Tuesday 18th November 2025
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateMonday 27th April 2026
(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 13th October 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
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.]
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.
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.
Monday 19th October 2026
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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—
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.
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.
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.)
Tuesday 20th October 2026
(5 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNorthern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.