not have problems and challenges to deal with in the present day. The sad reality is that despite the seismic changes in our part of the world over the decades, the past is not the past; it infects and affects politics, policing and public services every day. That is why we need to get through it. Most of all, it affects victims and survivors who, through all the decades of change, have been told to wait while the rest of society is allowed to move on, and while the murders of their loved ones are justified, explained away or minimised.
The truth is that for three decades, the needs of those with most to hide have been prioritised, rather than the needs of those with most to heal. It is not the victims who have dragged this out; the lesson that has not been learned by some in this House is that we are still at this three decades on precisely because the information that families need has had to be clawed and prised out of the hands of those with most to hide. For those families and for the Social Democratic and Labour party, this legislation is not about being obsessed with the past. It is not about raking over what has gone on. It is fundamentally about the future and our ability to move forward together. That is why we make no apology for supporting this legislation or for trying to make it better.
I will address today’s clauses and schedules, and some of the amendments and arguments that have featured in the debate, including on the passage of time and the trope about vexatious investigations, and some statistics relating to those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) rightly set out in powerful detail the healing power accessed by truth for the Hillsborough families and the meaning that that has had for them. Another fact that bears repeating is that tens of thousands of republican and loyalist prisoners went through the justice system for their terrible crimes—crimes that our party stood firmly against in the face of provocation and sectarian horrors from every direction. Nobody here is calling those people heroes. Imperfect as that justice was, it did take place. Those who wish to describe those people as heroes—none of whom are sitting on these Benches or anywhere else—are bolstered by the failure to show any sort of nuance, and by the blind defence of some of the most brutal killings of the troubles.
We understand the pride that many in this Chamber feel for the British Army. We understand that of the 300,000 men—mostly men—and women who served, the vast majority did go out to try to keep the peace and to serve. We also need to restate that the number who have been investigated is practically in single figures. We acknowledge that many of the soldiers were subjected to horrors. We acknowledge their pain and the interventions of many of their families who are seeking access to truth, the same as any other family, because that is what this is about—not lawfare and revisionism.
I have to ask people to be careful with their language, when they use terms like “IRA lawyers”. Do Members know what has happened to people in the past when they have been named in this Chamber as IRA lawyers? They were shot dead in front of their families. Can we have a little caution in some of the language we are using?
This Bill is about the healing power of information and the right of families to access it. That right was powerfully articulated not only in terms of the Hillsborough families, but in the report published last month into the murder of Rory O’Kelly, a founding member of our party. He was a decent man and a family man who represented the non-violent civil rights protesters. He was brutally murdered while attending a funeral in his hometown by the Provisional IRA, because of his belief in and his professional service to the rule of law. His case in the report, released last month with feedback from his family, gives some sense of the release and the comfort that families can find in investigations, even if, in that case, no prosecution follows. It should be read and understood by those who want to smear those who support this legislation as being republicans involved in IRA cheerleading.
We all know that prosecutions will not follow in most cases, but that certainly does not mean they should be off the table when the evidence leads that way. That brings me to the amendment that would design in a veto role for the Attorney General in London. That could undermine the processes we are legislating for today. Independence of the judiciary is a principle worth protecting in general, and especially in these scenarios. I appreciate that this is hard for many in this Chamber to hear, but the UK Government were not some neutral player. They were an active participant many times in our horrible conflict. How can families truly have confidence in in these processes when a veto belongs to a Government who they feel participated actively in the conflict and, on many occasions, covered up that information?
I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind-bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the co-operation that the Bill represents, up to and including some op-eds implying that it constitutes a move towards EU re-entry—a combination of some of the greatest hits that we hear in this Chamber. The fact is that the Stormont House agreement, signed in 2014, created the potential for the architecture that would make it possible to go through legacy processes and to capture some of the many themes and patterns that Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to highlight, and created possibilities for us to push back against some of the revisionism and counter-narratives that many of us oppose.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
We owe our special forces an enormous debt. I understood that more clearly when I served in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office. That debt has not been honoured with the endless and unjustified litigation against Northern Ireland veterans. In Northern Ireland, there has been a sustained attempt to paint a moral equivalence between those who are maintaining law and order and those who conducted murder. Veterans fear persecution, and that is why I support amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which will require a new evidence certificate to be issued before the resumption of any inquest.
As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) described so movingly, on 8 May 1987 a heavily armed eight-man Provisional IRA team approached a police station at Loughgall. They used a JCB to breach the perimeter, with a 300-to-400 lb bomb in the bucket. They were engaged by the SAS and killed. It was the largest single loss of life for the IRA. Tragically, an innocent civilian was mistaken for an IRA member and was killed as well.
There have already been four investigations or inquests into Loughgall. If there is another, what further answers are the families expecting? On their own terms, their loved ones were members of the Provisional IRA, committed to violence for political ends. What would this mean for veterans? Anyone who opened fire would be anxious that doing their duty could be portrayed as a serious crime. I share the grave concerns of SAS veterans and their regimental associations. The failing in the Bill is that there is no robust, objective test to prevent the reopening of inquests without new and compelling evidence.
I may be a Member of Parliament, but I am also a reservist soldier in the London Guards. I have served alongside soldiers who know that they have done nothing wrong, but who now worry about the possibility that in 30 or 40 years’ time they too could be hauled out of retirement into court. How can that be right? British soldiers risked their lives for others, and we owe them the just protection of this amendment.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have found the conduct of the debate, today and yesterday, deeply encouraging. It has been thoughtful and meaningful, and the passionate speeches that we have heard have informed my insight and understanding in respect of Northern Ireland veterans and of all the other issues. Indeed, my hope for democracy, candour and a progressive Parliament has generally been restored, following other debates that I have had the privilege of sitting in on.
As you will know, Ms Ghani, I spoke to the Committee yesterday about some of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those changes: he has listened. The change on equivalence matters to me, as do protections against people being investigated again and again for some of the same events. However, I still think that we have got the architecture of the Bill wrong from the start. What happens to outstanding inquests is of concern, and balancing truth and reconciliation with justice is almost impossible. Let me explain why.
We have 38 inquests that have stopped. They will restart under the Bill; some will go back to the coronial system, while others will go to the legacy commission. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell me whether the inquests that sat with the Solicitor General can go straight to the commission, or whether will they need to be opened, as inquests, before they move to the commission following a recommendation.
Chris Bryant
When the Solicitor General carries out his sift of those processes, they will go straight to the legacy commission.
Al Carns
That is encouraging to know, but although these are deaths from the same conflict being considered decades later, we are deliberately providing two different routes for dealing with them. For more than 12 months I have recommended that we create a single centralised body to deal with the troubles-related issues. I know that there are some who would be uncomfortable with that, particularly those who represent families who have waited a very long time for an inquest, and I understand why that is. I am not suggesting for a moment that those families should lose the work that has already been done; the evidence gathered should go with the case. Nor am I seeking to prevent prosecutions. If the commission finds evidence that someone committed a criminal offence, whether that person wore a uniform or belonged to a terrorist organisation, that evidence should go to the prosecuting authorities. I am trying to get us to one process in which we can have some confidence.
There is a reason why I feel strongly about this. We need to be very careful about the history that we are creating through the legacy process, and also to think about why it is impossible to balance truth and reconciliation with justice. The state kept a great many records during the troubles; of course it did. Operations were recorded and reports were written, and the people involved can often be identified. There is an enormous amount of material about what the British state did and did not do. The IRA and other terrorist groups did not keep operational records. There is no equivalent archive sitting somewhere with records of who gave an order, who carried it out, and what happened afterwards.
Colum Eastwood
I am not sure that we know that the IRA did not keep records, but that is an aside. What we do know very well, given all that we have seen over the last number of years and the reports that have been done, is that the IRA and other terrorist organisations were riddled from top to bottom with informers reporting directly to the British state. Those files exist, and they could tell us a whole lot about what the IRA and other organisations were up to.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention, but when the records exposed threaten either national security or individual security, we must take that into account.
Yesterday, I think we all agreed that families deserve justice and answers, and indeed that many want closure, but with the majority of the murders during the troubles and conducted by terrorist organisations remaining unsolved, there just is not the evidence to get to the truth or to justice. I would like to ask: how is the Bill going to change that? Let us think about that. How is this Bill going to change the amount of evidence, and where is the new evidence to come from? I think we need to be honest with the families: do we genuinely believe that ex-IRA or Unionist terrorists are going to come and give information to this process? If by coming forward to offer information to provide answers that would at the same time self-incriminate the witness or individual providing the information, how many will participate?
I hear people talk about Ireland and about new biometric and forensic evidence-gathering capabilities, but there just is not the evidence to get to the truth. The reality—I could be wrong, and if I am proven wrong, I will hold my hand up—is that very few terrorists, if any, will come forward. The quest for the truth will rely on slivers of new evidence—and I mean slivers, although that does not mean we should not investigate them—that are found or indeed that arise from Ireland opening and giving the UK access to its extensive archives. Do we believe Ireland will do that? It would be politically very difficult and legally painful, and indeed it would lead to questioning the reputation and moral compass of successive Irish Governments.
We need to be honest with families: this Bill will not magically produce new evidence, and that creates a very real problem when, 30 or 40 years later, we try to establish the truth through legal proceedings. Material available to investigators is inevitably much richer on one side than it is on the other. If we put the cases through different processes as well, we will make the problem even worse. I have described this before as creating a hierarchy of truth. I do not mean that as a slogan, but something quite specific. What can be investigated most easily becomes what gets investigated most thoroughly, and what gets investigated most thoroughly produces the most findings. After enough years have passed, those findings start to become the history of the conflict. I do not believe anybody in this Chamber intends that to happen—I genuinely do not think that is the case—but intention is not really the point. We need to look at where the system we are building eventually takes us.
The Bill is trying to prevent repeat investigations, and I welcome the work to do so. I will, however, give a small example. Soldier B from Coagh has not been charged, but has had eight years of legal process, and three court cases have ruled that his actions were justified and there was appropriate use of force, yet the family have received legal aid to take the case again to the Supreme Court. Soldier B is unlikely ever to be charged, but he has undergone eight years of legal uncertainty and will endure many more. This is not about prosecutions; this is about the process being wielded as the punishment.
I come at this as a Labour MP. The Good Friday agreement asked an enormous number of people to do very difficult things. There were decisions made as part of that settlement that many people found very hard to accept, and still do. Prisoners walked out of jail, and people who had been enemies were expected to sit in government together. Blair and Mo Mowlam understood that there was no settlement available that could somehow settle every account from the previous 30 years, but they were trying to stop another generation having to live the same argument.
I worry that we are in danger of doing the opposite with legacy. In 10 or 15 years’ time, the Northern Ireland people’s understanding of what happened will come in large part from what is being established now. If over those years one part of the conflict has been examined again and again, because that is where records and people are available, while much of the activity of terrorist organisations remains beyond reach, we should not be surprised if people begin to draw conclusions from that. That would be a poor legacy for a Labour Government to leave them.
None of this diminishes what families have been through. There are people—hundreds of people—who have spent decades trying to find out what happened to someone they loved. They are entitled to pursue the truth, and I would never vote for a system designed to deny it to them. However, I also know veterans who have lived for years with the possibility that somebody will reopen an event that has already been examined, sometimes more than once—in many cases more than once. Many of those people are now very old men, and we cannot keep pretending that endless process is the same thing as justice.
The Government have chosen to strengthen the legacy commission, and I think that is the right thing to do. If we believe the commission can do this work, let it do the work. We should give it these outstanding cases and the material already collected and let the families take part, and if it finds evidence that belongs before a court, that is where it should go. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has questioned the justification for having two approaches to these revived inquests. I think that is a fair question, and I have yet to hear a convincing answer, other than that it will stress-test the framework agreement with the Irish.
Gavin Robinson
Thank you for calling me, Ms Ghani. It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He has been steadfast and faithful not only to the principles that he upholds and expounds, but to the bonds with his comrades and the legislation’s consequences for them. He has acted in a selfless way, and I guess that is the mark of the man. There are many in politics who would not have taken the position that he did, so it is a pleasure to follow him, and I thank him for his contribution.
I feel I need to do this given his speech, but I must mention the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He started off almost apologetically this afternoon, and last week, after the carry-over motion, he took sanctuary in Londonderry with me and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He feared he had done something inexplicable: he had united the House against him. I did not agree with that assessment, but I believe he is approaching these issues with a level of diligence that we appreciate, and I thank him for that.
Yesterday, I spoke more broadly about the Bill and the amendments then before the Committee. Sometimes I lament that, on issues such as legacy, far too many people hear what they think is being said because of the person saying it, and they do not listen to the contributions being made. There are people in this debate who think, “Well, they would say that anyway, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Brits,” or, “They would say that, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Irish,” or, “They would acquiesce, wouldn’t they—always in the face of terror.” I do not think that does this debate any good. There are people I fundamentally disagree with—we are on different sides of the Chamber and we will be in different Lobbies this evening—but there are things they say and contributions they make in this debate that I agree with.
I do worry that, so often in this debate, there seems to be a tension between victims and innocent victims and soldiers, or should we say “state combatants”? Some would describe them as that, but I think it is disrespectful. We pit individuals against one another. Why does somebody like me talk about veterans and the need for veterans’ protection? It is because those individuals volunteered to stand up for the things that we value in this country.
I listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who is not in his place at the moment. He said that when the Army was deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not deployed for one side or another. That is not quite right. It was deployed on the one side that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland were on: those who believe in the rule of law and in upholding the decency of democracy. It was deployed to stand up for our values. When I say “our values” I mean Protestant, Catholic, dissenter, none—those who believe in the values that hold our society together. The Army was deployed on the side against those who wanted to destroy our nation, destroy our livelihoods and take our lives.
That is why the Army was deployed and that is why we owe it to the veterans—as a Parliament, as a legislative Chamber—to provide protections. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge regard though we clashed many times on these issues, will know that I asked him not to talk about protections for veterans if they did not amount to measures that protected those very same veterans. Talk of safeguards and talk of measures that may be brought forward which could provide some level of comfort, but let us not describe them as protections if they do not protect.
What we hear and see before us today, and throughout the course of these debates, are the following measures: fairness, dignity and respect. They are offered as a protection to veterans. There should be fairness, dignity and respect for anybody in these processes. Of course, they do not apply to veterans; they apply to everyone. On witness participation, witnesses should not be compelled to participate unless there is “new and compelling evidence”. It is offered as a protection for veterans, but it is something that applies in principle to everyone. I do not challenge that, but I do not pretend it is something it is not. On older veterans, this legislation and the amendments before us would guarantee that they are treated with respect and with care, and that an assessment is made if needed. That is their participation. It does not just apply to older veterans. It is presented, wrongly and mischievously, as a protection for veterans, but, rightly, it is an application of a principle that applies to all.
Then we have the provisions around the Attorney General and the consent required in Government new clause 50. Veterans asked for this. Veterans asked for the Attorney General, who also serves as the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to be incorporated into this process. That it has been offered, satisfies the requests of veterans. They asked for it because they do not trust—I heard it earlier mentioned—the politics of Northern Ireland in prosecutions. Our prosecution service in Northern Ireland is independent of politics—it is independent of politics in Northern Ireland—but the consent required of the Attorney General is given because it has been requested by veterans, and veterans assume that it will add some level of protection. But it will not.
Whenever that has been challenged, and whenever the Secretary of State has been challenged about why he is doing it—challenged by victims, challenged by loved ones and challenged by others—he gives an answer that he gave again last night. It is in Hansard. He says:
“yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 867.]
What started as a request from veterans has been welcomed by some veterans’ groups who think it will add some level of protection or cover from the infected process they see in Northern Ireland, but it will not. We know very clearly: one, applies to everyone; two, quasi-judicial process; and three, just replicating exactly the same principles of the prosecutors who are making the decision in Northern Ireland in the first place. So the question is this: why do it at all? What benefit is there at all if they are replicating the same process which is approached independently, is quasi-judicial and applies legal application? What does it add to the process at all?
I said it this morning to a wider audience in Northern Ireland and I will say it again this evening: the problem with this proposition is that it started as a request. That request was acquiesced to and people were led to believe that it was a level of protection. When challenged by victims who say, “How can you be stepping in to protect? How can you provide a mechanism that is going to protect a certain cohort?” the answer is, “Well, actually, it doesn’t apply to them alone; it applies to everyone and actually, it is just exactly the same application of principle that you will see in Northern Ireland. It is quasi-judicial anyway and of course it could be judicially reviewed.”
The reason I raise these points is because I think it is fundamentally important that people speak accurately—accurately, Ms Ghani.
Chris Bryant
Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Attorney General move, or not?
Gavin Robinson
I am happy to sit down and take a further intervention. I asked this: what is the point if it replicates exactly the same process and applies exactly the same principle as adheres to Northern Ireland prosecutions? Why make it a provision in this legislation? Why bring forward the amendment? It was acquiescence to a request from veterans—that is where it started—and then it came from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has been presented as a protection for some, yet it applies to everyone equally and is a replication of a process that already exists. My question—it is not a question for me as to whether I support it—for the Secretary of State is why it has been introduced at all.
Chris Bryant
I have already explained it at some length, both yesterday and earlier today. I think the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I said it. This is not to take anything away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. They are going to be co-operating on producing guidelines on how these decisions are to be arrived at, but there will be some instances that relate to troubles-related deaths in England. There will be some—relatively small compared to the number of Northern Ireland—and it makes sense that there is consistency across the whole United Kingdom. It is a process that has been used elsewhere and that is why we are advocating it. I ask again, does he support the amendment or not?
Gavin Robinson
Every time the Secretary of State speaks, he confuses issues and muddies the waters. Does the process apply to every case, or just to those in England?
Chris Bryant
This is slightly odd now, but of course it applies to all cases. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I ask again, does he support the measure or not? He has privately argued for it to me in the past.
Gavin Robinson
First, I put forward the request from veterans’ organisations, as well the Minister knows. Secondly, if the Secretary of State is incapable of arguing, or unwilling to argue, for the added benefit of the proposition as presented today, that will be of interest to many listening in the House. Do not pretend that protections are being offered when they are not. Do not pretend that they do something different from what they are intended to do. For the Secretary of State to say what he has just said says an awful lot more about him than me.
Gavin Robinson
There you go; it is pathetic, Ms Ghani. This Committee will consider the amendments, but I have no doubt, given the lack of scrutiny and interest in most of what was before us yesterday, that they will be agreed on the nod—and then time will tell.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Good Friday agreement and the peace that we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We in this House are united by the debt that we owe to the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Many of them trace their story back to my patch, the home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, one of the IRA’s first attacks on mainland Britain, targeting the headquarters of the 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost. Their families, and all those who lost loved ones during the troubles, are in my thoughts today.
These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. That is why I have sat in this Chamber for all proceedings on the Bill over a year in this place, except for those on last week’s carry-over motion. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January, calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans; why I have spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations; and why I facilitated direct discussions between veterans’ groups, the Northern Ireland Secretary and No. 10, working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba).
I thank all members of our armed forces community who have engaged with me during this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association and its Aldershot branch, the Royal British Legion, and those watching our debate in the Gallery today. I have been determined to ensure that their voices are heard in this legislation. Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served; we have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in the new legacy arrangements; and we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were focused only on taking lives.
I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People; they have listened, engaged and acted. I wish only that we could have started from here. The Bill is much improved on the version that first came before this House, but I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will abstain on the vote on Third Reading.
There are some in the House who would do away with the Bill altogether. I would not, as we would then lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families—including hundreds of armed forces families—deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veteran’s charter, but I respectfully disagree with them. There must be accountability, but those who have dedicated their life to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their life fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that the legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve, and it is clear to me that there is still more work to be done.
We have heard in this debate about soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could still face yet another process. If this Bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause. As someone who is proud to represent a seat in which there are 5,000 serving personnel, I want those who serve today and in the future to know that we will always have their back.
Chris Bryant
First, I want to put on the record from the Dispatch Box the gratitude of the whole Northern Ireland team to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is sitting behind her, for the work that they have done. Some of the changes that we have made to the Bill at this stage would not have been possible without her contribution. She said that the process has not ended; I believe that, too. I undertake that the whole ministerial team and I will work with her and others, as well as with the Parachute Regimental Association and other associations, to get the Bill to the right place by the time it is enacted.
Alex Baker
I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it.
I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration.
Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
We are debating the parts of the Bill relating to the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, inquests, and relaxations of the restrictions on police investigations. There is only one word to describe the measures in those parts of the Bill, and indeed the totality of the Bill, and I am afraid that is betrayal.
The Government demand much of their soldiers. They ask brave men and women to put their life in danger, and to sacrifice huge amounts. What do they get in return? We ostensibly have a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. The question really is: what do our troops get in return, at a time when the Government propose cutting the defence budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and are asking men and women to step up and serve as reservists? The truth is that this country treats our enemies better than our heroes. [Interruption.] I am afraid the truth is that our bravest people get treated worse than those who terrorise us. That is what the litigation shows and what the Bill reflects.
The reality is that these measures will build more architecture and more process, and the process becomes punishment. The measures perpetuate the retrospective prosecution—and persecution, if you will—of our brave troops, many decades after their national service. This extension of litigation and lawfare wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action.
When terrorists are planning to attack us, they have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it and how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, and they have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds to defend themselves and others. Now, many decades after those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials and Government Ministers are applying harsh rules to people who put their life at risk for our security. The decisions they made at the time were lawful; they were following orders and adhering to rules of engagement often set by their superiors, by officials at the Ministry of Defence or by Ministers, none of whom is being held to account decades after the act.
Let us remember: our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva convention and the law of armed conflict, and they are known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force. This legislation and, indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots and, as a result, dragging them through the courts.
Chris Bryant
One of the serious points that the right hon. Lady made earlier on was about the operational context in which people served. Does she welcome new clause 32 that we have tabled?
Suella Braverman
It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.
As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.
Jim Allister
Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?
Suella Braverman
The hon. and learned Member puts it incredibly powerfully. The European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article 2. Article 2 protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It is an absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state-sanctioned and arbitrary killing. That was the right intention behind the article’s drafting. But, because of decisions such as the one he refers to and many more, article 2 has now come to mean that people are entitled to an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation and that families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as he says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of law-abiding citizens and the victims of terrorism. It is an absurdity, and that is why my position remains that we must leave the European convention on—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will not tolerate allegations of misleading, even from a sedentary position. Members must observe the courtesies of the House.
Suella Braverman
This Bill is, I am afraid, a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards from the legacy Act. It is really tragic, because the Government are asking for many young people to join up and serve their country, but why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They have shown incredible heroism, courage and bravery, on levels that many of us can never imagine, and they have always felt confident that the Government would have their back and that they would be supported by those whose orders they were taking.
Today, however, many people serving in the armed forces tell me that they seriously question whether the Government would indeed back them. When they take the decision to pull that trigger today, will they have the confidence that the Government will stand up for them, many years down the line? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? Today, frankly, they cannot be sure that the Government will support them in their acts of courage. I am here speaking on behalf of veterans in my constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me—[Interruption.] Opponents may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I am here representing what has been told to me by those serving on our frontline.
The first duty of a Government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the Government will stand by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This Bill has failed in that duty, and it should not proceed.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. During our year-long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. It is a message that has stayed with me and that I firmly believe.
That is why I tabled new clause 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Select Committee following our inquiry. It seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained in and carried forward from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
One message came through consistently during our inquiry: dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division. However, many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation provisions under part 4 will operate in practice. Questions remain about who will lead the work, how independence will be guaranteed and what projects will ultimately receive support.
New clause 54 asks the Government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to set out how the part 4 provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive Government funding. Those are not minor administrative details; public confidence depends on them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history; it is one of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process.
Families are also at the heart of my amendment 277, which concerns a matter that may appear technical, but is deeply personal for many of those who have been affected by the troubles. It, too, reflects a recommendation of our Committee’s inquiry. The inquiry repeatedly heard that the impact of troubles-related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades.
The Government have argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of those closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren, aunts and uncles have acted as parents, and extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss. Although we realise that no statutory definition can capture every circumstance, the definition should reflect that reality as far as possible.
The Select Committee heard evidence that the definition of “close family member” should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the Committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights.
Ultimately, this is not about legal definitions. It is about people—people who lost loved ones, who have waited many years for answers and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of the process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.
Alex Easton
I rise having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90. The test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for Government; it is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence? Does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny, however much time has passed? I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met that test.
Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it and, where new evidence emerges, to seek further answers.
We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort, despite the attempted rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism. In June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down, the constituency which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station. His name reminds us that terrorist violence has victims and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth.
That principle applies to every family regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and a confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is serious about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims before it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny and refuse to let any Government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.
Having looked at the clauses, I see that some have been improved. I recognise the provision for on-the-run letters—that is good, and I applaud the Government for trying to get that right. However, there are other areas where I still have concerns. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is not in his place, made a powerful speech, and I was very taken by his comment about the Irish Government and their Bill going through the process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill does not guarantee that victims, families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish Government. We are being sold a pup on getting all the information we need from the Irish Government. Labour Members can sigh, but in my experience, we do not ever get very much information from the Irish Government. I stand by that.
Many months ago, I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. That information, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier. The PSNI told me that it could not investigate that because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the legacy commission, but the legacy commission would not accept the case from me because, as an MP, I could not refer cases to it.
The only avenue for me to get this case looked at, because of legacy, was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgment of where this case is going or not going. That makes me suspicious that this very serious issue about legacy that I am raising as an MP is not being addressed, yet we are expecting this Bill to answer all the questions. I do not think the Irish Government will give us everything we want on this issue.
Chris Bryant
I will make sure that the hon. Member gets an answer to his letter by the end of the week.
Alex Easton
I thank the Secretary of State for that, but I have deep concerns. It is not that I do not want truth or reconciliation. There have just been too many false dawns for me and my colleagues representing constituencies right across Northern Ireland, and I do not have a huge amount of faith in this process. For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the Bill.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to support the Government in this important debate. For my generation, it seemed as though the troubles were an intractable problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles; we had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland was geographically so close, and culturally close, but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday agreement represented such a massive breakthrough. Many Members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement—compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future.
The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday agreement, and it fulfils a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the troubles. It does so while being respectful of the families affected and providing a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way.
I know there are concerns from veterans and veterans’ families, but genuine protections for veterans ensure that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my constituency, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this Bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time and the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred. Importantly, veterans’ voices will be heard in a process rooted not in blame and recrimination but in truth and reconciliation.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to make some initial comments on new clause 50 and the role of the Attorney General. I will be fairly straightforward in my opinion on that: I do not support it, and I have severe concerns about where it will go—a political appointee and a member of the Government consenting to the prosecution of serious troubles-related offences.
New clause 50 matters greatly in Northern Ireland because it unpicks a key reform that flowed directly from the Good Friday agreement. The criminal justice review mandated by the Good Friday agreement was explicit that
“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters”.
That reform was not created out of nowhere; it was not in the abstract. It was a result of proven politicisation of the Attorney General’s power to overturn DPP prosecutions. A system that allows such disparity cannot be relied on, and that is why the Good Friday agreement sought to take that power away. New clause 50 would give it back. Our concerns about the new clause are not theoretical; they are based on past experience—experience that the Good Friday agreement had to rectify. That power for the Attorney General cannot be allowed to return.
Let me make some wider points. Yesterday, along with many others, I made the point that this cannot be a debate about victims versus veterans—I note there are still some veterans in the Gallery, and I wish to reiterate that before the Bill goes to the other place. I would posit a different version of events. We heard some excellent remarks from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), and yesterday the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) hit on the same theme. Many of the people who came to Northern Ireland to serve were teenagers, or people from largely working-class communities. People have sometimes told me that they felt uncomfortable in another part of the UK with how they were expected to react to events or to some of the conversation and chat around and among them, or even about them.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) referred to the operation at Loughgall, which he said had been approved by the general officer commanding. That is something to consider. I know that some ground has been gained in the contemporisation of the operational environment in which people served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the British Army and the RUC, and for that I have the utmost sympathy, but we will not have a situation, will we, if something arises, where the GOC will be in the dock? That is just not going to happen, and I am not sure that that is correct, accurate or fair.
I want to have my final say on veterans, because there is a concept of natural justice at play and we should not seek to supress it. We should not seek to make that dirty or something that is at odds with every other member of society. Where I depart from some others is that I think something has entered the discourse. I have been involved with veterans for many years, and this is something that entered the discourse recently. I made this point yesterday and I will make it again today: some sort of thesis seeks to suggest that people who served inherently did something wrong that could lead to the so-called knock on the door 10, 20 or 30 years later. That troubles me deeply.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have many veterans in my constituency, some of whom have come to talk to me, and I would like to quote from one, a chap called Michael Kingscote:
“There must come a point at which the country says to those who served: ‘You did your duty. The state sent you there. The state must not abandon you decades later.’”
I believe that is the very point.
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, with which I think a lot of Members will have sympathy. It builds on the point I sought to make yesterday, which to me is completely related and concerns the national security veto. We know for a fact that through disclosure and other troubles legacy-related cases, some people involved with the security services and security forces at the time have said, “We are being forced to redact or stop disclosure of information that frankly in the court of public opinion makes things look a hell of a lot worse than they are.” That contributes to an ongoing narrative that takes me to the point I was making before the intervention, and the inherent thesis that everyone who served at some stage did something wrong. I do not think that that is the case—in fact, I know for certain that it is not—but as I said yesterday, we cannot have a scenario in which just because someone wore a uniform, that means that any wrongdoing should not be investigated.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I thank her for her eloquence and advocacy. She communicated with such power, conviction and sense, and I thank her for what she has said. I thank all hon. Members, right hon. Members and gallant Members for the incredible contributions that have been made over the last two days. People have come to this vexed and troubling issue with a great deal of commitment and determination to get to the right outcome for a better future and a better understanding of the past, and I thank the hon. Lady for that.
I was not born in Northern Ireland, and I do not live there, but my grandparents were from Belfast. They were a Protestant and a Catholic who left for the perfect, peaceful idyll that is the west of Scotland. My maternal great-grandparents were from Carrickmacross in County Monaghan, and all my wife’s family are from Tyrone. That part of the world supplied the working-class labour that brought about the burgeoning iron and steel industry. Our connections and associations with the island of Ireland are deep, and there is a passion for people to see a positive outcome and resolution and to include the many working-class men who found themselves on the streets in Northern Ireland in their tender years. I thank again the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
I welcome this Bill as an important improvement on the previous Government’s deeply flawed legacy Act. Repealing the conditional amnesty scheme and restoring civil proceedings are significant steps towards delivering truth, justice and accountability. I recognise the vital importance of treating former service personnel fairly, including by acknowledging the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which many served. I had the pleasure of being one of the founding members of the Royal British Legion’s Solicitors Group, which is pro bono. I have worked with service personnel at close quarters, and I am overwhelmed and overawed by their commitment and dedication to their duty.
It has been said in recent hours in this debate that nobody is questioning the performance of our service personnel who found themselves in that situation, and that it is not veterans against civilians. I met two senior retired Army officers last month—Lieutenant Colonel the Reverend Nicholas Mercer and Brigadier John Donnelly CBE—thanks to Amnesty International and the Centre for Military Justice. Both of them challenged the suggestion that British forces have faced a flood of vexatious litigation under the European convention on human rights, and I worry about the scaremongering that has been perpetrated in that regard. As Nicholas Mercer has argued, the application of the Human Rights Act is vital, because it means that the guilty can be held accountable and the innocent exonerated. That is an important principle. Human rights protections are not the enemy of fair treatment for veterans; they are part of what makes that fairness possible.
However, I must express my concerns. The Government have chosen to publish such a voluminous package of amendments with barely seven days’ notice and have given us just two days to consider them, and that is a concern. I am also concerned about some of the tonality, which has explicitly presented the Bill as providing additional legal protections and safeguards for veterans. Whatever the Government’s intentions, some of these measures may be viewed very differently by victims’ families, particularly those who spent decades seeking answers about the actions of the state and the circumstances in which their loved ones died. What is presented to veterans as reassurance may be experienced by those families as another barrier to justice.
That matters enormously. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to not only improve the legal framework for dealing with the past, but rebuild confidence among communities whose trust in the institutions of the state has been profoundly damaged by their experience of the troubles. He said yesterday—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the principle of the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation when the Public Office (Accountability) Bill passes. I hope he will intervene on me, because I am seeking some clarification. Surely the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation, not simply the principle.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is quite right that the Hillsborough Bill, as most people think of it, is still going through its processes in the House of Lords. As I have said to him privately, and will say again from the Dispatch Box, we want to mesh the duty of candour with this Bill once the Hillsborough Bill has completed its processes in the Lords. It would be premature for us to do it now before the Bill has finished its processes in the Lords, but yesterday, I committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—he is sitting next to my hon. Friend—that as soon as we have done that, I will work with him to make sure we get this right, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend as well. It is not just the principle; it is the concept. It is the duty of candour.
Andy McDonald
I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That is immensely helpful, but I revert to my point that in seeking to reassure one constituency, there is a risk of undermining the confidence of others—not only in the Government’s approach to reconciliation, but in their ability to secure truth, accountability and access to justice.
Most seriously, I fear that some of these proposals risk cutting across the detailed institutional safeguards established through the Good Friday agreement and the reforms that followed it. The first is Government new clause 50 and the Attorney General’s consent to prosecutions. That new clause would require the Attorney General’s consent before proceedings could be instituted for the most serious troubles-related offences. What is the compelling justification for introducing this additional political safeguard into the prosecution process? That question has been raised by other Members, and I join them in asking it. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it risks undermining a central reform arising from the Good Friday agreement. The 2000 criminal justice review specifically sought to protect prosecutorial independence by removing the Attorney General’s power to direct prosecutors in individual cases or on policy matters.
That reform was particularly important because of the history of political interference and concerns about the prosecution of members of the security forces during the conflict. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies evidential and public interest tests when deciding whether to prosecute. Why should a further decision now rest with a Government-appointed law officer who is potentially exposed to representations from ministerial colleagues? The de Silva report into the murder of Pat Finucane documented political pressure on the then Attorney General over the prosecution of state agent Brian Nelson. That history demonstrates precisely why those institutional safeguards were introduced.
Government new clause 50 also appears to impose no requirement on the Attorney General to explain a refusal of consent, while the availability of judicial review may be limited. How can families have confidence in a process where an independent prosecutor might conclude that a serious offence should be prosecuted, only for a Government law officer to prevent that prosecution without adequate explanation or scrutiny?
The Good Friday agreement was not simply a political declaration of peace and reconciliation. Its implementation required detailed reforms to institutions, including the criminal justice system, designed to establish independence and to instil public confidence. We have to tread with the greatest care not to undermine the Good Friday agreement in any way. We should be extremely cautious about disturbing those safeguards, particularly when it would risk reviving precisely the concerns that they were intended to address. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider new clause 50. Fairness for veterans must not mean creating a new mechanism through which serious criminality could escape prosecution.
Robin Swann
A number of Members have mentioned the Stormont House agreement in connection with the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval. My party opposed the agreement because of the provisions that brought about an amnesty by default for all but murderers; at that point, it became a flawed expedition. Let me return to my earlier question to the Secretary of State. Clause 72(5) states:
“The ICIR must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”
It also states, in paragraph (c), that the ICIR must not do anything that
“would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on any actual or prospective legal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”
In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State said that he would try to find the answer to my question by the time I made my speech, so I will ask him again: who makes the assessment that something will be prejudicial to the national security of Ireland, or to a prospective legal proceeding in Ireland? That is not in the remit of this Government or this place; nor will it, or should it, be in the remit of the ICIR. As yet, we do not know who the body corporate will be, and who will be part of it. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has found the answer to my question, but if he has not, he may wish to write to me.
Chris Bryant
I have been inspired. Let me say first that national security is obviously a matter for the respective Governments, but in the UK, it is solely a matter for the UK. The provision in the Bill replicates the drafting of the ICIR treaty, which was signed by the UK Conservative Government and the Irish Government back in 2015. It also replicates the drafting of Ireland’s “General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”, which states:
“In performing its functions the ICIR shall not do anything that could reasonably be expected to…prejudice the national security interests of the State”—
the Irish state—
“or the United Kingdom”.
In other words, we look after our security, and they look after theirs.
Robin Swann
I fully appreciate that, but that is not what the Bill says. It says that the ICIR will make the decision. I have asked the Secretary of State who makes the assessment on behalf of the Irish Government of what constitutes national security. This is not solely about the United Kingdom. However, I will engage with the Secretary of State to seek clarification on that point.
The Secretary of State quoted what has been said previously; that does not explain to me what the Bill actually contains. He talks of the Irish Government and their role. I welcomed his comment in the past that the UK Government would work in lockstep with the Irish Government, but he is aware of the distrust that many of us feel about what the Irish Government will bring forward, and when they will do it. What plans does he have, in case they do not bring it forward? He has said that parts of the Bill will be enacted in lockstep with the Irish Government’s legislation, but what happens if they do not produce and enact it? Will he start to repeal parts of the Bill, or will the parts that have already been enacted still stand? I think I know the answer to that, but I am explaining our concern about the Irish Government acting in lockstep with the United Kingdom.
I see where the Government are going on this; that comes from the experience of having been involved in negotiations with the Irish Government—Stormont House, the fresh start, Haass-O’Sullivan and all those other things. At one stage, we were sitting in a room with Charlie Flanagan and Danny Kennedy, discussing what would come forward from the Irish Government about Kingsmill. The Kingsmill families were promised the release of Irish Government documentation, and what did they actually finish up with? A folder of newspaper clippings. That is where the inherent concern that many in Northern Ireland still have about what the Irish Government will release comes from—if, indeed, they release anything about the substantive cross-border incidents that we still want to raise concerns about. When the Secretary of State works with the Irish Government on this legislation, I hope he finds them more productive than any previous Government have been.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned what, in previous iterations of the Bill, was put forward as protections for veterans. We were told at one stage that those protections did not need to be in the legislation, because the Government said that there would be protections. I welcome the fact that those protections are now part of the legislation, but they are not solely for veterans, and I think it is important to clarify that.
When I met the Secretary of State to ask him about protections for our veterans, he said it was not his office but the Ministry of Defence—the corporate body—that would be the first port of call. However, what body acts on behalf of former RUC police officers? He has said—I know this is in the Bill—that there is a power to put that duty on a body, but no such body is specified for them. We are therefore looking at a dual process for these protections. I am thinking of the joint UDR and RUC operations—the joint vehicle checkpoints—that often took place. Whereas the UDR may get support via the Ministry of Defence, there is no body to support a former RUC officer who was standing at the same point, on the same duty, under the same threat, defending the same right of democracy in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State expedite the decision on what that body will be? What worries me is that this will fall on the voluntary organisations that are currently stepping up—the likes of the South East Fermanagh Foundation and, as mentioned previously, the Royal British Legion—to which veterans are already going for support.
The explanatory statement for new clause 51, which has been mentioned, states that the clause will prevent
“the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content of an ‘on the run’ letter.”
This provision still relates to the content of the letters. The issue is not that they cannot be relied on any longer; it is wrong that those letters exist. It would have been better if the Government had tabled an amendment that nullified those on-the-run letters, rather than simply saying that they will prevent the stopping of prosecutions for reasons relating to their content.
The remit of the Attorney General has been mentioned; a number of opponents have spoken about why the Attorney General should not have that role. We agree. What was proposed in the first iteration of the legislation was a panel of judges, rather than a political appointee. The provision involving the Attorney General is a replication of what is in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I again seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State that this Government are not by default looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland as an overseas operation. Parts of this legislation are starting to treat us very differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, when it comes to the atrocities.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for tabling new clause 12, which is about reconciliation. He has been a champion of reconciliation. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now doing a serious piece of work on what that would actually look like. The Bill expands the scope of who could and should be involved not just in the work of the Committee, but in the work of the Government to bring forward what reconciliation in Northern Ireland truly looks like.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today.
I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them.
New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.
We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic.
I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too.
I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points.
The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation.
I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly.
Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents.
Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought.
The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday.
I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict.
No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed.
From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability.
We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes.
Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission. One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests.
On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests. It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.
There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift. Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches.
Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do? They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.”
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Today, I think of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I have had the chance to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly about the issues affecting veterans, the armed forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service and their overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the more than 300,000 veterans of Operation Banner.
I believe that it is a duty not just to think about this matter from a constituency standpoint but to think of the people of Northern Ireland. It is especially incumbent on Back Benchers from other parts of the United Kingdom to remind ourselves that they must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice.
Of the Government’s amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner veterans in our constituencies. We should never forget, as I think a few Members have rightly commented, that those veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. We should avoid drawing a false distinction between service families and an associated other of victims. That is important principally because, if we do not, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces, and impedes those victims’ right to access justice.
Though I am aware that this is not being considered today, I want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in the Bill. New clause 32 tabled by the Government, as the Secretary of State referred to, requires the legacy commission to recognise the circumstances in which the armed forces and police served and the split-second decisions they took. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how that will take into consideration the chain of command? That question has come up among veterans in my constituency and from Members across the Committee.
To allow us to get to the summing-up speeches, I will speak briefly on new clauses 51 and 50, which address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in my constituency. New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on-the-run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up—I want to touch on every single group but especially the excellent and fantastic Veterans Together (Forth Valley)—that was one that evoked the strongest anger among people. The mere ambiguity surrounding the letters and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. I am glad that it is this Labour Government who are decisively ending the ambiguity around those letters.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I support new clause 50 in principle—that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles-related offence. I hear from veterans that trust in the process is at such a low ebb among their community, and so I believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country provides Government accountability and the right degree of independence and accountability generally, enabling us to build confidence that any prosecutions are in the public interest.
On summing up, will the Secretary of State set out how that safeguard will support the Government’s commitment to protecting the public interest where there may be a dispute about the high evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains? Will he also assure the House that the Attorney General’s role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no Government, now or in future, may use it to politicise decisions about the evidence and public interest, which must be taken with the utmost seriousness?
The Bill provides the last chance for many in our community, including service families, to access the truth about what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme, which the previous Government failed to deliver, utterly did not implement. As it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans and as, more than anything, it allows us to progress, I will vote for the Bill this evening.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended.
I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states:
“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.”
I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states:
“This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”
We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Minister—sorry, the Secretary of State.
Chris Bryant
And Minister, indeed. Thank you, Ms Nokes. It is good to see you in the Chair, as always.
First, can I just refer to the points where I think we are all agreed? There has, remarkably, been quite a lot of agreement, both yesterday and today, on a series of things. First, on the issue of on-the-run letters, I note the point made earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and his gratitude for finally putting the provision in legislation. That matter was raised by several hon. Members.
I am grateful to those who agree that it is important that we will not start any new inquests once the legacy commission has completed its work. The legacy commission will have five years in which people can still make applications to it and five years to complete its work, but at the end of that period it surely must be right that we do not then start any more inquests. There has to come a time at which this process comes to an end.
I am also grateful to everybody who has recognised that we want to work in lockstep with the Irish Government—not running ahead of them, not running behind them, but working in lockstep with them—because it is only when we get full co-operation between the two Governments that we will be able to deliver the kind of answers that lots of hon. Members have been referring to. [Interruption.] I understand that there is scepticism around the Committee. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is chuntering from the Front Bench again, is full of scepticism on nearly everything related to this Government. In fact, I sometimes think, when I see him sitting there, that he could probably have a row with himself if he was stuck inside a cardboard box all on his own. On these occasions, though, there are quite a few things on which we agree, and that is where I am trying to start my remarks.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He is right: these debates yesterday and today have proceeded much more amicably and respectfully than people had perhaps anticipated. I think that is probably because they have been informed by many different perspectives, including from those who have been around for many years in this House, those who have served, those who have never served before, those who have direct experience of living in Northern Ireland and those who have many constituents who have served in Northern Ireland. There have been many different perspectives, and many different political perspectives. That is important but, of course, in the words of her late Majesty, “some recollections may vary”. Today I have heard various accounts, from different perspectives, of almost identical occasions. That has informed our debate rather than undermined it.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State misses the point. All that information sharing, which is permitted and is in the gift of those authorities, is about answering the question before the inquiry: whether UK state authorities could have prevented the atrocity. That does not deal with the other side of the coin, which is whether the Irish authorities had information that could have prevented the atrocity. That can be dealt with in one of two ways: a parallel inquiry in the south—that is before the courts again today, because they refused to give it—or, at least, the fail-safe mechanism of the legacy commission being able to consider the case. The Secretary of State is right that this issue was for yesterday, but he raises it because he recognises the cross-border nature of the legacy commission’s ability to take information from the Irish Government.
Chris Bryant
We are relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I have said. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) argued that our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There is actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and it would be inappropriate to put the matter into the legacy commission. It is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work, as with the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and that into the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 32, which I think he intends to press to a vote in a few short moments, and I want to speak to that briefly. I think it falls at the first hurdle because, as he said in his speech, it would be inappropriate for us to have measures that apply only to one category of people. We do not believe that it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focused on getting information for families, does so in a way that does not needlessly duplicate aspects of investigations that have already obtained valuable information. That does not serve anyone—not victims, not witnesses and not the legacy commission, which will want to ensure that its resources are used as efficiently as possible. The collection of protections that the Government have put forward were designed following consultation with veterans—that is true—and were not included in the legacy Act. All these measures have been introduced to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. For those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment 32.
Turning to amendment 51 by my beknighted friend the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), on which I think he also intends to have a separate Division, I understand the anxiety and concerns there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on how we should proceed. As he will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment—it is something we committed to before the general election and as part of our manifesto—to restore those inquests that were in progress but were halted by the legacy Act, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On one of the reasons for that, I can quote Andy Seaman, the brother of Private Tony Harrison, who was murdered by the IRA in 1991. He said:
“My brother’s case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition”
—that is, the Conservative party—
“cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims’ families—including military victims—when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite”.
Respect for veterans and accountability are not opposing principles. They are both part of the same principle: the rule of law. We are not opening a new inquest into Loughgall; we are restoring the inquest that was under way as a result of being directed by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), to comply with our human rights obligations. He said in September 2015:
“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”
There are two other issues which I think Members intend for us to vote on. The first is new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State. I understand the thrust of what he is trying to say, though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment into the armed forces is up now for the first time in about a decade. It is up 7% in general and the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. I do not think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces. I am absolutely certain that he would not expect us to be specific about the numbers in special forces. More importantly, his amendment is cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. The idea of setting up a new person to investigate recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he has put it in his amendment, is inappropriate, which is why we are not intending to support his amendment.
Alex Burghart
I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within special forces? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.
Chris Bryant
Because it is not germane to the matter that we are considering today—
Chris Bryant
No, it is not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman and simply say to him that I think it is inappropriate to try to make some false equation between the legislation we are considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces.
Chris Bryant
If he is going to continue making those kinds of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.
Alex Burghart
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.
Chris Bryant
I know the shadow Secretary of State is getting himself worked up about this argument. I do not think he really believes the argument that he is advancing. [Interruption.] I read it rather differently.
The truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as have both the Ministers who are here beside me—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I have spoken to a large number of those who have served, and they are very keen to make sure we have a Bill that is balanced and fair. That is precisely what we are going to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said, it does us no favours when we exaggerate and seek to undermine recruitment into the armed forces, in particular into the special forces.
Mr Francois
Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. The Secretary of State is not obliged to give way.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak.
Al Carns
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The reality is that, across the conventional force, we have seen an uptick in recruitment and a reduction in people leaving due to retention issues. It is the first time in 10 to 14 years that we have seen an increase—it is a huge success. We have to be careful of conflating two things that are going on within a more specialist community. One is a Northern Ireland Bill, which, whether we like it or not, does not resonate with the rank and file of the individuals in our community, and one is other inquests and inquiries that in some cases do. We need to keep a very close eye on that in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure the Secretary of State will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure we are monitoring it and putting remedial action in place, should that be the case.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: it is important not to conflate things that do not necessarily belong together. Being able to fillet through the different aspects of what affects recruitment is what really ends up delivering results, and that is absolutely the role of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister for Veterans and People is sitting on the Front Bench, and that is one of the things he has in mind.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, has tabled new clause 12, which I think he intends to push to a vote. It would impose a new duty to promote reconciliation on the Secretary of State and require the Secretary of State to
“publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland”.
I have tabled quite a few of these kinds of amendments in the past, and I never expected or really wanted the Secretary of State to take them on. I suspect that this is a probing amendment. Clause 11(1) of the Bill already explicitly requires the legacy commission and its individual members to exercise their functions in a way that is consistent with
“the principle that reconciliation should be promoted”,
and that is precisely what we intend to do.
Two other issues have been of particular concern. One is the word “essential”. The Bill states that there should be no duplication of a process that has already been undergone elsewhere, either in an inquest or in the legacy commission. That is a really important part of what we are doing. The previous legislation introduced by the Conservatives used a lower bar—namely, the word “necessary”. We think “essential” is a higher bar. I hear the comments that Members have made about their not being convinced by that, and this is one of the issues I am sure we will want to return to in the House of Lords.
The other issue is compelling new evidence. One of the key asks that was put to me on a regular basis was ensuring that, before anybody could be interviewed as a witness or brought before the legacy commission, there had to be compelling new evidence. I completely agree, which is precisely why that is one of the measures we have included in the Bill. I think we have put it in the right place in the Bill, rather than right at the beginning.
The final point on which there is quite a bit of disagreement is the role of the Attorney General. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both said that they disagree with that role, and other Members are pulling me in different directions because they are not entirely convinced about it. I want to make it clear that the Attorney General is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. We are not seeking to undermine in any sense the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, and it would be completely inappropriate for the Attorney General to bear in mind at all any political considerations when making a prosecutorial decision. The only thing they are able to bear in mind is the traditional prosecutorial issue of whether there is a more than 50% chance of a successful prosecution and a conviction, and whether prosecution is in the public interest. I think that the measures will provide a greater sense of reassurance that there will be consistency across the piece.
Chris Bryant
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to start by expressing my very sincere thanks to the team who have been working on the Bill for some considerable time: Daniel Thrower, Charlotte Brennan, Sharon Carter, Niall Haughey, Philip Shaw, Will Durkin and the whole legacy team in the Northern Ireland Office. My thanks also to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is sitting by my side; the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); and, of course, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who brought in this Bill in the first place. I pay tribute to every single one of them.
We normally associate “legacy” with our inheritance from our parents or our ancestors. In some cases, it means wealth or property, or perhaps a family tradition that has been handed down through the generations—something that one family does differently from another. For most, our common legacy is a positive thing; it could be a sense of our shared history, or our national pride in the things that we do phenomenally well: our national health service, perhaps, or our storytellers, authors, playwrights and musicians, our bravery in two world wars, or our armed forces.
But the legacy in Northern Ireland is different. In many ways, it is a legacy of division, antagonism, sectarianism, and violence. It is a legacy of extraordinary trauma. In Greek, “trauma” originally meant a wound, but it means so much more. It is an open wound, in many cases. It is the wound felt by a woman who lost her brother, an RUC officer, years ago, and has nightmares all the time about how he died; by the man who goes to Marks & Spencer every day and sees the man who he knows killed his father, who served in the armed forces; by the man who gave up his college music course to join the Army when his brother was blown up, and still worries that he has never lived up to his brother, because he never found out precisely what happened to him when he was killed; by the young woman who worries that she cannot even remember her daddy, who was killed when she was so young that she cannot even remember his face, and she feels guilty about it; by the teenager who sees photos of his grandaddy, who was murdered by the IRA before he was born, every single time the troubles are reported on the news; or by the family who still have not located the body of the family member they know was killed.
Patrick Keefe, in “Say Nothing”, wrote this:
“Perhaps the cruellest feature of forced disappearance as an instrument of war is that it denies the bereaved any such closure, relegating them to a permanent limbo of uncertainty.”
I felt that so strongly recently, when I had the deeply sobering experience of visiting an active dig by the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains at Derryclone in County Antrim, where the commission’s dedicated investigators are to this day searching for the remains of Seamus Maguire. Seamus was just 26 years old when he was disappeared in Lurgan in 1973. My thoughts are, of course, with the Maguire family, as well as with the families of Columba McVeigh, Joseph Lynskey and Robert Nairac, who await the return of their loved ones. That is a phenomenal trauma that still lives in many families’ lives. When their loved ones had been disappeared, they still got letters from people pretending to be them—a particular form of cruelty.
When people say to me that people in Northern Ireland need to move on, my answer is no. No one has moved on more than the victims and survivors of the troubles. They are not living in the past; they are living with the past. If the trauma is not resolved and people do not get answers, it will pass on to the next generation.
I know that lots of people do not support every clause of this Bill—some do not support any clause it—but I relay the words of the Royal British Legion this week:
“Veterans and those Armed Forces families who lost loved ones in the conflict deserve answers. It is in the interests of the whole of Armed Forces community affected by the Troubles that steady progress is made to ensure this legislation’s provisions are effective.”
Although much of the debate yesterday and today has been about veterans, this is primarily about families. As Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, said:
“As parliamentarians you have the opportunity to provide legislation that puts victims and survivors at the heart of the new Bill and also provides mechanisms that will give confidence to victims and survivors who have waited too long. Their voices must shape and determine what happens next.”
I want to explain briefly why this really matters to me. Back in 1986, I was one of the first British people to be in Argentina after the dictatorship came to an end. Many of my friends had been tortured. I knew that they had been tortured—they spoke about it. One night, I went to a bar with a friend of mine. He went to the loo, and he stayed there for a very long time. I wondered what was happening, so I went to find him. He was lying on the floor in the cubicle in floods of tears, because, he said, the man standing next to us at the bar was the man who had tortured him systematically for two months, several years earlier. I said to him, “How can you possibly know? You always told me that you were blindfolded throughout.” He said, “Well, when somebody pushes your head down into shitty, icy cold water until you nearly drown five times a day, and when they apply electrodes to your genitals three times a day, you get to know them by the way they breathe, by the way they walk into the room, by the tenor of their voice. And I know that man is the man who tortured me.” That story is from a long time ago and from a different country, but I have met people in Northern Ireland who have faced exactly the same. Those people have never had an answer. They have never had a moment when what happened to them and their loved ones has even been recognised in the public domain.
This Bill is not about one group or another. It is not about special favours for one group or another. It is about honesty, candour, the pursuit of justice and, most importantly, truth, because in the end, only truth can really set us free.
Alex Burghart
It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. To do that, I want to take us back to what the last Government tried to do in 2022 with the legacy Act, which set up the ICRIR, with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers; most of them were obviously members of the public—people from all communities. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on.
When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working.
I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family
“into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”
That is what I am proud to say the institution established by the last Government has managed to do. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working.
There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is not subjective. The evidence must be new as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, in a way that will impact the outcome. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective.
The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. The veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this Bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment there are no veterans groups that support the Bill as it stands.
As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat.
There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out.
I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.
Hilary Benn
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has handled these two days of Committee consideration with such skill, grace and understanding. The fact that the temperature and the temper of the debate over the past two days have been markedly different from that which we experienced previously is, as I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday, a sign that the Government have listened, and that point has been recognised. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and other Government Departments for all the work that they have done on the Bill. They are as fine a group of civil servants as I have had the privilege to work with.
I mentioned yesterday my first visit to WAVE, when Sandra Peake, that wonderful human being, sat me down and said, “Hilary, one of the things that you need to understand is how intimate the violence was in Northern Ireland.” The story that we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—indeed, the stories we have heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members over the past two days, and over the past 28 years—is proof of that. But today is a chance to recognise that this issue can now finally move on. I have said to the House many times that if dealing with legacy was easy, we would have done so a long time ago. It isn’t. It is really, really difficult; it is really, really hard.
The last group of people I want to thank are all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for the contributions they have made, because responsibility falls on all of us to get this right in the interests of the people who sent us here to represent them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Kohler
I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart): it has been a huge honour to be part of this debate over the past two days. I have heard so many profound, moving and thoughtful speeches—it has said so much about this House. I thank the brave veterans who did so much during Operation Banner to preserve the rule of law and keep people safe.
I also say this to every victim: I hope you find the solace you require, the truth you demand and the justice you deserve. Those things are utterly important. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for the constructive approach they have taken throughout. We often disagree, but he has always been helpful and constructive, which means a lot to everyone in this House. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill, because it our view it still does not do enough to protect veterans or to promote reconciliation and justice for victims. For that reason, we hope that more will happen during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Much can be done to improve the Bill, and I hope the Government are still listening.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.