House of Commons

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 20 October 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin, I know that the thoughts of the House today will be with Helen Haines, the Member of Parliament for Indi in the Australian House of Representatives who has been critically injured following an incident outside her electoral office. The safety and security of elected officials is crucial, and must remain a focus for us all. My thoughts are with Helen, her family and our Australian colleagues and friends. On behalf of the House, I have written to the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, Speaker Milton Dick, to express our sympathies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the interim leadership of the Northern Care Alliance NHS foundation trust.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I absolutely endorse your comments about our colleague, Mr Speaker.

I know that my hon. Friend and many other colleagues are deeply concerned about the issues at Northern Care Alliance. As of June this year, the trust has been placed under the highest level of regional oversight and support from NHS England. It is imperative that rapid movements are made, governance systems are strengthened and that every patient receives the standard of care that they deserve.

[Mrs Blundell]

My constituents are very concerned about Northern Care Alliance hospitals. Across the trust, there were 10 serious incidents between 2025 and 2026 that were found to be wholly preventable, lengthy delays causing severe harm to patients and industrial action, culminating in a sustained decline in performance and national rankings on patient safety. What options are therefore on the table if the trust does not show urgent signs of improvement?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights on behalf of her constituents the number of issues that have led to this significant regulatory intervention and support. If necessary, further action is available to NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. We want to ensure that the focus now is on supporting and challenging the trust to make the rapid and sustained improvements necessary in those key areas. I know that my hon. Friend and our other colleagues will work closely with the trust on this; I always encourage MPs to work closely with their trust to ensure that that happens. If necessary, other measures will also be available.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to regulate funeral services.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

I also join in your words in support of Helen Haines, Mr Speaker.

In the wake of the horrific cases we have seen in Hull, Leeds, Kent and elsewhere, the Government have announced that we will bring forward comprehensive proposals to ensure respect and dignity for the deceased in every setting, including proper regulation of the funeral sector, because everyone deserves dignity in death and every bereaved family deserves certainty that their loved one is being treated with care and respect.

[Rachael Maskell]

This question comes with warnings of distressing content. When people die, we expect the deceased to receive the highest level of dignity prior to interment, but the lack of statutory regulation is resulting in a few engaging in poor practice. The Co-op funeral service and independent providers have raised significant concerns of a new model of low-cost cremations and mass storage facilities—as proposed by a new establishment in York, which could store 700 people—with evidence of poor practice, poor care and poor handling of the deceased within these facilities. Will the Government meet me and funeral directors so that we can prevent the York site from operating and set high regulatory standards for services for the deceased?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter; Ministers will certainly be happy to meet her and her constituents on it. I am aware of and concerned about the issues she raises, and I do not think that families are being given the full information about some of these practices and provisions. This goes to the heart of why we need new regulation arrangements in place, so that everyone can have the confidence that their loved ones are being shown the respect and care that all of us would want for our families.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

Any regulation of the funeral sector must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on small, local providers. How will the Department ensure that any proposed regulatory framework is proportionate and does not unfairly increase costs for independent funeral directors across my constituency and the country?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member raises an important issue. It is vital that we get this right, which is why we are currently holding consultations and discussions across the funeral sector. We know that there are funeral providers across the country that do an incredibly caring and compassionate job looking after families at the most difficult time; we are working with them, and we will update the House in due course. This is why we have established the principle of regulation, but getting the practice right, working with the sector, is very important.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to improve maternity and neonatal care.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

19. What proportion of Best Start family hubs provide Healthy Babies support.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

The Government are determined to give every child the best start in life. We will appoint an independent maternity and neonatal commissioner and publish an action plan covering every area identified for improvement from pregnancy to post-natal care. We will also go further, rolling out Sure Start health services for parents and babies into every family centre across the country, reaching up to 1,000 family hubs over the next two years.

[Rosie Wrighting]

The maternity ward at Kettering general hospital faces significant challenges such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, overheating during the summer and flooding during the winter. We urgently need to see the maternity ward rebuilt and the money raised by families for a bereavement suite put towards a safe space for families in the most difficult of times. I thank the Secretary of State for all the work she has done on national maternity services. Will she meet me to discuss those specific challenges and ensure that my constituents get the maternity service they deserve?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend to talk about maternity services. I pay tribute to her as well, because she has been a tireless campaigner for improving maternity services and, in particular, bereavement suites for families at the most sensitive times. I also pay tribute to all the families in her constituency who have been involved in those campaigns. Work is under way for a new maternity and neonatal facility in Kettering general, which will include a bereavement suite. We want to work with the hospital and the community on that.

[Tom Hayes]

A new report by the Centre for Young Lives advocates putting health at the heart of every childhood, including putting Best Starts, Healthy Babies and remaining children’s centres on a statutory footing. Given that health services have structural advantages in providing capital management and getting new services up and running, what greater role can health services play in integrating services at Sure Start level?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. Having been responsible for the roll-out of the original Sure Start programme, I am still angry with Conservative Members who supported the closures of Sure Starts across the country. We are now restoring health services and the Healthy Babies programme to family hubs across the country, because health interventions from the work of midwives and health visitors and work on post-natal depression is crucial to the start of a child’s life. I hope that this time round we will have cross-party consensus as we expand those services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The chief executive of NHS England and I toured the John Radcliffe’s maternity unit this summer. The building is in a dire state: women give birth in rooms with no windows and no toilets—and where there are toilets, they often flood. In fact, Valerie Amos said that it was the worst she had seen as part of her review. The trust leaders are clear with us that they want a new maternity unit. May I invite the Secretary of State to come to Oxford and see for herself? If she has not got the time for that, will she at least have a meeting with me and the trust leaders so that we can discuss how we can move the project forward?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will happily meet the hon. Member. I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its work on maternity services. Clearly, some of the issues are about capital investment, and we are substantially increasing that to improve the safety of units and facilities, including maternity units. We also want to see higher standards of care not just in labour wards and maternity units but throughout pregnancy. I am happy to meet her to talk about those services.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

On maternity, two things will stick with me. First, there was the briefing from Donna Ockenden on her report, which was shocking. The other was listening to bereaved mums saying how they are tired of telling their story over and over again, and I hope we can find a better service for those parents; equally, there was the treatment of dead babies in the mortuary in Nottingham. Will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to ensure that those shocking things never happen to any family ever again?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the right hon. Member’s points. I know that he has championed those issues both on maternity care and on bereavement. Like him, I have also spoken to some of the bereaved families from Leeds, where the Ockenden review is under way.

The issues that the right hon. Member raised about babies and mortuary services, as well as funeral services for babies, show the importance of the broader response to the Fuller inquiry and the regulation of funeral services more broadly. We do need to take action. I am happy to discuss that with him further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

This week, Matthew Hopkins, who, until November 2025, was the chief executive of one of the worst performing hospital trusts in the country and is now the acute and ambulance network director of NHS Alliance, was reported to have said that the closure of at least 20 rural maternity units was “inevitable” and the “right thing”. In North Devon, we have seen the impact that closures have on women in labour, who have faced an hour and half of driving on country lanes with many turning round to give birth in A&E—a sign of the national maternity crisis being out of control. Rather than agreeing to closures, will the Secretary of State review how we staff rural maternity services to improve safety and protect women, and will she meet me and rural Liberal Democrat MPs who are fighting to protect mums and families?

[Yvette Cooper]

The work that we have done since the election has significantly increased the number of midwives across the country, which we rightly need to do. I have also been clear to the NHS chief executive that the NHS, regionally and nationally, needs to do everything possible to help reopen North Devon maternity services. I know that work is under way on trying to increase recruitment and support local recruitment. There is a broader issue about ensuring, particularly in more rural areas, that proper recruitment and maternity workforce plans are in place. We need to ensure, and mums need to know, that the services are there for them when they need them, including at the time they go into labour. That will be part of the approach that we are taking to maternity services.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of primary care provision.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to improve access to GPs.

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

We now have the highest number of fully qualified GPs since 2015, and almost 16 million more GP appointments were delivered in the last year than in the 12 months before the election. As a result of that investment, 77% of people now say that they have a good local service. We know that there is more to do, especially in rural and remote areas, but there is clear progress against our 10-year plan.

[Alan Mak]

Vital NHS services, including scans and X-rays, have been removed from Oak Park clinic, which serves every resident in the Havant constituency. Will the Minister meet me and support my campaign to restore those vital services so that my constituents do not have to travel to Portsmouth or further afield?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have looked at the issue around Oak Park community clinic and I know that he has met the integrated care board. I am told that all options are being considered to provide a sustainable and accessible solution for diagnostics at the Oak Park site, but I am happy to meet him.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am concerned about NHS England’s GP list cleaning programme and its impact on London specifically. Putney GPs have told me that in the last six months, 344,000 patients have been taken off GP lists, 44% of whom are in London. Some are taken off after not responding to a single letter. That means that they do not get cancer check-ups, vaccines or GP care. Something is going on with the London part of the GP lists. Will the Minister pause, review the programme, look into it and meet me and other London MPs to talk about it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly with regard to vulnerable patients, but it is important that GP lists are as accurate as possible. We think that there are around 6 million more registrations than England’s population and most people flagged are confirmed to have moved abroad. Strong safeguards are in place, including no patient being removed on the basis of a single indicator or because they failed to respond to one piece of correspondence. Overall, it takes more than five months from identifying a patient who may no longer reside to deregistering them from a practice system. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

One thing that hinders access to and the effectiveness of primary care is Labour’s mandatory use of single point of access—so much so that a safety watchdog has linked it to deaths. After those on the Government Front Bench dismissed the concerns raised by Conservatives, it turns out that an investigation has been set forward, with the NHS Strategy Unit asked to look at the matter. Will the Minister set out the terms of reference that the Strategy Unit is using, the timeframe and when this House can expect to hear the answers to ensure this is done safely?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this. He will appreciate that I am relatively new in post, but I am going to find out and I will write to him with the specific answers to the questions he has posed today.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Constituents in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Wharncliffe Side and Oughtibridge regularly tell me how important it is for them to have access closer to home to routine blood tests, X-rays, special educational needs and disability support, mental health support, NHS dentistry and mammograms, because of the poor transport links and delays in accessing NHS diagnostic services in Sheffield. Therefore, I was delighted to welcome Stocksbridge towns fund board members, local health leaders and experts to visit the 519 community hub site in our town. Will the Minister meet me to discuss our proposal for a community diagnostic centre in the new 519 building, to maximise its benefit to our community—mirroring the excellent Glass Works and Alhambra centre facilities in Barnsley—and to bring health to our high streets locally?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her local area and for ensuring that we have services close to populations and close to where people live. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help improve the health of young people.

[The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)]

We commissioned the independent Fonagy review, which made it clear that mental distress has increased for young people and particularly young women. That is why we have already improved mental health support in schools for young people, and we will publish a new mental health strategy by Christmas.

[Dr Opher]

As the Minister knows, over 1 million young people are currently on the mental health waiting list. In Stroud, and in the South Bank centre, I am working with clinical teams and creative teams to offer early intervention to these young people, with social prescriptions for music, art, access to nature and exercise, and indeed stand-up comedy. Following the Fonagy review, which recommends support in the community with lower-level clinical services and on an earlier basis, does she support those initiatives, and may I meet her to discuss them?

[Alison McGovern]

Of course my hon. Friend can meet me to discuss stand-up comedy—I would like nothing more. Clinical services are important. We are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest waits for children and young people, and we have had a 14% decrease, but good mental health for young people goes way beyond that. My hon. Friend knows that I love art, sport and culture as much as he does.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The new Weybridge health centre in my constituency, which is being rebuilt following the fire in 2017, was planned to provide a range of general services. When I visited it recently, I learned that the first floor still does not have tenants in place. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Phoenix family practice to discuss how we can ensure that Weybridge gets the best possible broad healthcare provision?

[Alison McGovern]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I always meet any Member who asks me to, but it may be that another Minister would be more relevant for the hon. Member’s health centre. We will check that and ensure he has the right meeting, because it sounds like a great community resource.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I start by associating myself with your remarks on the tragic events involving Helen Haines over the last 24 hours?

According to a recent report from Future Minds, more than 2.7 million referrals have been made since the last election to children’s and young people’s mental health services in England, with more than a third of those referred still awaiting treatment. How can the Government seriously claim to be tackling the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training while simultaneously overseeing the waiting list run out of control?

[Alison McGovern]

I refer the shadow Minister to the Fonagy review. It details the causes, which started before covid, of the rise in mental distress for young people. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest wait, and we have seen some successes with that, but we have way more to do to address this challenge. We will have more to say in the mental health strategy that will be published soon.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to support women affected by diethylstilbesterol.

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on diethylstilbesterol and to her constituent Jan Hall and her family. We recognise the serious intergenerational effects of exposure to DES, including increased cancer risks and reproductive complications, and we have asked NHS England and clinical networks to improve awareness of those issues and the people affected by them. We have commissioned an evidence review of the intergenerational effects of DES, which will inform our efforts to strengthen support in this area.

[Jessica Toale]

I thank the Minister for her answer and the constructive way in which the Department of Health and Social Care has engaged with me and campaigners from DES Justice UK, but I am still meeting women who are being denied breast cancer screening, colposcopies and other things that are essential for their care, despite the letter from the cancer alliance about DES exposure risk. How can we ensure that GPs and other health professionals are truly aware of the risks of DES, and that the women who need the support can get it when they need it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I recognise that some women exposed to DES still face difficulties accessing advice, monitoring and referral. Clinicians should consider individual medical histories, symptoms and risk factors. I had a look at the letter that was sent on 12 December explaining what more should be done by clinicians. I will again ask officials to look at whether we need to reissue that letter or whether we need to take any other action to ensure that the information about DES is spread as widely as possible among clinicians.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister is talking about ensuring that medical professionals are more aware of DES and the risks for those who were potentially exposed to it, but what is her assessment of the feasibility of tracking and informing those who were potentially exposed? My constituent Heather did not realise that she—or her mother—had been exposed until long after her mother’s death.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I just said, the Government are improving identification and support for people affected by DES by raising awareness among clinicians and strengthening the dissemination of existing NHS guidance. There are considerable challenges associated with recalling records from the 1940s to the 1970s, particularly because of the record-keeping practices of that era and the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had not yet been established at that time, but I am mindful of the point that the hon. Member makes.

[Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to increase the use of community hospitals and beds for step-down intermediate care.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of intermediate care, which is a key component of supporting patients into discharge to recover outside of hospitals. Community beds play an important role, but we are clear that home-based intermediate care also needs support, particularly for frail people, through neighbourhood health. That should be the default pathway, and we will continue to work with the system to make that happen.

[Dr Rushworth]

Ward 7 at Bishop Auckland hospital is an example of the NHS working—physios, nurses, healthcare workers and some excellent facilities—so we were shocked to hear that our local NHS trust plans to close the ward, move it to Darlington and break up that team. Will the Minister meet me so I can represent my constituents and the workers at that hospital, and raise those concerns with her face to face?

[Karin Smyth]

I am, of course, happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue further. I am clear that all changes to services should be based on clear evidence that they deliver better outcomes for his constituents and people across the country. He is absolutely right that we want to extend care closer to home. As I said, the default is to get more care into people’s homes, and I am happy to discuss that further with him.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Our community hospital in Fleet is doing a brilliant job, but it could be a much more established resource for local people, especially given the delays in rebuilding our local hospitals. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make the best use of community hospitals in North East Hampshire while we wait another two decades for the rebuild of Basingstoke hospital?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady is right that we absolutely want to get more care closer to people’s homes and into people’s homes. We want to support frail people in their homes before they even get into hospital. I am working with the integrated care board to make sure that all that happens. I am happy to discuss that further with her.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Step-down beds in community hospitals, such as the Chase community hospital and Haslemere hospital in my constituency, are vital. Unfortunately, neither of those two hospitals is being used for that purpose at the moment. At the same time, delayed discharges have hit an all-time high under this Government. More than 14,000 patients a day are stuck in hospital for two weeks or more after being declared fit to leave—that is up 12% since July last year. Behind every one of those numbers is someone who wants to be at home and an acute bed that another patient desperately needs. Why are the Government failing so abysmally at getting people out of hospital and into care at home?

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation deteriorated massively under the 14 years of Conservative government. He is well aware of the fragmentation of all our services. He knows how the system was fragmented and what happened under those reforms. He knows that is why we are trying to change it. He is absolutely right, though, that people being in beds in hospitals or in parts of the system where they should not be is not good for their health or their outcomes. That is why it is part of our three shifts, and that is fundamentally why the Prime Minister is very clear that we will raise social care up the agenda and ensure that people are treated more in their homes and in community services where they live. I welcome his support for our shift to neighbourhood care and to better care closer to home.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

8. What assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dentists.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)]

This Government have been working to rebuild the NHS dental service since we came to office. The latest data shows that 37.6 million courses of dental treatment were delivered last year—nearly 3 million more than at the time of the general election.

[David Reed]

Access to NHS dentistry is a major problem in my constituency, with 86% of the respondents to my dentistry survey being unable to access one. Some told me that they still travel back to their old NHS dentist after moving home and, in one case, someone took a trip of more than 130 miles because no local practice would take them as a patient. Unlike GP surgeries, NHS dentists have no catchment areas. Will the Minister please look at whether that is making it harder for local people to get an appointment?

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Member raises an important point—that is a theme in the work I am doing. Last year, 81% of those who wanted to get an NHS dentist were able to, but I recognise that too often people have to have an existing relationship with an NHS dentist to access that. Since the general election, the Government’s effort to tackle dental deserts has seen us ringfence £4 billion for NHS dentistry. Huge amounts have been done, but there is even more to do, and he has the Government’s and my attention on this matter.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since being elected, I have campaigned for a new dental school in the east of England. I thank the Government for backing that at the University of East Anglia with 25 new funded places. However, Norfolk is still a dental desert where people struggle to get an appointment. I have just returned from maternity leave and I could not get one when I was pregnant, and I am not alone in that, pregnant or otherwise. Can the Minister set out what the Government will do to ensure that constituents can get a dental appointment, and give a timetable for the reform of the dentistry contract?

[Mr Frith]

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome her back from maternity leave—what a time that is. I know that she has been campaigning relentlessly on the issue of dental schools, but also on addressing the dental deserts that we speak about so frequently. The east of England and south-east dental schools are incoming and will start to take on new students in September 2027. I look forward to their playing a part in strengthening dental provision locally.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the availability of radiotherapy satellite units.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)]

We want every cancer patient to benefit from high-quality radiotherapy regardless of where they live. There has always been a need to balance the objective of providing care closer to each person’s home with the imperative of maintaining access to the specialist expertise and technology needed for safe, effective treatment.

[Tim Farron]

In south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get radiotherapy. That is the lowest proportion in the country, and only 27% of them get that treatment within the 62-day target. That is all because my constituents have to travel to the excellent but far-too-distant Rosemere cancer unit at Preston, which involves daily gruelling round trips of up to four hours for weeks on end, effectively excluding many from treatment. This awful, unequal access costs lives. Will the Minister set out a plan for delivering new satellite radiotherapy units in areas such as mine, and will he meet me and our local hospital’s trust to help us to deliver our long overdue radiotherapy satellite unit at Kendal?

[Mr Frith]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about this matter. A theme is developing of the demands on treatment in rural and coastal communities, where people are expected to travel further, particularly those facing radiotherapy. It is the responsibility of ICBs, supported by our national guidance, to strike the balance that I spoke of between population needs, geography and inequalities. I understand that there have been recent exchanges between him and his ICB. I am happy to have a conversation with him about that and to lean into what options are available hereafter.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Under this Government 250,000 people are being diagnosed within 28 days, which we should welcome, but we must recognise that there is more to be done. This morning I met representatives of Prostate Cancer UK. In fact, I played football against them—

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Badly!

[Chris Vince]

That is true, although we did win. They made the point that so many men in this country are still dying of prostate cancer because they are not coming forward soon enough, and we know that the impact is even greater on the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. What can the Government do to support wonderful charities such as Prostate Cancer UK to cut the number of men dying of prostate cancer?

[Mr Frith]

It is an honour to have the opportunity to respond to the champion for Harlow. It also presents me with the opportunity to make clear that, contrary to reports over the summer, should men suspect that they have symptoms, they can go to their GP and seek a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test for prostate cancer. This is the first Government to launch a men’s health strategy, and there is more information to come. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House who have a strong record on this matter.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

10. What plans she has to improve continuity of care in the NHS.

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

One of the reasons the Government committed to bring back the family doctor was the importance of maintaining continuity of care for patients. I am pleased to say that the proportion of patients who say they are able to see their preferred clinician when they make a GP appointment has risen from 61% to 68% since the election, but we recognise that there is more to do, and this remains an important priority for the Government.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

Has the Minister read the Norwegian population study published in the British Journal of General Practice, which says that people who see the same doctor over many years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need emergency care and 25% less likely to die? It has been two years since the Government made the pledge to bring back the family doctor, but the basic structure of general practice has not changed. Can we see some changes in the next GP contract negotiations to bring back the system we used to have, in which everyone has their own doctor?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I recognise the enormous experience and knowledge of the former Secretary of State for Health and his work on this issue and patient safety more generally. The Department has started to look at expert advice, with a clinical working group, on how best to support continuity of care in modern general practice. I have not read the report that he referred to, but I am happy to go and have a look it. I am also happy to have a discussion with him, because it would be helpful to understand his thinking on what I know he considers to be a very important issue.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

Continuity of care in maternity services is based on women building relationships with maternity practitioners who meet them where they are. I would like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan): many obstetricians and midwives have been truly disappointed at comments from an NHS leader yesterday, who argued that more maternity units should be shut and that only consolidation of services can make births safer. Women in this country will not accept the industrialisation of our bodies. This Labour Government have promised neighbourhood and preventive healthcare, which has to include allowing new mums to feel rooted in the communities where they will go through their biggest physical and psychological change. Can the Minister assure me that our bodies will not be treated like a manufacturing supply chain to be optimised as she develops the asks for maternity services in this country?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Gosh, my hon. Friend made a very passionate statement there, and I absolutely agree with what she said. This work will be undertaken with the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we will look at all these issues. I hope my hon. Friend will feel able to contribute to that work if she wishes to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Continuity of care is desirable but not always possible, and in circumstances where it is not, a single patient record offers an opportunity to improve care, but it also brings the risk of unauthorised access to notes. We have seen recent high-profile cases where notes have been accessed that should not have been. That has led to people across the country worrying that this issue could affect them personally in less high-profile cases and about what will happen when the single patient record will be available nationally. How are the Government going to protect patient confidentiality?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a struggle to get from the original question to where we are, but the Minister is happy to answer.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will be mindful of your comment, Mr Speaker. What happened recently is totally unacceptable, and the Secretary of State has made that clear. My understanding is that those individuals who have accessed information about patients, and had no businesses to access it, have been suspended. Disciplinary action will follow, possibly with dismissals. Such actions are totally unacceptable.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Another issue that affects continuity of care is when patients remain in the emergency department for prolonged periods after a decision is made to admit them to a ward. That has gone up by over a third since the general election. Can the Government say why?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Times in A&E are being speeded up. The hon. Lady speaks with experience because she is a clinician, and I am happy to go away and look at that issue and write to her if there is information we need to let her have. My understanding is that we are speeding things up in A&E, and getting people through and on to the ward as quickly as possible.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

The national cancer plan sets out how the Government will continue to reduce waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, and use new research technology and clinical trials to transform outcomes. Alongside the Prime Minister, last week I met Archie Goodburn in Downing Street to discuss the new action that we are taking on brain cancer, and our determination to tackle every form of that cruel disease.

[Richard Baker]

That action will be welcomed across the House. Each year, about 20,000 men in Scotland are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and between half and two-thirds of them could benefit from focal therapy, which has a fivefold lower risk of harmful side effects compared with conventional treatments. Will my right hon. Friend share learning and data from the expansion of focal therapy provision in England with Scottish Ministers, as it is still not available in Scotland, despite NHS Fife being well placed to provide a national centre for focal therapy treatment in Scotland?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of improving prostate cancer treatment, which affects so many men across the UK. We are investing £2.8 million to expand access to focal therapy in specialist centres in England, and NICE will look at the progress that is being made. We would of course be keen to work with the Scottish Government on this, and for them to be able to see the same results. It is important that we continue to improve treatment.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Scott, aged 30, is a dad, a son, a partner and a much-loved member of the Banbridge community, but he is battling grade 4 brain cancer. Brain cancer is the biggest killer of young people under the age of 40 in the UK, and survival rates are lower than the average across all cancers. Access to clinical trials is negligible, with only 2% of brain tumour patients successfully accessing them. Will the Secretary of State expand brain tumour clinical trials across the United Kingdom, and ensure fair access across all nations?

[Yvette Cooper]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, who is obviously undergoing the most difficult of circumstances, and it is exactly because this is such a devastating condition that we have introduced a three-month rapid review of all the research and barriers to getting more patients into trials. We are of course keen to continue to work with the devolved Governments on this, because the research benefits us all right across the United Kingdom. We will be drawing up a framework to get drugs more quickly into trials, and to get more patients into those trials.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

12. Whether she plans to implement a redress scheme for people harmed by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are very interested in this issue, and as the new Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I am driving the work and giving the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner the urgent and thorough consideration that it requires. As has been stated, the Government are committed to making meaningful progress in this Parliament, and we are advancing non-financial redress to improve health service support for those affected.

[Chris Coghlan]

In 2006 my constituent, Ruth, had pelvic mesh implanted. It has corroded and caused her severe pain. She has been desperate for me to raise this issue with the Government. Three years ago, she paid for surgery to remove it but that has left her tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket and she requires more surgery. What steps is the Minister taking to implement the recommendations of the 2024 Hughes report, particularly if we are to give justice to pelvic mesh patients and support to those who cannot access the NHS compensation scheme?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very sorry to hear about Ruth’s experience and what she has gone through. Just last night, I watched the film that has been produced about the experience of a number of women—my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) provided a screening of it in Parliament last week—and the stories in it are harrowing. As I have said, I am looking at the issue. I am conscious that right hon. and hon. Members are interested in what the Government are going to do. The previous Secretary of State had made it clear that progress would be made by the end of this Parliament. That is as far as I can go today, but I am personally looking at this issue.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

From pelvic mesh to diethylstilbestrol, women have been harmed by a health system that has not and still does not listen to them, as starkly illustrated in Mumsnet’s recent report, “Medical Misogyny: A Lifetime of Failure”. Does the Minister agree that tackling medical misogyny must be at the heart of how we rebuild the NHS?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why we have revised the women’s health strategy. It makes it very clear that medical misogyny is not acceptable and that women’s voices must be heard.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to improve NHS maternity services in Devon.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

As I made clear earlier, we are determined to see support given to North Devon maternity services so that they can reopen to provide quality maternity care. It is the responsibility of the trust to ensure that safe staffing levels are in place, but NHS regional and national teams are also working to support them.

[Ian Roome]

I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about North Devon maternity unit. As the local MP, I can attest to how urgent reopening the centre is to the local community. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the plans under way to improve local recruitment. Will she meet me to update me on the work that is under way and will she update the House on the national workforce plan, which is long overdue?

[Yvette Cooper]

The national maternity and neonatal intensive support team has visited the trust to look at what more can be done. The trust has a particular issue with the recruitment of consultants, and measures that it had assured us would be put in place ended up not being effective, so it now has to take further action. It is important that it continues to do so. We will keep the hon. Gentleman up to date with all the measures that we are taking nationally, but I know he is also in close contact with the local trust. Hopefully, the continued local, regional and national pressure will ensure that those services can open as swiftly as possible.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)]

The covid-19 inquiry has today published its module 6 report on what Baroness Hallett calls the “devastating impact” of the pandemic

“on people receiving and providing care and their loved ones.”

My thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones in the pandemic, especially those who endured the immense distress and harm of visiting restrictions in care homes, which meant they could not be with loved ones even as they died. I also pay tribute to all those who worked to protect the most vulnerable in very difficult circumstances, from care workers to family members.

The report finds that the adult social care sector was in a “fragile state” and insufficiently prepared for a pandemic, and that social care was too often treated as “an afterthought” in comparison with the priority placed on protecting the NHS. We will provide a full response to the report’s recommendations in due course, but I agree with the chair when she said that

“for too long the adult social care sector has been undervalued and under-recognised”.

That has to end and I hope we can work across parties to support the Prime Minister’s vision for a national care service.

[Tim Farron]

The only way that children can be tested for metachromatic leukodystrophy and given lifesaving treatment is if their older sibling is diagnosed, at which point it is too late to save the older sibling’s life. That was the case for my constituent Nicola, whose daughter was diagnosed when she was already symptomatic. She died at the age of 13. Nicola’s younger son was able to be diagnosed and treated only because of his late sister’s illness. This cruel tragedy could have been avoided if the Government added MLD to the infant heel prick test. When will the Secretary of State do that? Will she meet MLD families and me so that she can hear from them at first hand about the desperate need for this change?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am very sorry for everything that Nicola and her family have been through. The hon. Member will know that the UK National Screening Committee guides the Government in screening decisions. It has looked at newborn screening and concluded that there is not yet enough evidence to include MLD in the test. However, it is awaiting evidence from pilot studies looking into screening for MLD and from the recently implemented Norwegian screening programme. I will look further at this issue and ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting with Ministers to talk about MLD.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

T2. My constituent Audrina Hatton-Wright is a 12-year-old cancer survivor. She has spent a huge amount of her childhood in hospital, where she has found that the food is sometimes not of a nutritional quality to support people’s recovery. She is running a high-profile campaign on this issue, which has taken her on to the BBC and ITV’s “This Morning”. Will Ministers meet me and Audrina to see where we can work on this issue together?

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I thank Audrina for the great work that she is doing, supported by the campaign. Food in hospitals is really important, and we would be very happy to meet Audrina. Well done to her.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

With a waiting list of more than 7 million, the NHS needs the sharpest focus on patient care and delivery, but Ministers have created disruption and distraction. I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State, because the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) had said no to a top-down reorganisation and then abruptly changed his mind without, it seems, thinking it through much. Within an hour of the First Reading of the Health Bill, he had hopped it, and now it falls to the present Secretary of State. Does she believe in the right hon. Gentleman’s plan, and does she still believe that NHS England will be dissolved by 1 April?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is a little rich coming from a Member who voted for the 2012 Andrew Lansley reforms, having promised no top-down reorganisations then doing one of the worst and most damaging top-down reorganisations ever in the history of the NHS. We are taking the Health Bill through Parliament; it is currently going through the House of Lords. We want to focus on frontline care, rather than the huge expansion of bureaucracy that we saw under the right hon. Member’s Government, which ended up absorbing money, away from the frontline, and creating far too much duplication.

[Damian Hinds]

I did not hear the greatest statement of belief that the deadline for that quango would be hit. Since the original plan, we know that costs are up, that transfer functions out of integrated care boards have been delayed, even though 8,000 people have gone, and that multiple mergers are on hold. NHS England may be the mother of all quangos, but it seems instead we are to get the sister of the mother of all quangos. The special health authority is a new, regional management tier, so does the Secretary of State still expect a net benefit of £1 billion a year in this Parliament? If not, what does that do to frontline health funding on top of the pressures we know about on pay and medicines? Is not the real cost here to patient care?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member’s party and the Government who he supported expanded the number of jobs in NHS England from around 5,000 to more than 20,000 in the space of just a few years. This Government are reducing the number of jobs in administration and bureaucracy in order to invest in expanding the number of clinical posts across the country and across our NHS. We are already making substantial savings, with further efficiency savings and productivity savings taking place this year. This Government are delivering lower waiting lists, more treatment, faster treatment and improvements for patients.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. East Suffolk and North Essex NHS foundation trust has made a £98 million application to the estates safety fund for a new maternity building. Our local services support the delivery of around 3,000 babies every year, but the existing building has not been fit for purpose for many years. Will the Secretary of State support our bid for a new maternity wing at Ipswich hospital, to make sure babies and families get the state-of-the-art services that they so desperately need?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about the state that these buildings were left in by the Conservative party, as Lord Darzi’s report made clear. We are investing unprecedented amounts in capital and giving greater certainty, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposal from Ipswich. It is up to local systems to come forward with plans, but I would be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Last week, ITV News uncovered devastating statistics showing that thousands of children are now being treated in hospital corridors. It shared the heartbreaking story of Finlay Roberts, whose parents spent hours in A&E waiting for help before he died—he was just two. As a mum, I cannot bear to imagine waiting and seeing your child deteriorate like that. The Roberts family deserved better, so will the Secretary of State confirm when we will see data on the number of children receiving corridor care, and will she commit to ending corridor care once and for all within a year and making children an urgent priority?

[Yvette Cooper]

The story of what happened to little Finlay is devastating, and what his family have been through is unimaginable. I reiterate the apology that I have made to Finlay’s family; this happened in the summer of 2024, but it is still devastating that it should have happened, and that he should have been treated in a corridor in that way. As the hon. Member knows, since earlier this year, we have been measuring corridor care for the first time, because we have to end corridor care—it is not fair on patients. I am introducing new assessments of corridor care involving children, because that has to be the urgent priority. No child should be treated in a corridor.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

T6. The steps towards expanding access to NHS dental treatment that the Minister outlined earlier are very welcome, but too many of my constituents still report that they cannot see an NHS dentist when they need one. Can the Minister therefore tell us what specific steps are being taken to improve dental services across the Bristol region?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)]

I recognise that too many of my hon. Friend’s constituents are struggling to secure an NHS dentist, despite the improvements that have already been made. Responsibility for commissioning dentistry sits with the local integrated care board, and I encourage him—through me, by all means—to reach out to the ICB and have a conversation with it. The Government have provided £4 billion in ringfenced funding for NHS dentistry, which has gone some way towards making the improvements we have seen, but there is plenty more to do, and my hon. Friend has my attention.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T3. Five years ago this month, Emsworth medical practice’s new building opened, thanks to funding from the last Conservative Government. Will the Minister commit to providing funding for the expansion of more GP surgeries in the Havant constituency?

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

There is money available for GP surgeries; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has already said, many of them were left in a terrible state under the previous Government. They were not invested in over many years. There is money available, and when I meet the hon. Gentleman, I will be happy to discuss that with him.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. Many hospital specialisms are increasingly shared between Eastbourne hospital and Hastings Conquest hospital, which is in my constituency. That means that the people I represent who do not drive are required to travel a long way by public transport to get to Eastbourne hospital—between 90 minutes and two hours, and that involves a lot of walking. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) shares my concerns about people travelling in the other direction. With so many services shared between the two hospitals, I am calling on the NHS integrated care board, the trust, and the Reform-run county council to look at providing a shuttle bus that would make it easier for people to travel between the two hospitals. Does the Minister agree that this is something health commissioners should look at when planning services?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can Members please help other colleagues to get in by shortening their questions?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to look holistically at the provision of services. We want more services closer to home, using technology, care in people’s homes and so on, but she is quite right to highlight this issue. I know that she will continue campaigning on it, and I hope everyone has listened to her, so that people can come together to help her constituents.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

T5. Bowel cancer rates are increasing among the under-50s. What targeted interventions are taking place to try to reduce such incidences?

[Yvette Cooper]

The national cancer plan, published by the Health Department, is about prevention, treatment and support, as well as, crucially, research. That research can benefit us across the United Kingdom.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

T8. I had the pleasure last week of meeting Her Majesty the Queen to discuss the importance of having fracture liaison services in every NHS trust, to which this Government have already committed. On World Osteoporosis Day, will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to develop the long-overdue national implementation plan for universal access to fracture prevention services by 2030?

[The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)]

It is no surprise to me, given my hon. Friend’s record of campaigning on this and many other issues, and the work that she did in opposition and in government, that she would be in such august company to discuss this matter. I pay tribute to her and all the campaigners, because osteoporosis can have a devastating impact on health. She knows we are committed to improving care, in particular by rolling out state-of-the-art scanners, and I am sure we will meet soon to discuss it.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Government propose to abolish Healthwatch and bring its functions inside the Department and local NHS bodies, but patients need an independent champion who can challenge things when they go wrong. What savings does the Minister believe will result from abolishing Healthwatch? How will she ensure that this does not result in the loss of an independent voice for patients?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am clear that there has to be an independent voice for patients as part of the health system. That is why I said on Third Reading of the Health Bill that the Government were looking again at Healthwatch and would report back in the Lords. We will do that shortly, in advance of the Committee stage.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

T9. As the Minister knows, I work with a lot of dying people and their families, so good palliative care is important to me, as it is to my constituents. Recently, this House turned down an opportunity to expand end-of-life care, with some opponents citing the state of palliative care as the reason for voting against assisted dying. What is the Minister doing to improve palliative care, particularly in the light of recent announcements about a national care service?

[Alison McGovern]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work with hospices and others on palliative and end-of-life care. I think everybody right across this House wants to see it improved. We have a modern service framework on its way, and as part of the national care service that we are working on, we will make sure that we care for the dying in a much better way in this country.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I recently visited Newmedica in my constituency to see the vital role that independent providers have in offering NHS-funded eye surgery and care. With the Health Bill progressing, what assurances can the Minister provide that it will strengthen the right to choose across all providers and ensure that ICBs make full use of all the choices, which my ICB is not?

[Mr Frith]

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question. The Government are protecting choice in the Health Bill. It is a chance also to affirm the independent sector and the vital role that it plays. Optometry is not an add on to the NHS; it is an important part of the health ecosystem. I am happy to have further conversations with him.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

As we approach winter, it is even more important that we minimise pressure on hospitals. In Welwyn Garden City, we have an urgent treatment centre at the new QEII, but it is in a modern building, and I believe that it has the capacity to do more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to look at the resources that we could provide to the new QEII to provide greater community care?

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend may know, we have just announced £140 million of new investment in urgent treatment centres and same-day emergency services. That is exactly to ensure that we are easing the pressures around accident and emergency, which went up substantially this summer, linked to the extreme heat. I know that Ministers would be happy to discuss his local proposals with him.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her recent confirmation that the renal dialysis service would remain at Hinchingbrooke hospital in my constituency during the build under the new hospital programme, but I am conscious that it is not in the scope of the actual new hospital and may not be there in the longer term. Can she offer me some assurances that this vital service for constituents will remain at Hinchingbrooke? If not, is any provision being made to ensure that this local resource stays available?

[Karin Smyth]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman found that correspondence helpful. As he knows, I am keen to discuss the new hospital programme and its progress with all Members. I am sure that discussions about the renal service at Hinchingbrooke continue to take place locally, and that those involved will continue to work together. I know that the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch about the progress of the discussions on behalf of his constituents, and I am happy to talk to him about the issue.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Blackpool Victoria hospital desperately needs more money, because the ICB’s funding for hospital trusts does not account for the 20 million tourists or the complexity of care required. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the hospital receives its fair share of extra funding from the ICB?

[Karin Smyth]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of her constituents. We are moving the system governing hospitals such as Blackpool away from deficit funding so that it becomes well governed and managed, in line with fair shares allocation, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Torbay hospital, which serves my constituency, is one of the oldest parts of the NHS estate, and the Devon and Cornwall fire services recently ruled that its tower block would now be unsafe in the event of a fire. A quarter of the beds in the hospital are in that tower block, so patients are now being moved. Staff are extremely worried about what will come next, and this is making the hospital much less viable. Will the Minister meet me, and other Devon Members, to discuss its future funding, and the need to make it safe and secure and ensure that it continues to operate?

[Karin Smyth]

I have met the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) to discuss this matter. Obviously, money has been allocated. We are well aware of the hospital’s position, and it is also part of the programme. I shall be happy to provide further information if the hon. Lady is not clear about the allocations that have been made.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Demand for surrogacy from the UK is leading to the exploitation of women in countries across the globe, including Ukraine, Nigeria and Mexico. Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment on when legislation will come to the Floor of the House, so that we can play our part in ending that exploitation as soon as possible?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are clear that no surrogacy arrangements should place any party at the risk of exploitation, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides guidance on the risks of overseas surrogacy and the steps that intended parents must take to return to the UK with their child. The Government have no current plans to legislate to prevent people domiciled in the UK from entering international surrogacy arrangements.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Under the last Conservative Government, upwards of £300 million, which would have been lifesaving as well as life-changing for many of my constituents, was earmarked for the new Watford general hospital. The lack of those funds, combined with the closure of the urgent care centre at Mount Vernon hospital, means that many of my constituents are not now receiving the first-class healthcare that they would reasonably expect. What assurances can the Minister give local residents?

[Karin Smyth]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and others for their campaigning in that part of north-west London and elsewhere. The movement of services is now firmly part of the programme, and the people of Watford will have the services that they deserve. Discussions are continuing, and I shall be happy to update the House on the final decision as soon as possible.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Percy, a five-year-old constituent of mine, wrote to me ask whether gluten-free products would ever be provided on prescription for people with coeliac disease. What steps is the Minister taking to address postcode variations in the provision of gluten-free food by integrated care boards?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The national position in England remains that gluten-free bread and mixes can be prescribed on the national health service for eligible people diagnosed with coeliac disease. As my hon. Friend says, ICBs can restrict or end the prescribing of gluten-free food, but I am happy to discuss this matter with her.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Department has thus far refused to publish the impact assessment associated with the US-UK pharma deal. May I ask what the Government are trying to hide?

[Mr Frith]

The first nation status that we have with US pharma is an advance on the usual relationships—it comes with huge benefits—but I should be happy to take away more specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman may have following a conversation after today.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful that the Department has moved swiftly to identify the issues with the supply of Bedrolite from Bedrocan, the company in real difficulty in the Netherlands. I understand that there is confidence in supplies until 2027, but my constituents say that that may depend on whether someone has an NHS or a private prescription. Would the Minister and his officials meet me to go through these processes, some of which, from my constituents’ experience, have been very bureaucratic?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Ensuring sustainable supply for so sensitive a medicine to address epilepsy is uppermost in my mind. It is a live situation, I am working at pace with officials, and I will update her accordingly.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The fire service and the Care Quality Commission have now served legal notice against the tower block at Torbay hospital, and more than 100 beds are under threat. With that new information, this is now a crisis at Torbay hospital. Will the Minister please meet me and other Devon MPs to help navigate this crisis?

[Karin Smyth]

I recently met the hon. Member, and as he knows, we are absolutely committed to working with the local system to do that. I absolutely commit to updating him as soon as possible if he is not aware of where we are on that. I will get something back to him very quickly.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

For those considering suicide, the message must be that there is always another way, but with new Office for National Statistics data showing that the rate of suicide in Cumberland has increased yet again, would Ministers meet me and Cumbrian Members to ensure that our health system is providing support to all when they need it?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. On such an important issue, I will of course meet him. We have had a number of very important debates on this issue, which shows how important Members across the House think this is.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It can take far too long for patients to receive a diagnosis of Lyme disease. My constituent Gill, who is a nurse, gave her life to the NHS, but it failed to diagnose her and she had to seek treatment from abroad. Will the Minister meet me and Gill to discuss what went wrong?

[Mr Frith]

I will, of course.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

The damning ITV News investigation of failings in disability care covered the case of Adam Crook, son of my constituent Joanna, who raised serious allegations about alleged assault and unexplained burns, yet these serious concerns remain unanswered. The care home still has not been inspected since 2021 and the provider has faced no sanctions. Will the Minister please ensure that this is investigated, that the CQC acts and that those responsible are held accountable?

[Alison McGovern]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his question and, through him, to pass on my concerns to the family he mentions. I will write to him on what the CQC is doing. Baroness Louise Casey has recommended some safeguarding steps that we should take urgently, which we are doing—we have a new national safeguarding board—and I will draw the chief social worker’s attention to the case he mentions.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Constituents in North Herefordshire and across the country want an end to the current postcode lottery in access to adult social care. The King’s Fund published a report on equal access just last week. Has the Minister read that report, and does she agree that social care needs to be locally delivered, but nationally funded?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The research is good, and the crisis we are seeing in some hospitals as we turn the ship around is because we have not grappled with the issue of social care. We must make sure people are cared for in their own homes, and we must do that consistently to help our NHS.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will Ministers meet me to discuss the future of East Cleveland hospital and what other services we can get closer to our community?

[Karin Smyth]

Yes.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to regulating funeral services, but for Jewish and Muslim families, burying a loved one quickly is a religious duty, not a preference. Will the Minister ensure that faith communities and burial societies, such as the Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire in my constituency of Leicester South, are consulted directly, and that the new legislation does nothing to delay burials?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point, because people’s faith needs to be respected as part of ensuring that they have dignity in death and that they and their families are treated with care and respect. We will ensure that this issue is part of the consultations under way at the moment, and this will certainly be a central consideration in ensuring we have an effective regulation system.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

This month, we heard that Wareham’s chemotherapy clinic will reopen early next year, following two years of campaigning, meaning that patients across Purbeck will no longer have to travel long distances to access cancer care. Building on that success, will the Minister work with me to finally restore the rheumatology clinic at Swanage community hospital, so that many more patients can access care much closer to where they live?

[Karin Smyth]

I am always keen to discuss and visit places in Dorset with my hon. Friend. I am happy to look, with him, at the integrated care board’s overall plan for the provision of all those services.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I recently met pharmacists in my constituency, who expressed concern about the resilience of the supply chain, and specifically about wholesale suppliers spreading rumours, with the result that medicines are stockpiled, forcing up prices. In this case, it was Ramipril, but this is an issue across the board. It is the British taxpayer—our constituents—who suffer. Is the Secretary of State aware of this issue, and has she considered getting the Competition and Markets Authority involved?

[Mr Frith]

Medicine supply chains are complicated, global and highly regulated. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about price and prospective profiteering, I would be very happy to speak with him in more detail. The overwhelming majority of medicines are in good supply.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite increasing demand, the previous Government scrapped plans for a new health centre in Sinfin, denying our community the care and capacity that it deserves. Will the Minister confirm that this Government are taking a different approach, providing the NHS services in local communities such as Sinfin and beyond?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. That is a core part of the neighbourhood health offer that this Government are making. We have already announced, in wave 1, a number of neighbourhood health centres; wave 2 will be announced shortly. This is absolutely key to keeping people out of hospital and providing healthcare in local communities.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The unit of dental activity formula is broken, pushing dentists out of the NHS every single day. In Epsom and Ewell, there is a dentist who is restricted from providing NHS dentistry by the UDA quotas. Will the Minister reform the dental contract now, and incentivise NHS dentistry?

[Mr Frith]

The Government remain committed to longer-term reform of the dental contract. We have to look much more at the outcomes that we are commissioning, and not simply concentrate on units of activity, which have not aged well and are part of the problem that we are trying to address.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

In 2022 in Oslo, a monument was unveiled to Cecilie Flatval, a woman with incurable breast cancer. This weekend, I met my constituent Sylvia, who survived breast cancer and has fundraised extensively through Race for Life. Will the Minister meet me and Sylvia to discuss how we can support a similar monument in the United Kingdom?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This is a moment to recognise the progress that has been made as the result of a huge amount of work across our NHS and in research, but there is still a long way to go. I will ensure that he gets the ministerial meeting he seeks.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

On Saturday, I joined hundreds of people in King’s Lynn in protesting against leaked plans for Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group to downgrade accident and emergency and maternity services, and the intensive care unit, at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Does the Health Secretary agree that services should be as local to people as possible, and will she reject any plans to remove services from the QEH?

[Karin Smyth]

I am aware of the issues around the hon. Gentleman’s local hospital; I have worked with him closely as part of the new hospital programme as well. It is up to local systems to decide on the clinical pathways across the whole patch. Those decisions must be clinically led, and there must be consultation with local people. I am very happy to keep an eye on that, and to talk with him in the future.

Point of Order

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

12:45

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 28 April. I am awaiting a response. I think I have been pretty patient. Could you give me some advice on exactly what I can do to elicit a response?

[Mr Speaker]

That is totally unacceptable. Whichever side of the House a Member is on, they are carrying out their duties on behalf of their constituents. I hope that the Government Front Benchers have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order. The message is going out loud and clear. If she does not get a reply very quickly, she should come and see me. There are other ways that we can find out why she has not had an answer. I say it once again: this it is not acceptable.

Bills Presented

Artificial Intelligence (Consent and Misuse) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dawn Butler, supported by John McDonnell, Leigh Ingham, Dan Aldridge, Iqbal Mohamed, Dr Simon Opher, Wera Hobhouse, Emily Darlington, Clive Lewis, Lee Barron, Carla Denyer and Margaret Mullane, presented a Bill to make provision about a requirement for consent to generate a likeness of a person using, or with the assistance of, artificial intelligence; to make further provision relating to that requirement; to make provision about civil action in circumstances where that requirement is not met; to make provision about offences relating to the creating or dissemination of such likenesses; to make provision about duties on providers of artificial intelligence technology in relation to misuse of that technology to generate likenesses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 161).

Utilities (Social Tariff) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Graham Leadbitter, supported by Kirsty Blackman, Brendan O’Hara, Seamus Logan, Lara Bird, Dave Doogan and Chris Law, presented a Bill to require utility companies to provide social tariffs for energy, broadband and mobile bills to support customers who are disabled, elderly or on a low income; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 162).

Perinatal Mental Health Assessments Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Laura Kyrke-Smith, supported by Dr Danny Chambers, Anna Sabine, Michelle Welsh, Lewis Atkinson, Paulette Hamilton, Maya Ellis, Andy MacNae, Sojan Joseph, Sarah Hall, Dr Simon Opher and Jen Craft, presented a Bill to require the provision of mental health assessments in NHS antenatal care for the purpose of identifying those at risk of perinatal mental health problems and making referrals to appropriate support; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 159).

Social Security (Marriage)

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:50

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriages, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives, in the social security system.

I have brought the Bill to the House to correct an extraordinary fault in our welfare system—one so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need legislation to address it. We do not yet know what the Government wish to do in this area, but I hope that if the Bill passes today, they will not oppose it on Friday 13 November.

We should begin with a simple question: what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principles of making a contribution, of responsibility, and of providing security for hard times. You pay into a system and help sustain it, and it is there for you when you need it. Alongside that, help is there for those most in need—those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system that Members on all sides of this House could agree to—a system that is contributory and compassionate. How far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system? Can Government Members—or any other Members—point to where in the Beveridge report it is envisaged that a man’s third or fourth wife be supported? Where was any of that when Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system?

Some Members take a different view on Beveridge. They have never seen a benefit of any kind, for anyone, that they did not want preserved at any cost. They are unable or unwilling to say no. Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes. I hope that when they see a system that gives special treatment to men with multiple wives, and potentially to incestuous marriages, their inner conservativism will break out.

We are talking about provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages and make allowance for additional spouses—a second or third wife and onwards. We are talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer for social security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages, which are illegal in the UK. We chuck around welfare payments to such people with abandon. Taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth we are doing.

The Bill is about polygamy, but it is also about overseas marriages between close relatives. To one of my written parliamentary questions, which I know Ministers appreciate dearly, I received an extraordinary answer. What did a Minister say about overseas marriages between an uncle and his niece, or an aunt and her nephew—marriages that are illegal in the UK—being recognised in our welfare budget? They said it was “unlikely”. Frankly, “unlikely” is not good enough, especially when Ministers cannot give me an answer on how many polygamous or incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system.

The standards at issue here are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604, more than four centuries ago. Marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriage Act 1835, nearly two centuries ago. Our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. When Parliament has rightly drawn those boundaries, surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them.

I have brought to the House this Bill, backed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put it beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes.

How did we get here, when such marriages are illegal in our country? How did it come about that we recognise them if they were conducted overseas? The situation developed as a result of common-law rules and decisions made by courts. As in so many other areas, these decisions were probably well meaning, but this situation is completely inimical to a cohesive society and a coherent polity, and anathema to the values of our country. The beautiful thing about our country and Parliament is that we are sovereign; Parliament can legislate to remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong. Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our welfare system recognises, and that is the signal that this House should send, clearly and explicitly, through the law of this country.

Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention? Instead, we are bundling cash, first class, to men with multiple wives, and to those who made an uncle-niece marriage overseas. Let us take a sensible step to address the issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, which is rooted in compassion and the principle of contribution, and in the values of our country. It is not there to pay for cultural practices that are illegal here. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives. I believe that Parliament should put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that the House supports the Bill, and that the Government do not back away from it, but instead support it on its Second Reading on Friday 13 November.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Richard Holden, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Helen Whateley, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Tom Tugendhat, Katie Lam, Dame Rebecca Harris, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien present the Bill.

Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 163).

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee (Progress reported, 19 October)

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, HC 162; Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of Session 2024-26, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716; and Correspondence from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on the Government’s amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, reported to the House 12 October.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable.

Clause 72

The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 73 to 76 stand part.

Government amendment 232.

Clause 77 stand part.

Clauses 78 to 81 stand part.

Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and

(h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”.

Clause 82 stand part.

Government amendments 233 to 235.

Clause 83 stand part.

Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.”

Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(ab) for subsection (2) substitute—

‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’

(ac) Omit subsection (3).’”

This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process.

Government amendments 236 and 237.

Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert—

“(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68.

Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12.

This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission’s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings.

Government amendment 238.

Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.

Government amendment 239.

Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.

Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless—

(a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(b) in their view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert

“, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert

“who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”.

Government amendment 240.

Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70.

Government amendments 241 to 243.

Clause 84 stand part.

Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 85 to 87 stand part.

Government amendment 244.

Clause 88 stand part.

Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions.

Clause 89 stand part.

Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out

“does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”.

This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice.

Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106.

Clause 90 stand part.

Government new clause 49—Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

Government new clause 50—Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences.

Government new clause 51—On the run letters.

Government new clause 52—Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles.

Government new clause 53—Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces.

New clause 7—Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”).

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must—

(a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom;

(b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service;

(e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces.

(3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

(4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.

(5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces.

(6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.”

New clause 12—Duty to promote reconciliation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act.

(2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to—

(a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future;

(b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and

(c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors.

(3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Legacy Commission;

(b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;

(c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.

(5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.”

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.

New clause 22—Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence—

“(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where—

(a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and

(b) no new and compelling evidence has become available.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which—

(a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and

(b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome.

(3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that—

(a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and

(b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed.

(4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the public interest in finality of investigations,

(b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and

(c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).”

This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened.

New clause 30—Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate—

“(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with—

(a) an investigation under Part 3;

(b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or

(c) a resumed inquest under Part 7.

(2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence.

(4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual.

(5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification.

(6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means—

(a) the relevant Director of Investigations;

(b) the relevant judicial panel member; or

(c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).”

New clause 31—Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans—

“(1) This section applies where a decision is made under—

(a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons);

(b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations);

(c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or

(d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests).

(2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section.

(3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to—

(a) the Attorney General for England and Wales;

(b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who—

(i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and

(ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland.

(4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may—

(a) confirm the decision;

(b) quash the decision;

(c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.”

This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland.

New clause 54—Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”).

(2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to—

(a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act.

(b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed.

(c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.”

This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26.

Government amendment 245.

Clause 91 stand part.

Government amendments 267 to 275.

Schedule 6 stand part.

Clause 92 stand part.

Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “,

(ea) F is a grandparent of D,

(eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D,

(ec) F is a niece or nephew of D,

(ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”.

This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.

Government amendments 246 to 248.

Clause 93 stand part.

Government amendments 249 and 250.

Clause 94 stand part.

Clauses 95 and 96 stand part.

Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert

“and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”.

This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46.

Government amendment 251.

Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met.

(3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on—

(a) a cross-border body on information retrieval,

(b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána,

(c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.”

Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.

12:58

[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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[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 (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, all right.

[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?

13:15

[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.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

rose—

[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—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Amen.

[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.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[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.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you.

[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.

13:30

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am always in favour of consistency, and I am sure that that is how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their guidance.

Finally, I look forward to listening to the further contributions of hon. Members today as we continue to consider amendments and that clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. I really hope that we are able to get the Bill right today. It is about achieving a balance, and I hope that that is what our amendments will do.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.

In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.

Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill.

Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.

I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles-related crimes. On the question of those who have escaped across the border, I have had opportunity to mention Gerry McMonagle. He was taken to court for the murder of Hugh “Lexie” Cummings in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and in the time it took to correct it at the Omagh court, that gentleman escaped across the border. He has risen to be a significant member of Sinn Féin. He has been the mayor of Donegal county council. The fact of the matter is that he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? Should this not be one of the cases on which the Republic of Ireland works with the Government here, to ensure that that man is jailed?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working

“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]

I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.

All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.

Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee should be aware that the Omagh families are this very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish Government’s perspective as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?

[Alex Burghart]

That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.

Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.

In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.

Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.

The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I just want to make sure that I understood him; he said that inquests have not dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, they have: the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill inquest brought truth to families almost 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. If we are going to talk about this, let us talk about it in the round.

[Alex Burghart]

I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman.

In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on.

Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that the Government will at the very least accept that, where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the legacy commission.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very mindful, as we often are in Northern Ireland, of the experiences we have with many people. I think of the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan. The person who did that was Colum Marks. When Colum Marks was later in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC in Downpatrick, he was shot. He deserved to have that capital punishment in Downpatrick. The family should never try to engineer an inquiry for someone who was quite clearly the head of the IRA in the area. When he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He is burning in hell today—couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

13:40

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said last week:

“If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.]

There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?

[Alex Burghart]

While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.

Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday.

I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it:

“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”,

but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations.

The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?

[Alex Burghart]

The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential.

The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.

[Alex Burghart]

Finally, a bit of order!

[The Chairman]

Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.

[Chris Bryant]

Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.

[Alex Burghart]

As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.

[Chris Bryant]

I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.

[Alex Burghart]

it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—

[Chris Bryant]

No.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.

“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.

Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was

“eroding the will to fight”.

In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I clarify the point the hon. Member is making? Is he putting forward an argument that if special forces are not allowed to do whatever they want, in whatever theatre, outside legal boundaries, people will not join up?

[Alex Burghart]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.

[David Davis]

Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.

This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure.

I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.

I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues.

Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. Our family’s experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community, inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and, yes, hope that lie at the heart of this debate.

This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments.

The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this Bill and all the amendments before us with care, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.

12:39

It is true that the Bill was not perfect when I wrote my speech for its Second Reading back in November 2025. I am grateful for the conversations that the Select Committee and I have had with the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, and the current Secretary of State and his Ministers, which has allowed us to put together amendments that strengthen the Bill and ensure that it delivers the justice and the answers that families—and I mean all the families—deserve. I therefore welcome the Government amendments today, particularly those that have been developed through engagement with veterans’ groups and organisations such as WAVE—Widows Against Violence Empower—which is based in Belfast and led by the excellent Sandra Peake, who was here just last week.

This Bill must be used to set a path that honours the memory of those who suffered, recognises the service of those who served in our military under instructions to keep the peace, supports victims and survivors in seeking answers, and helps Northern Ireland move forward. We must ensure that this legislation does not simply close down what happened before but opens up the possibility of a shared future. We must seek to shape a legacy framework that respects the voices of victims and of survivors, and that includes those who served and those who lived the troubles.

My colleagues on the Committee and those of us with family and friends in this wonderful part of our country have heard at first hand the fear in the streets, the loss of loved ones, the sense of lives put on hold and the depravity of war. Those conversations have influenced the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and our Committee colleagues. I have also heard the resilience and compassion of the decent people who call Northern Ireland home. This is important, and there must never be any rewriting of history: there is no equivalence between those who served to protect life in our armed forces and security services, and the terrorist organisations that set out to kill people.

New clause 54 reflects the recommendations of the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions carried forward from the 2023 Act. I hope the Secretary of State will engage with that when he winds up the debate.

Amendment 277 is, in many ways, about people. It would ensure that a legal definition does not get in the way of as many people as possible who were impacted by what happened in Northern Ireland getting the support, truth and answers they deserve.

I am pleased that the Bill will reform the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, to make it legally robust and build real and meaningful confidence. New clause 49 requires a joined-up approach between the Directors of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, ensuring a consistent, rigorous approach, and it has my support.

New clause 50 applies well-established prosecution principles of independence and public interest. It has my support, too, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has adopted it. I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his work on this. Clearly, judging by the plaster cast on his arm, he was so excited by the Secretary of State accepting the amendment yesterday that he celebrated a little too hard, but I hope he is well.

[David Davis]

You should see the other guy!

[Adam Jogee]

We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today.

The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier.

The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.

It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.

We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government.

Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree.

I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point. Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently.

My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this?

As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill. I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct.

The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice. In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution. If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers.

Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles.

The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened. Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing.

Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation.

I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.

14:15

Our new clause 12, which we will vote on today, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish a reconciliation strategy within six months of the Act coming into force. If the Northern Ireland Office seizes the initiative, consults a broad range of stakeholders and ensures that reconciliation is a top priority, new ideas and approaches will emerge and can be tested, and we can then embrace more formal structures of restorative justice. As Drumcree shows, communities across Northern Ireland are still not fully reconciled. I believe that a new approach should be tried, one that incorporates principles of restorative justice. Restorative justice is not an easy process, or appropriate for everyone, but the power and healing facilitated by meeting those who did you wrong, and explaining the impact of their actions, can be hugely beneficial.

I also tabled new clauses 18 and 19, which would allow individuals to request access to restorative justice processes when they interact with the legacy commission. The Secretary of State responded to my suggestions, telling me that he did not wish to overburden the legacy commission. He is concerned that restorative justice “might compromise” the commission’s

“effective use of its resources, and prioritisation of its operations.”

If the Government genuinely wish to help as many families and survivors to find closure as they can, they must find the resources to ensure that restorative justice processes play a much more central role in the work of the legacy commission. I appreciate that money is tight, but the cost of inaction is high; it was £5.5 million to police Drumcree, for example. It is surely better to invest in our future generations, and build a Northern Ireland where children never again know the sectarian divisions that their forebears lived through.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The peace that Northern Ireland has today rests on the reconciliation process that we have seen in recent decades, civil rights and the rule of law, as well as the recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, and with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition.

The peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They did not go from Sunderland to Northern Ireland to be on either side; they went because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland. They stood on Northern Ireland’s streets, overwhelmingly as a protective force, on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians, on constant alert against those who were trying to kill. Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1,441 of our British service personnel died; 722 were killed by paramilitaries.

I listened carefully to the debate yesterday. As others have said, there were many fantastic and moving contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is not in his place today. The contribution that moved me most, and most closely reflected the experience of my veterans in Sunderland, came from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is not in his place today. He described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland, and not knowing, when a civilian raised their hand, whether they were making a purely innocuous gesture, or about to throw an incendiary device. That was the experience of the constituents I met at our local Gunners Club in the recess just gone, for a two-hour roundtable to discuss the issue.

The reality is that without the Army’s deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far more bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced. Those who served held the line for decades—long enough for politics to finally take its place—and we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is not right to set veterans against victims, and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves. Serving both, and all, allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, but that will take changes to the law, through this Bill, and full co-operation and transparency from the British and Irish Governments.

I am clear that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed on multiple counts. It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland, and it undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation, which recent weeks show is still absolutely essential. It also failed victims of every background, including the families of the British soldiers murdered by the IRA in Guildford and on the M62, whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous Government’s legacy approach; indeed, they were part of the legal action against it.

Many who came home still carry the cost. In the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their life still, and how, when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge from the British state. The reality is that there were 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, and six prosecutions of them. However, too often since the Good Friday agreement, it has felt as if the legal system was built to scrutinise the split-second actions of frontline soldiers—process as punishment. At the same time, comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people the soldiers were sent to protect civilians from. That system has also felt focused on individual frontline soldiers, not on failings in the chain of command, although in some cases, its decisions profoundly affected civilians. Those who served with honour deserve to live out their life in peace, with our country’s thanks, not fearing a knock at the door. They were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous Government, and they did not feel that the Bill as introduced was appropriate.

In that spirit, I have engaged with our Ministers on this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), over the past year. For a significant time, I was clear, in our private meetings, that I could not support the legislation unamended. I sought many amendments, and some of them were discussed yesterday. New clause 32, which was agreed to, is clear that action taken in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. New clause 43 sets a tight time limit of 14 days for an application for judicial review; that will give some clarity about whether be lawfare can take place long after legal proceedings seem to have closed.

I am pleased that the amendments that we are discussing today go further on the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the past year. As the Secretary of State said, under new clause 50, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles-related offences without the consent of the Attorney General. That applies to everyone, so it is not an amnesty. The peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group. The new clause offers a senior independent check from outside Northern Ireland’s politics. That will go some way towards winning the trust of veterans who have lost faith in the system. The reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions.

A second point about the amendments that we are considering today is that they offer no special exit for terrorists. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the collapse of the trial on the Hyde Park bombing—an attack that killed four soldiers—was the result of an apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly said that such terrorist action was always wrong; there should never have been any doubt about this House’s condemnation of that. Veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying that they were not wanted. That ends today.

Thirdly, and for most veterans most importantly, there will be an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday’s amendments mean that investigators must go through the state’s own records first, and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence. Under new clause 84, which we are discussing today, a resumed inquest must not repeat what has already been done, unless that is essential. I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should not be made to relive the same night, and answer the same questions, every few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) underlined, there will be protections for veterans against cold calling and returning to Northern Ireland, which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion.

I will support the Bill, as the amendments are sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans. However, the Bill cannot be the end of Parliament’s interest in the issue. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South about how the changes will be kept under review. I welcome the fact that under amendment 251, there will be an independent inspection of the legacy commission, and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish Governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in the Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part in holding both Governments to their promises.

If this legislation passes, veterans will have significantly more protections than at any time since the Good Friday agreement—protections written into law, and protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some veterans feel today that we are not yet there; too many have been told that. My local veterans’ charity receives calls from people who served 30 years ago who have never been subject to any questioning or doubt. They have been picking up the phone and saying, “What’s this I hear about the Government wanting to come after me?” What they have heard is clearly not accurate. Of course, I respect the right of anyone in this House to scrutinise the Government through each of our votes.

However, anyone who says that they care about veterans’ welfare is acting absolutely shamefully if they scaremonger, raising fears among 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about their conduct, and the honour with which they served. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring; the latter does no service to our veterans, and I hope that the rest of the debate is the former. Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they laid, through their service, that the reconciliation that we see across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue. In honour of those who have served and every victim of the troubles, I will support today’s amendments and the Bill tonight.

[David Davis]

I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his speech. While I disagree with some of its substance, I agree with a lot of his sentiment, and his support for our veterans is welcome.

May I thank the Secretary of State for his telephone call at home to tell me that he was going to support my amendment 50? I should have realised—I have been here long enough—when I looked at the Order Paper for amendment 50 in the name of David Davis that it would have become Government amendment 50. I feel as if I have been nationalised. It is the only time that I will approve of a nationalisation. I thank him for that.

I commend the Secretary of State for the elegance and tone of his speaking over the past couple of days. This is the most formidable and difficult of Bills facing the House, as I think anybody would recognise, and he has navigated it with great charm. He has reinforced my view that he should have been in the Cabinet long ago, and I thank him.

[Gavin Robinson]

He has already signed it, David—there is no need to lick up.

14:30

[David Davis]

I am trying to do as much damage as possible. [Laughter.]

I stand to speak principally to amendment 51 and, to some extent, to amendment 49, which would stop existing paused inquests going forward. Amendment 51 would address directly the paused inquest relating to Loughgall. I picked that event out because it is the most controversial and central to what the IRA were trying to achieve. It is emblematic of many of the reasons why we should not pursue any of these inquests, but should put them in their proper place with the legacy commission, which could deal with them dispassionately.

Before I go any further, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and not just this year but in previous years. They relate to the fact that I was the trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for well over a decade—I cannot remember how many years.

All parties in the debate so far, yesterday and today, have quite properly focused on the need to get closure for victims and, at the same time, to deliver justice for our veterans. Nobody can argue with those two aims. I am focusing mostly on getting justice for veterans by preventing them being punished by the process, but, before I pursue that line in detail, I will address some of the words and definitions that we are using, particularly the definition of “victim” in the operation of inquests in Northern Ireland.

We all have in our minds a fairly clear idea of what a victim is, but unfortunately it is a little different in Northern Ireland. The difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government in article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which changed the definition of “victim” and ruled that anyone affected by the troubles through loss, trauma or injury would be classed as a victim. That means that proven murderers killed in an attempt to carry out another murder count as victims. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.

This issue is still relevant. In September last year, the Democratic Unionist party used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. Most of us would think of that as a tautology, but the motion was defeated by Sinn Féin, supported by Alliance. That is incredibly central to this matter, because the word “innocent” exposes the truth and draws a line between terrorists and their victims.

In response to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, “veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms, but “terrorists” and “victims” are. That is the significance of the amendments I am talking about. In the IRA active service unit killed at Loughgall, there were any number of people to whom that applied. The clearest example was Jim Lynagh, who was guilty of at least 20 murders and probably more than 30. His nickname was “the executioner”. He was not an innocent victim by any rational judgment of the word.

Why Loughgall? It was the greatest single defeat of the IRA—the one that they are most sore about and still feel the scars of. Why is that? Because it involved the defeat of what they considered their most successful unit, the East Tyrone brigade. What was the measure of that success? That so-called brigade killed 250 innocent people. The defeat at Loughgall was seen as a humiliation for the IRA, and that means that they are now desperate to rewrite history and cast their murderers as heroes and British soldiers as amoral killers. That is why they want a coroner’s inquest, rather than a legacy commission.

I am afraid that in Northern Ireland a coroner’s inquest is in many ways public theatre; it is just different. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), made this point, but I will reiterate it. In the rest of the United Kingdom, an inquest is not allowed to pursue a case if it becomes at all apparent that it may lead to a criminal prosecution, such as the finding of an unlawful killing, but in Northern Ireland the reverse is true.

Even Northern Irish judges recognise the ludicrous nature of that situation. We saw that in the Coagh case with Soldier B, where there was judicial review attempt after judicial review attempt, which led to the judge talking about the

“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”

The judge in that sequence talked about having to make views or judgments in slow motion or freeze frame on decisions. Those were life-and-death decisions, for the individuals concerned, and they were made in fractions of a second. That is the central reason for my objection.

Why are operations such as Loughgall, Clonoe, Coagh or any of the others challenged by supporters of the IRA and others? The peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland made this sort of operation necessary. How is that? The IRA knew how to frustrate justice. They would murder or intimidate not just anybody who thought that they might be a witness, but their families. If I were in that circumstance in Northern Ireland, I would baulk at giving evidence if I felt that my family might be murdered as a result of doing so, and I would baulk at serving on a jury for the same reason. That is why we ended up with Diplock trials, which had judges without juries, because that was simply not viable. When Diplock recommended those trials, he gave the example of a man who was executed in front of his young son the day before he was due to give evidence in a terrorist trial. That is the background and the circumstances.

However, the IRA did not stop there. They understood that, as well as witnesses, the other thing that matters in court cases is forensics. That is why they wore a strange uniform of boiler suits, rubber gloves, shoe coverings or wellingtons and balaclavas, because they knew that they had to deny the evidence, but that was not all. When they had carried out their crime, the cars used were frequently abandoned and burned to destroy the evidence. There are plenty of examples—I think Clonoe was one of them—where a crowd prevented the authorities from getting close to a car until it had burned out, for the very simple reason that it destroyed the evidence. Even in the case of the murder of a previous Speaker at Stormont, Norman Stronge, and his son, the IRA set fire to the house, with the same aim.

[Mr Campbell]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the IRA’s determination to deal with forensics, does he know that they also blew up the forensics laboratory in south Belfast, where the forensic information had been gathered?

[David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That serves to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy. This did not happen by accident, and the IRA did not just take to wearing boiler suits as uniforms; this was a deliberate strategy.

The IRA’s strategy faced the state with a conundrum. Doing nothing and sitting back does not work—if the jury processes and other judicial processes do not work, that is not an option. Why do I say that? Let me go back and take the East Tyrone brigade as an example. It killed 250 people before Loughgall. During the late ’80s, it was killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant that 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state was not fulfilling its duty, so the only way to stop it was to catch the East Tyrone brigade in flagrante—in the act of carrying out a crime—and try to arrest them. Of course, the first aim of the state is always to act with minimum force if possible, but the circumstances did not always allow that. This was an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody, who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, “Excuse me, you’re under arrest.” We saw from many of these events how dangerous that was. At Coagh—the case that went through all those judicial reviews—an SAS soldier effectively had to dress up as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.

At Clonoe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned, there was another problem: the intelligence was wrong, which made it even more difficult. There they were facing a double-barrelled dushka machine gun, .50 calibre and capable of bringing down light armour or aircraft. A three-second burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. That was the sort of thing we were asking our soldiers to do. I will come back to the Loughgall example, which is even worse in many ways. That was the sort of thing that we said to our soldiers, “You must do this to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if you have to.” This is not theoretical; in the specific context of the special forces, which is what these three cases relate to, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland. If Members want to look into this, I recommend that they look up the example of Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot at the moment of challenge, or that of Captain Westmacott. There are others, but those cases give the Committee clear examples of the sorts of risks that had to be taken—and were taken—by our brave, honourable, decent and law-abiding soldiers.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?

[David Davis]

I agree with David Johnstone—by the way, I think he is a very brave commissioner. His predecessor was effectively fired for standing up, and he is still standing up. He is right, and to go off on a slight tangent, our other enemies learn from this, as we are seeing elsewhere in the world today. If we are not very careful, we will end up without one of the best parts of our armed forces, because we ourselves will have destroyed it.

Let me come back to Loughgall. The aim at Loughgall was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who would be coming off shift at 7 pm—the attack was timed for 7 pm. It was not the first such operation, but the third; it came after Ballygawley, where the IRA shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station, and the Birches, where they machine-gunned the station—fortunately, they missed people—before blowing it up. At Loughgall, the IRA team attacked the police station in two units. One unit was in a van, carrying a team armed with automatic weapons with the intention of killing the three police officers as they came off duty, and the other unit—of three men, I think—was in a JCB-style digger that was carrying in its bucket a 300 lb to 400 lb bomb.

The attack happened at 7 pm, when the police officers were due to come off shift. Inside the station at the time, because of intelligence that was known, there were three police officers and three SAS soldiers. To be frank, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage it takes to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by a 300 lb or 400 lb bomb. It is beyond my imagination, but that is what they did.

The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds; I do not know whether all of them were fired at the police station, but I imagine most of them were. Inside the station, people reported being hit by fragments of bullets as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. The digger then crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants. “Injuring” is too mild a term, frankly—one occupant had a fractured skull, while others had broken bones, and two of the soldiers fell about 10 feet on to rubble. Others sustained hearing injuries.

14:45

In the firefight that followed, all eight members of the IRA active service unit were killed. These are the people otherwise described as victims in this exercise. I have already detailed the worst of them, Jim Lynagh; rather than detail the rest, I will simply say that on forensic analysis, it was found that the weapons recovered after the event were responsible for 40 to 50 killings—killings that took place in every single county in Northern Ireland. What was the effect of this operation? Well, the East Tyrone brigade had been responsible for more than 20% of the IRA’s activities and killings in Northern Ireland beforehand; afterwards, they were responsible for less than 10%. This operation saved lives.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I ask the right hon. Member to put on the record that another man, Anthony Hughes, was killed on that day in that operation? He was a totally, completely and utterly innocent civilian who was not involved in any IRA activity, or in any other organisation.

[David Davis]

I was about to come to that point, and I will probably come back to it again. That is the real tragedy of that day—he was the real victim, as was his son, I think, who was wounded as well. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with this, but one of the things about the British state is that we take our judicial responsibilities in these matters seriously, and we have prosecuted our own soldiers. The name Clegg jumps to mind, but there are others who were prosecuted and sent to prison even for acting irresponsibly, let alone malevolently. Of course that is the worst tragedy of that day—that is literally in my next paragraph. I will give the hon. Gentleman my notes after this debate, so that he can see for himself.

Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why I say that this case should go to the legacy commission. It is a really important thing to investigate, but it should be investigated in a cool, analytical manner, not in the theatre of the court. Why do the IRA want to have a coroner’s inquest rather than a legacy commission investigation? Because they were humiliated at Loughgall, and they want to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and British soldiers as the villains. Let me give the Committee an early sign of the sort of thing they will try to claim.

We have been hearing recently that these IRA people were only aiming to destroy the building—they were not aiming to kill anybody. That would have been completely different from the first operation, where they murdered people in cold blood before blowing up the station. That also does not explain why the IRA fired 78 rounds at the building—bullets kill people, not buildings. It does not explain why they were there at the shift change, when the RUC men were about to come out of the building. It is plainly nonsense, but it is the sort of nonsense that they want to perpetuate in a court. That is another reason why I would rather see the dispassionate actions of the commission than the activities of IRA lawyers in the courts.

[Carla Lockhart]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Loughgall is in my constituency, and he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA was the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. It is important to remind the Committee of the names of Eva Martin, Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, the four UDR soldiers killed by the Ballygawley landmine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, and Harold Henry of Henry Brothers, all of whom were murdered by these people. When we look at their CV, it certainly does not say that they were just going to blow up a building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh in this regard. He was under investigation for Sir Norman Stronge’s murder at the time of Loughgall. Pádraig McKearney had been convicted of firearms offences, too.

As we discuss this Bill, the Government have the opportunity to stop the second inquest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do the right thing and include within the legislation your amendment 51 to stop the second inquest and to show that when these people met real soldiers, it saved lives?

[The Chairman]

Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.

[David Davis]

I am very close to the end, Madam Chairman. The hon. Lady is exactly right, and that is the entire thrust of amendment 51. If I had had my way, I would have said that amendment 49 was better, because it would have stopped all these inquests. The amendments would not get rid of the investigations, but would put them into a better process, which the Government have designed.

I will finish on coroners courts. I have listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and the Committee can guess who I am talking about, but they are tough, intelligent soldiers. However, the court is not their environment, when they are being harassed by a lawyer not to get to the truth, but to get a story out of them. I spoke this morning to one of them who has been through more of these court cases than most, both inquests and judicial reviews. He told me that IRA lawyers are, in his words, “more interested in drama than justice”.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

No, not on this point. I am nearly at the end. I have already been rebuked by the Chairman for going on.

What that soldier said is, I am afraid, consistent with what I saw. I have never appeared in an inquest, but I have appeared in a Diplock court in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Sorry, am I being heckled? I saw the same: the lawyers were interested in rewriting history. The IRA would welcome the restarting of the Loughgall inquest. They would view that as a victory in its own right, because it would allow them yet another attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles.

I will make an aside, which in a way goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), although it is the converse of it. One of the soldiers at Loughgall got the military medal. In my view, many of them should have done, but he got it for putting himself at extra risk to save civilians and to prevent the death of civilians. That tells us what we are dealing with in relation to British soldiers in Northern Ireland.

My last point is that this operation was approved in detail by the general officer commanding, Northern Ireland. I believe that it was approved in detail by the Secretary of State. It was reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all of the information to hand—forensics, witnesses, the lot. We should remember that RUC people would not have been involved directly, but would have given witness statements. Do we want to run that through a circumstance where the evidence is degraded, where people’s memories have gone and where some have died? One of the individuals involved has dementia. Is that what we want to do, or do we want to do it properly, by dispassionate method, using an instrument that is designed for the process and that those on both sides of the House agree will work?

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

I thank all those who have contributed to what has been a relatively constructive debate over the past two days. It is not lost on me that our work in this Chamber, and over the coming days in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is about the legacy of the troubles, paramilitary transition and a 1990s parading dispute, as if we did not have problems and challenges to deal with in the present day. The sad reality is that despite the seismic changes in our part of the world over the decades, the past is not the past; it infects and affects politics, policing and public services every day. That is why we need to get through it. Most of all, it affects victims and survivors who, through all the decades of change, have been told to wait while the rest of society is allowed to move on, and while the murders of their loved ones are justified, explained away or minimised.

The truth is that for three decades, the needs of those with most to hide have been prioritised, rather than the needs of those with most to heal. It is not the victims who have dragged this out; the lesson that has not been learned by some in this House is that we are still at this three decades on precisely because the information that families need has had to be clawed and prised out of the hands of those with most to hide. For those families and for the Social Democratic and Labour party, this legislation is not about being obsessed with the past. It is not about raking over what has gone on. It is fundamentally about the future and our ability to move forward together. That is why we make no apology for supporting this legislation or for trying to make it better.

I will address today’s clauses and schedules, and some of the amendments and arguments that have featured in the debate, including on the passage of time and the trope about vexatious investigations, and some statistics relating to those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) rightly set out in powerful detail the healing power accessed by truth for the Hillsborough families and the meaning that that has had for them. Another fact that bears repeating is that tens of thousands of republican and loyalist prisoners went through the justice system for their terrible crimes—crimes that our party stood firmly against in the face of provocation and sectarian horrors from every direction. Nobody here is calling those people heroes. Imperfect as that justice was, it did take place. Those who wish to describe those people as heroes—none of whom are sitting on these Benches or anywhere else—are bolstered by the failure to show any sort of nuance, and by the blind defence of some of the most brutal killings of the troubles.

We understand the pride that many in this Chamber feel for the British Army. We understand that of the 300,000 men—mostly men—and women who served, the vast majority did go out to try to keep the peace and to serve. We also need to restate that the number who have been investigated is practically in single figures. We acknowledge that many of the soldiers were subjected to horrors. We acknowledge their pain and the interventions of many of their families who are seeking access to truth, the same as any other family, because that is what this is about—not lawfare and revisionism.

I have to ask people to be careful with their language, when they use terms like “IRA lawyers”. Do Members know what has happened to people in the past when they have been named in this Chamber as IRA lawyers? They were shot dead in front of their families. Can we have a little caution in some of the language we are using?

This Bill is about the healing power of information and the right of families to access it. That right was powerfully articulated not only in terms of the Hillsborough families, but in the report published last month into the murder of Rory O’Kelly, a founding member of our party. He was a decent man and a family man who represented the non-violent civil rights protesters. He was brutally murdered while attending a funeral in his hometown by the Provisional IRA, because of his belief in and his professional service to the rule of law. His case in the report, released last month with feedback from his family, gives some sense of the release and the comfort that families can find in investigations, even if, in that case, no prosecution follows. It should be read and understood by those who want to smear those who support this legislation as being republicans involved in IRA cheerleading.

We all know that prosecutions will not follow in most cases, but that certainly does not mean they should be off the table when the evidence leads that way. That brings me to the amendment that would design in a veto role for the Attorney General in London. That could undermine the processes we are legislating for today. Independence of the judiciary is a principle worth protecting in general, and especially in these scenarios. I appreciate that this is hard for many in this Chamber to hear, but the UK Government were not some neutral player. They were an active participant many times in our horrible conflict. How can families truly have confidence in in these processes when a veto belongs to a Government who they feel participated actively in the conflict and, on many occasions, covered up that information?

I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind-bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the co-operation that the Bill represents, up to and including some op-eds implying that it constitutes a move towards EU re-entry—a combination of some of the greatest hits that we hear in this Chamber. The fact is that the Stormont House agreement, signed in 2014, created the potential for the architecture that would make it possible to go through legacy processes and to capture some of the many themes and patterns that Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to highlight, and created possibilities for us to push back against some of the revisionism and counter-narratives that many of us oppose.

15:00

That legislation was not enacted. That architecture was not built by the last Government. We see the consequences of the practical implications when the two Governments are not on the same page and in lockstep. We see them in the current inquiry into Omagh. That makes clear what happens when the Governments do not act jointly, without the intricate and carefully designed terms of reference that the families deserve. Many of us are watching the inquiry in some distress, and noting the apparent missed opportunities to prevent that horrific bomb and the toll that it is taking on families. The SDLP is certainly not here to say that Irish Governments, past or present, have got everything right on legacy, but we are here to highlight the ludicrous hypocrisy of those who are decrying and, in many cases, inventing a lack of disclosure from Dublin while fighting tooth and nail to suppress every bit of information they can from this Government.

I will finish where I started, with the victims and survivors whom this is all about, and for whom all this is certainly not confined to history books. Of all the words written about the troubles, none get it more powerfully than the Ulster poet John Hewitt, who wrote in “Neither an Elegy Nor a Manifesto”:

“Bear in mind these dead:

I can find no plainer words.”

We cannot build reconciliation on concealment and secrets. We have tried that for the last three decades, and it did not work. We cannot ask families just to accept that the truth is too uncomfortable when the truth is about the death of their loved ones, and we cannot get to the other side of this ugly period without, unfortunately, going through it. This legislation, like this commission, is not perfect, but it is the last and best chance for those families, from all backgrounds, to try to move forward, and we commend it to the House.

[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.

15:10

I know the Secretary of State also has to deal with the Irish and the commitments that have been made to them—I do not underestimate those problems—but Dublin has responsibilities as well. If this process is going to have credibility, co-operation and access to information cannot run in one direction. I am yet to be convinced that Dublin will open its archives to expose the 30 years of cross-border activity that has taken place. I resigned from the Government in part because I could not support where we had got to on legacy. I did not do that lightly, and I have not changed my views simply because I now sit on this Back Bench rather than the Front Bench. I want the Government to get this right, and they should put these remaining inquests into the same system, keep the evidence and work that has already been done, and let the commission follow the evidence wherever it goes.

We have spent nearly 30 years trying to move Northern Ireland beyond the troubles. At some point, we have to leave the next generation something better than another set of processes through which to fight them all over again. For these reasons, I cannot support the Government’s plans for Northern Ireland’s legacy.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gavin Robinson.

[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.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, behave.

[Gavin Robinson]

It does.

[The Chairman]

Order.

[Gavin Robinson]

There you go; it is pathetic, Ms Ghani. This Committee will consider the amendments, but I have no doubt, given the lack of scrutiny and interest in most of what was before us yesterday, that they will be agreed on the nod—and then time will tell.

15:30

Inquests have already had a good airing in this debate. From the framework document, which seems to be the foundation of a lot of the measures involving the Irish Government, the numbers involved are clear. Nine inquests have already started. More recently, 20 inquests were directed by the Attorney General, and there are four remaining inquests from the previous five-year plan. There seems to be a working assumption in Government about how many will survive the Solicitor General’s sift, but we have not heard that figure today. It is incongruous: the Government rightly continue to say that the legacy commission complies with statutory obligations, discharges functions under article 2 and is good enough for everyone, but they also say that it is not good enough for a select few. I have not heard a satisfactory answer to why the Government are resisting the opportunity—given yesterday by new clause 55, or in this debate by amendment 51—to ensure that the legacy commission looks at all the cases, particularly given that there is an argument around consistency of approach.

The Government cannot say that they will defend to the nth degree—this was upheld in the Dillon judgment—the claim that the processes for everybody else are compliant, and then keep a select few inquest cases. The Secretary of State knows the danger of that, yet has not taken steps to deal with it. I tabled amendment 32, alongside my colleagues, to starkly illustrate the point that if this House wants protections that are intended to assist veterans and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, then it can have them. But we will see.

New clause 7 is an important reporting function. We heard Members chastise one another in Committee yesterday; some suggested that the clause would have a damaging and destabilising impact on the recruitment of our armed forces; others said that was nonsense, and that our armed forces had never been so healthy. I am not sure that there are many in this Chamber who would agree that our armed forces have never been so healthy. There should be no fear of new clause 7; it is there to assist us all. It does not pretend that the world is as we would like it to be; it is about the world as it actually is.

Liberal Democrat new clause 12 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. A duty to promote reconciliation is often overlooked. The old legacy Act had a reconciliation part to it; it was at the tail end, and it never gets focused on in this Chamber. That is a challenge for us all. It is a challenge for those in Northern Ireland who wish to reconcile, but do not want that to mean appeasement, or not having the right to stand up for our values. We need to hear some repentance for, or forgiveness of, the hurt done to people across our societies. I am not ascribing blame, but recognising that there is hurt on these issues, and a need for reconciliation. The Government’s mantra used to be that it is not for Governments to reconcile one person’s heart to another’s, but they certainly can provide the right basis and foundation for that to happen.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

The Good Friday agreement and the peace that we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We in this House are united by the debt that we owe to the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Many of them trace their story back to my patch, the home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, one of the IRA’s first attacks on mainland Britain, targeting the headquarters of the 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost. Their families, and all those who lost loved ones during the troubles, are in my thoughts today.

These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. That is why I have sat in this Chamber for all proceedings on the Bill over a year in this place, except for those on last week’s carry-over motion. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January, calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans; why I have spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations; and why I facilitated direct discussions between veterans’ groups, the Northern Ireland Secretary and No. 10, working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba).

I thank all members of our armed forces community who have engaged with me during this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association and its Aldershot branch, the Royal British Legion, and those watching our debate in the Gallery today. I have been determined to ensure that their voices are heard in this legislation. Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served; we have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in the new legacy arrangements; and we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were focused only on taking lives.

I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People; they have listened, engaged and acted. I wish only that we could have started from here. The Bill is much improved on the version that first came before this House, but I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will abstain on the vote on Third Reading.

There are some in the House who would do away with the Bill altogether. I would not, as we would then lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families—including hundreds of armed forces families—deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veteran’s charter, but I respectfully disagree with them. There must be accountability, but those who have dedicated their life to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their life fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that the legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve, and it is clear to me that there is still more work to be done.

We have heard in this debate about soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could still face yet another process. If this Bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause. As someone who is proud to represent a seat in which there are 5,000 serving personnel, I want those who serve today and in the future to know that we will always have their back.

[Chris Bryant]

First, I want to put on the record from the Dispatch Box the gratitude of the whole Northern Ireland team to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is sitting behind her, for the work that they have done. Some of the changes that we have made to the Bill at this stage would not have been possible without her contribution. She said that the process has not ended; I believe that, too. I undertake that the whole ministerial team and I will work with her and others, as well as with the Parachute Regimental Association and other associations, to get the Bill to the right place by the time it is enacted.

[Alex Baker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it.

I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration.

Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

We are debating the parts of the Bill relating to the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, inquests, and relaxations of the restrictions on police investigations. There is only one word to describe the measures in those parts of the Bill, and indeed the totality of the Bill, and I am afraid that is betrayal.

The Government demand much of their soldiers. They ask brave men and women to put their life in danger, and to sacrifice huge amounts. What do they get in return? We ostensibly have a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. The question really is: what do our troops get in return, at a time when the Government propose cutting the defence budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and are asking men and women to step up and serve as reservists? The truth is that this country treats our enemies better than our heroes. [Interruption.] I am afraid the truth is that our bravest people get treated worse than those who terrorise us. That is what the litigation shows and what the Bill reflects.

The reality is that these measures will build more architecture and more process, and the process becomes punishment. The measures perpetuate the retrospective prosecution—and persecution, if you will—of our brave troops, many decades after their national service. This extension of litigation and lawfare wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action.

When terrorists are planning to attack us, they have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it and how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, and they have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds to defend themselves and others. Now, many decades after those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials and Government Ministers are applying harsh rules to people who put their life at risk for our security. The decisions they made at the time were lawful; they were following orders and adhering to rules of engagement often set by their superiors, by officials at the Ministry of Defence or by Ministers, none of whom is being held to account decades after the act.



Let us remember: our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva convention and the law of armed conflict, and they are known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force. This legislation and, indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots and, as a result, dragging them through the courts.

15:44

Surely the cases of the late Dennis Hutchings and Soldiers F, A and C, some of whom were exonerated after several investigations over several decades only to be re-prosecuted on charges of murder, should provide a salutary warning to the Government that the measures in the Bill are not fit for purpose. They risk reopening historical investigations and avoiding the finality that many of our soldiers and many people involved in the troubles need and deserve.

It is not just me and others on the Opposition Benches who say that. So egregious are the contents of the Bill that the regiment associations, unused to getting involved in politics, have come out and strongly opposed the contents of the Bill. The SAS, the special forces, the Paras and the veterans associations have united and campaigned vociferously against the contents of the Bill, because they know that its impacts will be devastating.

In my part of the world, in Fareham and Waterlooville, and in Gosport, Portsmouth, Aldershot and Hampshire we have thousands of brave veterans and serving personnel. Many of them have spoken to me about their real concerns about the Bill. The truth is that many people from the veterans community—in fact, all of them—come from good, traditional, patriotic families. They are people who believe in standing up for what they believe in, and they believe that this Bill and this Government are betraying those values, targeting them unfairly and persecuting them through legalese, lawyers and lawfare, unfairly and unjustifiably. It is a slap in the face and, frankly, the contents of the Bill move the goal posts and make it an incredibly unfair piece of legislation.

I worked on this subject many years ago before I was an MP, as a barrister. I was involved in working on behalf of the MOD, defending our soldiers against vexatious and malicious claims brought by people in Iraq against our brave soldiers who were engaged in military action out there. Litigation and class actions—resulting in zero convictions, mind you—were initiated by Shiner, and Starmer and, I am afraid, Hermer were involved. That disgraceful trio should hang their heads in shame for the part they played in bringing legal actions, unfairly and unjustifiably, against our brave British troops.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the serious points that the right hon. Lady made earlier on was about the operational context in which people served. Does she welcome new clause 32 that we have tabled?

[Suella Braverman]

It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.

As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.

[Jim Allister]

Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. and learned Member puts it incredibly powerfully. The European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article 2. Article 2 protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It is an absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state-sanctioned and arbitrary killing. That was the right intention behind the article’s drafting. But, because of decisions such as the one he refers to and many more, article 2 has now come to mean that people are entitled to an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation and that families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as he says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of law-abiding citizens and the victims of terrorism. It is an absurdity, and that is why my position remains that we must leave the European convention on—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will not tolerate allegations of misleading, even from a sedentary position. Members must observe the courtesies of the House.

[Suella Braverman]

This Bill is, I am afraid, a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards from the legacy Act. It is really tragic, because the Government are asking for many young people to join up and serve their country, but why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They have shown incredible heroism, courage and bravery, on levels that many of us can never imagine, and they have always felt confident that the Government would have their back and that they would be supported by those whose orders they were taking.

Today, however, many people serving in the armed forces tell me that they seriously question whether the Government would indeed back them. When they take the decision to pull that trigger today, will they have the confidence that the Government will stand up for them, many years down the line? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? Today, frankly, they cannot be sure that the Government will support them in their acts of courage. I am here speaking on behalf of veterans in my constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me—[Interruption.] Opponents may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I am here representing what has been told to me by those serving on our frontline.

The first duty of a Government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the Government will stand by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This Bill has failed in that duty, and it should not proceed.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. During our year-long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. It is a message that has stayed with me and that I firmly believe.

That is why I tabled new clause 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Select Committee following our inquiry. It seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained in and carried forward from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

One message came through consistently during our inquiry: dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division. However, many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation provisions under part 4 will operate in practice. Questions remain about who will lead the work, how independence will be guaranteed and what projects will ultimately receive support.

New clause 54 asks the Government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to set out how the part 4 provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive Government funding. Those are not minor administrative details; public confidence depends on them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history; it is one of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process.

Families are also at the heart of my amendment 277, which concerns a matter that may appear technical, but is deeply personal for many of those who have been affected by the troubles. It, too, reflects a recommendation of our Committee’s inquiry. The inquiry repeatedly heard that the impact of troubles-related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades.

The Government have argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of those closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren, aunts and uncles have acted as parents, and extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss. Although we realise that no statutory definition can capture every circumstance, the definition should reflect that reality as far as possible.

The Select Committee heard evidence that the definition of “close family member” should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the Committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights.

Ultimately, this is not about legal definitions. It is about people—people who lost loved ones, who have waited many years for answers and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of the process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.

15:04

[Alex Easton]

I rise having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90. The test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for Government; it is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence? Does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny, however much time has passed? I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met that test.

Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it and, where new evidence emerges, to seek further answers.

We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort, despite the attempted rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism. In June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down, the constituency which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station. His name reminds us that terrorist violence has victims and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth.

That principle applies to every family regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and a confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is serious about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims before it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny and refuse to let any Government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.

Having looked at the clauses, I see that some have been improved. I recognise the provision for on-the-run letters—that is good, and I applaud the Government for trying to get that right. However, there are other areas where I still have concerns. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is not in his place, made a powerful speech, and I was very taken by his comment about the Irish Government and their Bill going through the process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill does not guarantee that victims, families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish Government. We are being sold a pup on getting all the information we need from the Irish Government. Labour Members can sigh, but in my experience, we do not ever get very much information from the Irish Government. I stand by that.

Many months ago, I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. That information, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier. The PSNI told me that it could not investigate that because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the legacy commission, but the legacy commission would not accept the case from me because, as an MP, I could not refer cases to it.

The only avenue for me to get this case looked at, because of legacy, was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgment of where this case is going or not going. That makes me suspicious that this very serious issue about legacy that I am raising as an MP is not being addressed, yet we are expecting this Bill to answer all the questions. I do not think the Irish Government will give us everything we want on this issue.

[Chris Bryant]

I will make sure that the hon. Member gets an answer to his letter by the end of the week.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Secretary of State for that, but I have deep concerns. It is not that I do not want truth or reconciliation. There have just been too many false dawns for me and my colleagues representing constituencies right across Northern Ireland, and I do not have a huge amount of faith in this process. For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the Bill.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to support the Government in this important debate. For my generation, it seemed as though the troubles were an intractable problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles; we had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland was geographically so close, and culturally close, but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday agreement represented such a massive breakthrough. Many Members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement—compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future.

The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday agreement, and it fulfils a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the troubles. It does so while being respectful of the families affected and providing a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way.

I know there are concerns from veterans and veterans’ families, but genuine protections for veterans ensure that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my constituency, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this Bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time and the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred. Importantly, veterans’ voices will be heard in a process rooted not in blame and recrimination but in truth and reconciliation.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I want to make some initial comments on new clause 50 and the role of the Attorney General. I will be fairly straightforward in my opinion on that: I do not support it, and I have severe concerns about where it will go—a political appointee and a member of the Government consenting to the prosecution of serious troubles-related offences.

New clause 50 matters greatly in Northern Ireland because it unpicks a key reform that flowed directly from the Good Friday agreement. The criminal justice review mandated by the Good Friday agreement was explicit that

“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters”.

That reform was not created out of nowhere; it was not in the abstract. It was a result of proven politicisation of the Attorney General’s power to overturn DPP prosecutions. A system that allows such disparity cannot be relied on, and that is why the Good Friday agreement sought to take that power away. New clause 50 would give it back. Our concerns about the new clause are not theoretical; they are based on past experience—experience that the Good Friday agreement had to rectify. That power for the Attorney General cannot be allowed to return.

Let me make some wider points. Yesterday, along with many others, I made the point that this cannot be a debate about victims versus veterans—I note there are still some veterans in the Gallery, and I wish to reiterate that before the Bill goes to the other place. I would posit a different version of events. We heard some excellent remarks from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), and yesterday the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) hit on the same theme. Many of the people who came to Northern Ireland to serve were teenagers, or people from largely working-class communities. People have sometimes told me that they felt uncomfortable in another part of the UK with how they were expected to react to events or to some of the conversation and chat around and among them, or even about them.

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) referred to the operation at Loughgall, which he said had been approved by the general officer commanding. That is something to consider. I know that some ground has been gained in the contemporisation of the operational environment in which people served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the British Army and the RUC, and for that I have the utmost sympathy, but we will not have a situation, will we, if something arises, where the GOC will be in the dock? That is just not going to happen, and I am not sure that that is correct, accurate or fair.

I want to have my final say on veterans, because there is a concept of natural justice at play and we should not seek to supress it. We should not seek to make that dirty or something that is at odds with every other member of society. Where I depart from some others is that I think something has entered the discourse. I have been involved with veterans for many years, and this is something that entered the discourse recently. I made this point yesterday and I will make it again today: some sort of thesis seeks to suggest that people who served inherently did something wrong that could lead to the so-called knock on the door 10, 20 or 30 years later. That troubles me deeply.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I have many veterans in my constituency, some of whom have come to talk to me, and I would like to quote from one, a chap called Michael Kingscote:

“There must come a point at which the country says to those who served: ‘You did your duty. The state sent you there. The state must not abandon you decades later.’”

I believe that is the very point.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, with which I think a lot of Members will have sympathy. It builds on the point I sought to make yesterday, which to me is completely related and concerns the national security veto. We know for a fact that through disclosure and other troubles legacy-related cases, some people involved with the security services and security forces at the time have said, “We are being forced to redact or stop disclosure of information that frankly in the court of public opinion makes things look a hell of a lot worse than they are.” That contributes to an ongoing narrative that takes me to the point I was making before the intervention, and the inherent thesis that everyone who served at some stage did something wrong. I do not think that that is the case—in fact, I know for certain that it is not—but as I said yesterday, we cannot have a scenario in which just because someone wore a uniform, that means that any wrongdoing should not be investigated.

16:18

Actually, it is veterans themselves who have made that point to me. I will reference one of them: David Crabbe, who was in this building yesterday with the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, has contributed a huge wealth of experience. In fact, I will mention another one: Mary Moreland, a constituent of mine, is a veteran in her own right, whose husband was shot dead—murdered—in cold blood by the IRA. If she is prepared to support this Bill, imperfect and all as it is, then so am I, because this is the last-chance saloon.

I want it to be known and I want it to be on the official record that some seriously insidious and disgusting things went on across all sides, and that includes the Government. That is uncomfortable to hear—and it is uncomfortable for me to say. I am going to use the allegory of Loughgall that the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington referred to. It was this part of the piece. IRA men arrive up, wanting to take life and to murder those who were serving the state to stand against the terrorists—I think most Members in the Chamber can agree that what they were trying to do was to stop terrorism—but here is where that allegory becomes extremely complicated and where I think we need to have a process and inquests and inquiries: there was one innocent civilian murdered in that operation and his name was Anthony Hughes.

That situation was replicated right across Northern Ireland. It is not black and white; it is shades of grey. That feeds into why I oppose the role of the AG in this process. What we can do for all citizens—every single person—is make sure that the law itself is our servant and that it serves everybody. It is a well-known fact—it should not be controversial to say it in this place—that, frankly, some members of previous Governments tarnished the justice system and made attempts to do shoddy side deals, which is why there was the issue of making sure that it was absolutely beyond all doubt that the on-the-run letters were null and void. That was an injustice to the court of public opinion that needed correcting, and I really appreciate the Government working with me on that, and with other hon. Members who had sought to make the same point.

However, we will never, ever know the extent of what went on unless we have full and complete inclusion in law for everybody, as it should be. That will involve the Government owning up to some pretty insidious things. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who is my colleague on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, said yesterday that he wanted to start by saying sorry. A former Taoiseach said the exact same thing to me: should we start by saying sorry? I do not think that that is a bad place to start—although I know some people will. It is not the role of this House to stop such an attempt. People recognise that through the passage of time and everything else, it will be highly unlikely that they will get any sort of justice through criminal proceedings, but they want that acknowledgment. I think sorry is a good place to start, but it can only be done if we have the truth.

[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.

16:30

Secondly, I come to inquests and the closure of the legacy commission. Government amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State’s power under clause 85 to facilitate inquests after the commission closes. The Secretary of State has had an exchange with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on that issue. For families, an inquest is not simply another investigation; it is a public judicial process through which evidence can be tested, state action scrutinised and the circumstances of a loved one’s death properly established. The Ballymurphy and Springhill inquests demonstrate the importance of that process, particularly where families have struggled for decades to establish the truth.

The Government may intend the legacy commission to provide an effective alternative, but we cannot assume that every case will be resolved before it closes, or that new evidence will never emerge. Why, therefore, remove the power to provide for future inquests? Again, I fear that a provision presented as offering finality and reassurance to veterans may be understood by victims’ families as the closing of another route to justice. How will the Government guarantee effective investigations where new evidence emerges after the commission has closed?

Thirdly, I come to disclosure under clauses 13, 17, 74 and 75. I welcome clause 13’s provision for full disclosure to the legacy commission, but that commitment must be meaningful in practice. The Secretary of State retains significant powers over sensitive information, including powers that may prevent material being disclosed to families. I recognise that genuine national security considerations must be addressed, but there is an obvious difficulty where the state retains the authority to prevent disclosure of information concerning allegations of wrongdoing by its own agencies or personnel. For families who have already experienced decades of secrecy, that is not simply a question of legal procedure; it goes directly to whether they can have confidence in the independence and credibility of the process. I therefore support amendments 87 to 101, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and amendment 65 from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). They would strengthen the scrutiny of disclosure restrictions and reduce the scope for executive interference.

Amendment 97, in particular, would narrow the national security test by removing the words “would risk damaging, or”. A speculative risk to national security should not automatically outweigh a family’s legitimate interest in establishing the truth. Clauses 74 and 75 must likewise ensure that families can obtain meaningful information about deaths without the Secretary of State’s powers becoming an obstacle to accountability.

I will conclude with a broader appeal to the Government. The Secretary of State is right to recognise the concerns of former service personnel, but reconciliation cannot be achieved by providing reassurance to veterans if the consequence is to deepen the mistrust of victims’ families and communities who have long questioned the actions of the state. Nor should we overlook how carefully the Good Friday agreement and its subsequent reforms sought to address the historical causes of that mistrust, including through the independence of criminal justice institutions.

Through the Bill, the Government have an opportunity to repair some of the damage caused by the legacy Act, and to rebuild confidence across communities. It would be a profound disappointment if the amendments introduced in the name of protecting veterans instead weakened confidence in access to justice and disturbed important safeguards arising from the peace process. I urge Ministers to reflect on those concerns, reconsider the amendments and ensure that the Bill strengthens, rather than undermines, the foundations of confidence on which reconciliation must rest.

I want to acknowledge the views of the 200 families whose concerns were expressed in a letter published by Relatives for Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre this week. The test must be whether this legislation delivers truth, justice and accountability on an equal basis, not whether it reassures one group while leaving others fearful that the doors to justice are being closed. That is the test this legislation must pass.

[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.

16:44

It is not enough simply to put money into some communities or community organisations, or to support some individuals to encourage them to no longer carry out their past activities. It is about bringing communities together. It is about bringing families back together. It is about making sure that part of the conversation we have had in the past two days—it has been a respectful debate—is that the veterans and victims are not different. They are all people and they are all part of our society in Northern Ireland, so we—as a Government, as an Assembly and as individual politicians—should be working in lockstep with them to make sure that their wishes are represented in this House.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today.

I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them.

New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.

We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic.

I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too.

I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points.

The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation.

I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly.

Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents.

Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought.

The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday.

I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict.

No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed.

From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability.

We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes.

Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission. One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests.

On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests. It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.

There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift. Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches.

Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do? They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.”

17:00

I say to the Secretary of State that it is by making choices such as those that he has given the Bill a bad name. Unless and until those inequities are addressed, some balance is put in and Loughgall is treated as any other inquest request would be and sent to the legacy commission—that is the proper body to deal with these things—he is but digging deeper into the loss of public confidence that attaches to aspects of the Bill.

That is a fatal mistake in the Bill, but it can be rectified. I am pleased to support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, which would do justice by removing Loughgall from the inquest parameters. That is what a self-respecting Government who care about the reputation of their special forces should do. It is not too late for the Secretary of State to do the right thing in that regard.

I wish to refer to amendment 20 in my name and that of colleagues. In Northern Ireland we have this bizarre situation, which we saw in one of the inquests. If during the course of a hearing in England the coroner suspects the possibility of criminal behaviour, he stops the inquest and sends the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will make its decision, and what happens thereafter with the inquest is determined by the outcome of that. But in Northern Ireland, the inquest process continues right through. Even though the coroner might think there is something that the PPS should look at, no, it carries on. We get to the point—we have had this—where the coroner issues his opinions, commenting on all the legal and liability issues, including the criminal liability, totally colouring the eventual dealing with that in the proper way through the PPS process.

Amendment 20 would replicate what happens in England and have in the inquest system that point whereby if the coroner thinks there may be something of criminal liability, he stops the inquest and refers it to the proper authorities. Why would we not do that in respect of these inquests? I say to the Government that there is merit in considering that.

At the end of the day, given the overwhelming size of the Government’s majority, no doubt the Bill will find its way on to the statute book. One has discovered that it is not about winning the argument in the House, because the Government can always win the vote. However, the Government could take a significant step towards making the Bill more palatable by removing the special status of the Loughgall inquest.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Today, I think of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I have had the chance to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly about the issues affecting veterans, the armed forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service and their overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the more than 300,000 veterans of Operation Banner.

I believe that it is a duty not just to think about this matter from a constituency standpoint but to think of the people of Northern Ireland. It is especially incumbent on Back Benchers from other parts of the United Kingdom to remind ourselves that they must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice.

Of the Government’s amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner veterans in our constituencies. We should never forget, as I think a few Members have rightly commented, that those veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. We should avoid drawing a false distinction between service families and an associated other of victims. That is important principally because, if we do not, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces, and impedes those victims’ right to access justice.

Though I am aware that this is not being considered today, I want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in the Bill. New clause 32 tabled by the Government, as the Secretary of State referred to, requires the legacy commission to recognise the circumstances in which the armed forces and police served and the split-second decisions they took. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how that will take into consideration the chain of command? That question has come up among veterans in my constituency and from Members across the Committee.

To allow us to get to the summing-up speeches, I will speak briefly on new clauses 51 and 50, which address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in my constituency. New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on-the-run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up—I want to touch on every single group but especially the excellent and fantastic Veterans Together (Forth Valley)—that was one that evoked the strongest anger among people. The mere ambiguity surrounding the letters and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. I am glad that it is this Labour Government who are decisively ending the ambiguity around those letters.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I support new clause 50 in principle—that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles-related offence. I hear from veterans that trust in the process is at such a low ebb among their community, and so I believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country provides Government accountability and the right degree of independence and accountability generally, enabling us to build confidence that any prosecutions are in the public interest.

On summing up, will the Secretary of State set out how that safeguard will support the Government’s commitment to protecting the public interest where there may be a dispute about the high evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains? Will he also assure the House that the Attorney General’s role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no Government, now or in future, may use it to politicise decisions about the evidence and public interest, which must be taken with the utmost seriousness?

The Bill provides the last chance for many in our community, including service families, to access the truth about what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme, which the previous Government failed to deliver, utterly did not implement. As it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans and as, more than anything, it allows us to progress, I will vote for the Bill this evening.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended.

I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.”

I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states:

“This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”

We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister—sorry, the Secretary of State.

[Chris Bryant]

And Minister, indeed. Thank you, Ms Nokes. It is good to see you in the Chair, as always.

First, can I just refer to the points where I think we are all agreed? There has, remarkably, been quite a lot of agreement, both yesterday and today, on a series of things. First, on the issue of on-the-run letters, I note the point made earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and his gratitude for finally putting the provision in legislation. That matter was raised by several hon. Members.

I am grateful to those who agree that it is important that we will not start any new inquests once the legacy commission has completed its work. The legacy commission will have five years in which people can still make applications to it and five years to complete its work, but at the end of that period it surely must be right that we do not then start any more inquests. There has to come a time at which this process comes to an end.

I am also grateful to everybody who has recognised that we want to work in lockstep with the Irish Government—not running ahead of them, not running behind them, but working in lockstep with them—because it is only when we get full co-operation between the two Governments that we will be able to deliver the kind of answers that lots of hon. Members have been referring to. [Interruption.] I understand that there is scepticism around the Committee. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is chuntering from the Front Bench again, is full of scepticism on nearly everything related to this Government. In fact, I sometimes think, when I see him sitting there, that he could probably have a row with himself if he was stuck inside a cardboard box all on his own. On these occasions, though, there are quite a few things on which we agree, and that is where I am trying to start my remarks.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He is right: these debates yesterday and today have proceeded much more amicably and respectfully than people had perhaps anticipated. I think that is probably because they have been informed by many different perspectives, including from those who have been around for many years in this House, those who have served, those who have never served before, those who have direct experience of living in Northern Ireland and those who have many constituents who have served in Northern Ireland. There have been many different perspectives, and many different political perspectives. That is important but, of course, in the words of her late Majesty, “some recollections may vary”. Today I have heard various accounts, from different perspectives, of almost identical occasions. That has informed our debate rather than undermined it.

16:18

In the end, what my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—and I have been keen to achieve, and the whole Government are keen to achieve, is a balanced piece of legislation. While I have been in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), has been talking to people in some of the other armed forces associations. One point made by several of them is that they just want the legislation to be fair and balanced. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) earlier, and I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), I want to continue the process of ensuring that we end up with a fair and balanced piece of legislation on the statute book. I guarantee to work with them, and with anybody across the House, to try to achieve that.

Several hon. Members have made the point, with which I completely agree, that everybody should be treated equally under the law. That is, after all, a fundamental principle of our rule of law in the United Kingdom. There are other parts of the rule of law—the separation of powers and so on—but the fact that everybody should be treated equally under the law is a fundamental principle on which we all agree.

There are things on which we disagree, one of which relates to the Omagh inquiry. I note the points made by that the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We decided yesterday—as you know, Ms Nokes, it is impossible for the House to decide twice on the same subject in a single Session—the matter of the date in the Bill. There is a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing. Its terms of reference specifically include the following:

“The adequacy of the policies and practices of UK state authorities, including the police, security forces and Intelligence and Security Agencies, in sharing intelligence between themselves and with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the activities of those dissident republican terrorists who had been involved in terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks in the period from 1st December 1997 to the Omagh Bombing.”

They also include:

“Any other matters which are relevant to whether the Omagh Bombing on 15th August 1998 could have been prevented by UK state authorities. To the extent it is relevant to the issue of preventability by UK state authorities, this may include information sharing and investigations with and by state authorities in the Republic of Ireland.”

In other words, the inquiry’s terms of reference specifically refer to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the Omagh bombing.

[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—

[Alex Burghart]

It is entirely germane.

[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.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[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.

[Al Carns]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[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.

17:30

The right hon. Member for Belfast East and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) agreed, in one sense, that there is no point in the Bill swerving to appease first one set of stakeholders and then another. I completely agree. It is more important to ensure that the Bill is balanced, and that right the way through, everything that we are doing is consistent with fundamental principles.

I pay tribute not only to our armed forces, and the 300,000 who served under Operation Banner, but the families of those who were killed in active service, defending our peace. Along with all hon. Members in this House, I say: thank you for your service. I pay tribute to the other families who lost people—those who have struggled for justice over the years, and those who have stored their pain in their heart without any complaint. To them, too, I say: thank you for your service, because that was part of establishing peace under the Good Friday agreement. I also pay tribute to the doctors, firefighters, nurses, council officers, and witnesses to the troubles, including those council officers who had to find new placements for children who had lost their parents. To them, too, I say: thank you for your service. I believe that, with our amendments, this will be a balanced Bill, which is why I urge all hon. Members to vote for our amendments, to oppose those that we are resisting, and to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 73 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Reports for families: safeguards

Amendment made: 232, page 61, line 14, leave out “in the United Kingdom”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This aligns clause 77(3)(a) with similar provision elsewhere in the Bill

Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Conclusion of the ICIR’s work

Amendments made: 233, page 65, line 19, leave out “winding up the ICIR” and insert—

“bringing to an end the ICIR’s functions under this Part”.

This amendment and amendment 234 clarify that the power in clause 83(4) is concerned with the ICIR’s status and activities under domestic law (and not its existence as an international organisation).

Amendment 234, page 65, line 21, after “make provision for” insert—

“(a) winding up the ICIR in its legal capacities as a body corporate, and”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 233.

Amendment 235, page 65, line 30, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (4) may make provision about cases where the ICIR concludes its enquiries into a death but is unable to produce and give a report about the death under section 76(2) before the end of the operational period, including provision postponing the application of subsection (1) to information about the death and related records until the ICIR gives the report.”—(Chris Bryant.)

The ICIR is required by clause 76(6) to suspend work on a report about a death while a linked criminal investigation under Part 3 is underway. This amendment allows regulations to deal with cases where the ICIR is unable to produce and give that report before the end of its operational period (because, for example, that Part 3 investigation leads to a prosecution).

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Stopped inquests in Northern Ireland

Amendment proposed: 51, page 66, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.”—(David Davis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:34

Division 96

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 176

Noes: 329

Amendments made: 236, page 66, leave out lines 21 to 29.

This amendment removes provision reproduced by Amendment 243.

Amendment 237, page 67, leave out line 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 243.

Amendment 238, page 67, line 11, leave out from “allocate” to “, or” in line 13 and insert

“the inquest to a coroner (who must resume and conduct the inquest)”.

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Amendment 239, page 68, leave out lines 13 to 18.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment removes interpretative provision which is reproduced by Amendment 243.

Amendment proposed: 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert

“, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”—(Gavin Robinson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:49

Division 97

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 117

Noes: 331

18:00

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 19 October).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Amendments made: 240, page 69, line 34, at end insert—

“16ADA Resumed inquests: initial contact with members of armed forces

(1) This section applies where—

(a) for the purposes of a resumed inquest, the coroner conducting the inquest decides to contact a person (“P”) in connection with P’s conduct as a member of the armed forces which is conduct forming part of the Troubles, and

(b) a coroner has not previously contacted P for the purposes of the inquest after the coming into force of this section.

(2) The coroner must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the decision to contact P,

(b) the death to which the inquest relates, and

(c) P’s contact details (so far as known).

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after being notified under subsection (2), take all reasonable steps to make P aware of the coroner’s decision to contact them.

(4) If the Secretary of State makes P aware of the decision, the Secretary of State must notify the coroner of that fact.

(5) The coroner may not contact P for the purposes of the inquest until whichever of the following occurs first—

(a) the coroner being notified under subsection (4) that P is aware of the decision, or

(b) the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State is notified under subsection (2) of the decision.

(6) In this section “contacting a person” includes—

(a) imposing a requirement on the person under section 17A, or

(b) otherwise requiring the person to provide information or produce a document or other thing.”

This section, to be inserted in the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, requires (a) the Secretary of State to be notified of a decision to contact, for the purposes of a resumed inquest, a person who was a member of the armed forces during the Troubles and (b) the Secretary of State to take steps to make that person aware that they will be contacted.

Amendment 241, page 69, line 36, leave out from “Where” to second “of” in line 40 and insert

“a coroner ceases progressing a resumed inquest for reasons relating to public interest immunity, they must notify the senior judicial panel member (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026)”.

This amendment clarifies the inserted section 16AE(1) by setting out the circumstances in which the duty to notify under that provision will arise.

Amendment 242, page 70, line 2, after “death” insert

“to which the inquest relates”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 241.

Amendment 243, page 70, line 16, at end insert—

“(6) A “resumed inquest” is an inquest resumed in accordance with—

(a) section 16AA, or

(b) a direction given to the Presiding coroner under section 16AB.

(7) A coroner ceases progressing an inquest “for reasons relating to public interest immunity” if—

(a) evidence or documents are (or are to be) withheld from the inquest on grounds of public interest immunity, and

(b) the coroner considers that, without the evidence or documents, it is not possible for a final determination, verdict or findings to be made or given at the inquest.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment defines terms for the purposes of relevant sections in the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 disagreed to.

Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Relaxation of restriction on criminal investigations by police forces etc

Amendment made: 244, page 72, line 14, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—

“(1) The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 38 (criminal investigations of Troubles-related offences)—

(a) for the heading substitute “Criminal investigations of Troubles-related offences”;

(b) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) No criminal investigation of any serious or connected Troubles-related offence may be continued or begun by a person other than the Legacy Commission.”;

(c) omit subsections (2) and (3).

(3) Omit section 41 (other Troubles-related offences: prohibition of criminal enforcement action).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment, in addition to restating subsections (1) to (4) of clause 88, provides for the repeal of section 41 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 89 and 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 49

Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales

“(1) The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions (for England and Wales) must jointly issue guidance about the prosecution of Troubles-related offences.

(2) The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision to prosecute a person for such an offence.

(3) The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and Public Prosecutors must have regard to the guidance, so far as it applies to prosecutions in Northern Ireland, when deciding whether to prosecute a person in Northern Ireland for such an offence.

(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions and Crown Prosecutors must have regard to the guidance, so far as it applies to prosecutions in England and Wales, when deciding whether to prosecute a person in England and Wales for such an offence.

(5) The first guidance under this section must be issued as soon as practicable after the coming into force of this section.

(6) In this section “Troubles-related offence” means an offence under the law of Northern Ireland or England and Wales where the conduct constituting the offence was to any extent conduct forming part of the Troubles.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This clause, to be inserted in Part 8, requires the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions (for England and Wales) to jointly issue guidance for prosecutors about decisions to prosecute Troubles-related offences.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50

Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences

“(1) The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 40 (restrictions on criminal enforcement action), after subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) Subsections (2) and (4) are subject to section 40A (consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only offences).”

(3) After section 40 insert—

“40A Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences

(1) Where—

(a) section 40(2) or (4) authorises criminal enforcement action against P in respect of an offence under the law of Northern Ireland, and

(b) the offence is triable only on indictment,

no proceedings may be instituted against P for the offence except with the consent of the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

(2) Where—

(a) section 40(2) or (4) authorises criminal enforcement action against P in respect of an offence under the law of England and Wales, and

(b) the offence is triable only on indictment,

no proceedings may be instituted against P for the offence except with the consent of the Attorney General.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not limit any power to arrest or otherwise detain P in accordance with section 40.””—(Chris Bryant.)

This clause, to be inserted in Part 8, prevents the institution of criminal proceedings for a Troubles-related offence that must be tried in the Crown Court without law officer consent.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 51

On the run letters

“(1) Criminal proceedings for an offence are not to be stayed, and a decision to prosecute a person for an offence is not to be quashed, on a ground founded to any extent on the content of an on the run letter.

(2) In this section—

(a) “on the run letter” means a document relating to a person’s liability to arrest or prosecution that—

(i) was created during the period beginning with 1 June 2000 and ending with 7 March 2014, and

(ii) is of a kind referred to in Chapter 4, 5 or 6 of the Report of the Hallett Review, laid before Parliament on 17 July 2014;

(b) criminal proceedings being “stayed” includes—

(i) being stayed for abuse of process;

(ii) being deserted simpliciter in Scotland because the court considers it would be oppressive to require the accused to face trial or unfair to allow the Crown to proceed.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This clause, to be inserted in Part 8, prevents the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content of an ‘on the run’ letter.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 52

Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles

“(1) The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In the italic heading preceding section 43 omit “Civil proceedings,”.

(3) Omit section 43 (tort, delict and fatal accident actions).

(4) In consequence of that repeal—

(a) omit Schedule 9 (determination of whether the prohibition on civil actions applies);

(b) omit Schedule 10 (civil actions to which the 2008 Mediation Directive applies);

(c) in Schedule 13 (amendments) omit Part 2.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This clause, to be inserted in Part 8, repeals provision in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 barring civil claims relating to the Troubles.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 53

Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces

“(1) The Secretary of State—

(a) must appoint an independent person to carry out a review, by the second anniversary of the commencement day, of the effect of the provisions and guidance mentioned in subsection (2) on persons who were members of the armed forces or a police force during the Troubles;

(b) may, at any time after the completion of that review, appoint an independent person to carry out a further such review.

(2) The provisions and guidance referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) section 14(1A)(b) so far as it limits the power under that provision to require a person to attend at a specified place to cases where it would be impracticable to provide the information through a live audio or video link;

(b) section 36(9A) (duty to obtain and review certain information before contacting witnesses);

(c) section 43(5A) (duty to seek prosecutor’s advice before referring conduct to prosecutor);

(d) section 56 (restrictions on public access etc to inquisitorial proceedings);

(e) section 69 (duty to have regard to welfare of witnesses etc);

(f) section (Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses) (investigations and inquisitorial proceedings: initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses);

(g) section 16ADA of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (resumed inquests: initial contact with members of armed forces);

(h) any regulations made under section (Initial contact with police officers) (initial contact with police officers);

(i) any guidance issued by the Presiding coroner relating to the welfare of people who give evidence to, or otherwise participate in, resumed inquests within the meaning of section 16C of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

(3) On completion of a review, the appointed person must give a report, setting out the result of the review, to the Secretary of State and the Legacy Commission.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report, and

(b) a document setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the report.

(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to a person appointed under this section.

(6) In subsection (1)—

(a) “the commencement day” means the first day on which any provision mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g) is in force, or any regulations mentioned in subsection (2)(h) are in force, for all purposes;

(b) “independent person” means a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be independent of the Secretary of State and the Legacy Commission;

(c) the reference in paragraph (a) to the effect on the persons mentioned in that paragraph is a reference to the effect on them in their capacity as persons who were members of the armed forces or a police force during the Troubles.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to report on the effect of certain provisions and guidance on former members of the security forces. It also confers a power on the Secretary of State to appoint independent persons to carry out further reviews.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”).

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must—

(a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom;

(b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service;

(e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces.

(3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

(4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.

(5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces.

(6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.”—(Alex Burghart.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill.

18:03

Division 98

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 179

Noes: 336

New Clause 12

Duty to promote reconciliation

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act.

(2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to—

(a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future;

(b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and

(c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors.

(3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Legacy Commission;

(b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;

(c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.

(5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:16

Division 99

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 184

Noes: 330

Clause 91

Consequential provision

Amendment made: 245, page 73, line 17, after “2023” insert “and other legislation”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 275.

Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 267, page 106, line 22, at end insert—

“2A In section 38 (no criminal investigations except through Legacy Commission), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) does not prevent a relevant person (as defined by section (Assistance agreements) of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026) from doing anything for the purposes of an assistance agreement (within the meaning of that section).””

This amendment, which is consequential on new clause NC40, provides that the prohibition on criminal investigations of Trouble-related offences does not prevent a person from acting for the purposes of an assistance agreement within the meaning of that new clause.

Amendment 268, page 106, line 22, at end insert—

“2A Omit section 39 (grant of immunity: prohibition of criminal enforcement action).”

This amendment, which provides for the repeal of section 39 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is consequential on the repeal of Part 2 of that Act by clause 1.

Amendment 269, page 106, line 23, at end insert—

“(za) in the heading, for “No grant of immunity:” substitute “Serious or connected Troubles-related offences:”;

(zb) in subsection (1) omit the words from “unless” to the end;

(zc) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Criminal enforcement action may not be taken against P in respect of the offence by P except in accordance with—

(a) subsection (2) (following a referral of P’s conduct to a prosecutor), or

(b) subsections (3) or (4) (but only before such a referral - see subsections (5) and (6)).”;”.

This amendment, which provides for the amendment of section 40 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is consequential on the repeal of Part 2 of that Act by clause 1. It also clarifies the application of that section.

Amendment 270, page 106, line 33, leave out ““the Legacy Commission’s functions”.” and insert ““a relevant function”.”

This amendment and Amendment 271 expand the range of functions which are relevant to section 40(3) and (4) of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

Amendment 271, page 106, line 34, at end insert—

“(d) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) In subsections (3) and (4) “relevant function” means a function under the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026 of—

(a) the Legacy Commission, except a function under section 86 or 87 (producing the historical record);

(b) a Director of Investigations;

(c) a judicial panel member.””

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 270.

Amendment 272, page 106, line 34, at end insert—

“3A In section 42 (general provision and saving for ongoing pre-commencement action)—

(a) in subsection (1) for “any of sections 38 to 41” substitute “section 38 or 40”;

(b) in subsection (2) for “sections 39 to 41” substitute “section 40”;

(c) in subsection (4) omit “or 41”;

(d) in subsection (5) for “, 40 or 41” substitute “or 40”.”

This amendment, which provides for the amendment of section 42 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is consequential on the other amendments of Part 3 of that Act made by this Bill.

Amendment 273, page 107, line 26, at end insert—

“‘immunity function’;

‘immunity requests panel’;”.

This amendment, which provides for the amendment of section 60 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is consequential on the repeal of Part 2 of that Act by clause 1.

Amendment 274, page 107, line 37, at end insert—

“6 In Schedule 12 (prisoner release) omit—

(a) paragraph 2(2);

(b) paragraph 3(2).

7 In Schedule 13 (amendments) omit paragraph 11.”

This amendment, which provides for the amendment of Schedules 12 and 13 to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is consequential on the repeal of Part 2 of that Act by clause 1.

Amendment 275, page 107, line 37, at end insert—

“Part 2

Other legislation

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

6 In the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 omit section 23C (actions relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles).

Limitation Act 1980

7 In the Limitation Act 1980 omit section 27D (actions relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles).

Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984

8 In the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 omit section 4A (actions relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles).

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

9 In the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, in section 190 (time limit for proceedings against ship owner or ships) omit subsection (7).

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998

10 (1) The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3 (applications for declaration of eligibility for release)—

(a) for subsection (6A) substitute—

“(6A) An offence is a qualifying offence if subsection (7) or (7A) applies to the offence.”;

(b) omit subsection (6B).

(3) In Schedule 3 (sentences passed outside Northern Ireland), in paragraph 2—

(a) for sub-paragraph (A1) substitute—

“(A1) An offence is equivalent to a qualifying offence if sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) applies to the offence.”;

(b) omit sub-paragraph (A2).

Sentencing Act 2020

11 In section 379 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (behaviour orders), in the table in subsection (1), omit the entry for section 26 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the heading preceding it.

Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985

12 In the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 omit Article 5A (actions relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles).

Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

13 In the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 omit Article 73A (actions relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles).”—(Chris Bryant.)

These amendments are consequential on the repeal, by clause 1 and Amendment NC52, of provision made by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Meaning of “close family member” of deceased person

Amendments made: 246, page 76, line 14, leave out “(subject to paragraph (b))”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 247.

Amendment 247, page 76, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 264.

Amendment 248, page 76, line 32, at end insert—

“(g) paragraph 8(4A)(a) of Schedule 5, the “relevant day” is the day on which the request for the investigation is made or the investigation is initiated.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 265.

Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

Interpretation of Act

Amendments made: 249, page 77, line 38, at end insert—

“inquisitorial proceedings are

“carried out” during the period described in section 51(10A);”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 250, page 77, line 38, at end insert—

““the inspectorate” has the meaning given by section (Inspections of the Legacy Commission);”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This definition is for the new clauses providing for the inspection of the Legacy Commission.

Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Commencement

Amendment made: 251, page 78, line 36, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making the first regulations under subsection (3) that appoint a day on which any provision of Parts 3 to 7 comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework on addressing the legacy of the past (published on 19 September 2025).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement, about the actions of the UK and Ireland to address legacy issues, before commencing the principal operational functions of Directors of Investigations, judicial panel members, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and, in relation to resumed inquests, coroners.

Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

18:32

[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.

18:39

[Alex Burghart]

It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. To do that, I want to take us back to what the last Government tried to do in 2022 with the legacy Act, which set up the ICRIR, with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers; most of them were obviously members of the public—people from all communities. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on.

When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working.

I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family

“into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”

That is what I am proud to say the institution established by the last Government has managed to do. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working.

There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is not subjective. The evidence must be new as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, in a way that will impact the outcome. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective.

The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. The veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this Bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment there are no veterans groups that support the Bill as it stands.

As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat.

There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out.

I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.

17:29

[Hilary Benn]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has handled these two days of Committee consideration with such skill, grace and understanding. The fact that the temperature and the temper of the debate over the past two days have been markedly different from that which we experienced previously is, as I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday, a sign that the Government have listened, and that point has been recognised. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and other Government Departments for all the work that they have done on the Bill. They are as fine a group of civil servants as I have had the privilege to work with.

I mentioned yesterday my first visit to WAVE, when Sandra Peake, that wonderful human being, sat me down and said, “Hilary, one of the things that you need to understand is how intimate the violence was in Northern Ireland.” The story that we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—indeed, the stories we have heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members over the past two days, and over the past 28 years—is proof of that. But today is a chance to recognise that this issue can now finally move on. I have said to the House many times that if dealing with legacy was easy, we would have done so a long time ago. It isn’t. It is really, really difficult; it is really, really hard.

The last group of people I want to thank are all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for the contributions they have made, because responsibility falls on all of us to get this right in the interests of the people who sent us here to represent them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

18:48

[Mr Kohler]

I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart): it has been a huge honour to be part of this debate over the past two days. I have heard so many profound, moving and thoughtful speeches—it has said so much about this House. I thank the brave veterans who did so much during Operation Banner to preserve the rule of law and keep people safe.

I also say this to every victim: I hope you find the solace you require, the truth you demand and the justice you deserve. Those things are utterly important. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for the constructive approach they have taken throughout. We often disagree, but he has always been helpful and constructive, which means a lot to everyone in this House. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill, because it our view it still does not do enough to protect veterans or to promote reconciliation and justice for victims. For that reason, we hope that more will happen during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Much can be done to improve the Bill, and I hope the Government are still listening.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:50

Division 100

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 330

Noes: 178

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Housing

That the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.—(Sarah Coombes.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.—(Sarah Coombes.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 1 September, be approved.—(Sarah Coombes.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 1 September, be approved.—(Sarah Coombes.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Excise

That the Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 981), dated 7 September 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.—(Sarah Coombes.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (21 October)

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 21 October, business in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats shall be treated as being taken on an allotted half day provided under paragraph (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) and, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c) of that Standing Order, may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Sarah Coombes.)

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today at oral questions, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), gave the impression that I had already had a discussion with her in respect of a fire notice and a Care Quality Commission notice, when in fact those notices had not been issued at the time I met her on 9 September. I am concerned that the Minister could have inadvertently misled the Chamber. I would welcome some guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He will know that the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ remarks in the Chamber, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments and that if a correction is needed, one will be made.

Petition

East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Coombes.)

19:07

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on a matter that is of crucial importance to my constituents. The topic of this Adjournment debate is the impact of the East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge business case on North Bedfordshire constituency. I am very grateful to the Minister for being in his place; I have not have a chance to share some of my questions with him, so I would be very happy for him to write to me after the debate if he does not have answers to them tonight.

What does East West Rail mean to North Bedfordshire? It is an opportunity that was lost. The concept of connecting Oxford through Milton Keynes to Bedford and Cambridge is a sensible one, but sadly it is a concept that in practice has gone very far off track. That is partly due to the legacy of the former Liberal Democrat mayor of Bedford borough, who supported a route through the town of Bedford and then north through rural North Bedfordshire. That route is long, hilly and incredibly environmentally damaging, and despite protestations, it must surely be much more expensive than any alternative. It has left my constituents scratching their heads about why we would build a railway line in such a damaging way.

Since that time, my constituents across North Bedfordshire have faced a series of questions that remain unanswered and that are increasingly a source of irritation. The people who work at East West Rail are good people, and I have nothing against them, but I do have something against the project and how it is being progressed. The town of Clapham, just outside Bedford, will be cut in two by the development of the railway. The route takes a very sharp turn out of Bedford and goes up a hill, as part of the hilliness of this railway. Residents’ concerns about having a green tunnel to help somewhat with the environment stay in abatement. The villagers of Ravensden and Wilden are sadly getting increasingly resigned to the fact that a railway will carve through their rural landscape. At Chawston, which is a tiny little village, a substantial amount of land has been earmarked by East West Rail so that trains can pass. Finally, there are the villages of Roxton and then Tempsford, which is rumoured to be on the list to be a new town. Currently it is a village of 300 households.

For North Bedfordshire, this railway will have a significant impact on the environment and on our rural life, but beyond that, the business case matters for a range of reasons. First, a substantial amount of public money—in the billions—will be invested to construct an entirely new rail route from Bedford through to Cambridge. As the Minister will know, we are just a week away from a Budget. It is perhaps the third Budget in a row where a Labour Government will come back for more taxes. He will know, as we certainly do, that looking after public money is a primary duty of us here in this House. If we are seeing a waste of public money, it requires as much additional scrutiny as can be done—certainly in government, but also beyond—and yet it has been a number of years since the last assessment of the economics of East West Rail was delivered by the company that was available for us to scrutinise. Incidentally, that assessment was pretty bad. When I say pretty bad, I mean bad, bad, bad from the point of view of public finances. Since then, there have been dramatic changes, and some that might help the case of East West Rail, but many—particularly with inflation—may move things the other way. My constituents are left in a position where they do not know whether this project will make any economic sense at all, and it started from a position where it clearly did not.

I do not think that it is right that the people of North Bedfordshire should be left in the dark. I also, by the way, do not think that taxpayers should be left in the dark. That is why my purpose tonight is to convince the Minister that he and the Government owe it to the people of North Bedfordshire and to taxpayers to provide right now—tomorrow will do—the latest updated business case for the East West Rail project. The Minister covers lots of other forms of transportation and covers for rail for Lord Hendy in the other place, but he must know the importance that has been attributed to financial transparency in our rail projects specifically, and know not to wait until the deal is done. This is my key request to the Minister. I would like him to say that he has been convinced by the arguments about public money and that he has been convinced that allowing transparency of the business case is the right thing to do. It is his right and ability to do that, and I will explain to him why he should do it.

First, this point of transparency was surely at the heart of the reviews of the oh-so-disastrously-managed HS2 project. You will remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do I. Frankly, the taxpayers of this country will remember it for a long time. Rightly, Governments of the day had two reviews—Oakervee and Lovegrove—to try to find out how we could improve governance of our very important rail projects. I would like to go through some of that, because, sadly, it does not seem that Government have got the message on these things. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts.

In the Lovegrove report, there was a response to a request that was made by local campaigners in July for the Government to release the business case. Annex A of the letter from the Government refusing the release said that while the outline business case was still being developed, releasing it would “be misleading” and that disclosure would produce “a chilling effect” on discussions between the Department for Transport, Network Rail and East West Rail. So providing information about the business case would be “misleading”. Well, who is it going to mislead? Do the Government think we are not smart enough to understand that numbers may change, and inputs may not remain the same in terms of their costs? Do they think we will not understand the numbers? It seems to me an unusual defence to say that providing the British people with information about how their taxes might be spent before those taxes are committed is somehow misleading—and what is the “chilling effect”? I do not see loads of private companies rushing up to provide competing rail services from Oxford to Cambridge. It does not hang together.

According to one of the campaigners,

“Lovegrove’s account of HS2’s Accounting Officer Assessments in 2019 describes a Department that kept spending money on an unaffordable project ‘on the basis that a process to determine its future was underway,’ while systematically failing to make clear to Parliament how immature the underlying costings actually were. He goes further, describing how the HS2 Board’s own information packs created ‘a veil behind which less good news becomes difficult to assess or even identify’—and that this was still true two years later, in 2021. The consequence, in his words, is that ‘the Civil Service failed to recognise the scale of the remaining intrinsic risk’ and gave ministers advice that ‘fails to give a good sense of the scale of the uncertainty.’”

It is clear to me that the lesson from HS2 is that it is in the best interests of the Government to share information as a project is undergoing an evaluation of its financial costs, precisely so that the Government can avoid some of the mistakes that were identified in the HS2 project. If it was important for HS2, it is even more important for East West Rail, perhaps not in terms of scale but certainly in terms of relative lack of value.

One of the ways in which the Government assess the value is through the benefit-cost ratio framework, and we do have information about that, dating back to 2023. Let me explain this to the House. A benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 is “poor”. There is nothing below “poor”. “Low” is 1 to 1.5, “medium” is 1.5 to 2, “high” is 2 to 4, and “very high” is greater than 4. When time is tight, public money is important, and one would hope that most of the projects are closer to the 4, 3 or 2. So where did East West Rail stand at the last count? Well, it did not stand at 4, or 3, or 2, or 1; it stood at 0.3. Basically, this is a railway project that wastes 70p in every pound, which is clearly “poor”. The East West Railway Company then came up with something called the theory of change to push the figure up—we can understand that; like other things, employment changes, new houses are built and so forth—which boosted it from 0.3 to 0.6.

It is clear from the last time the public were given sight of the business case that this railway line project is extremely poor value for money. I think that that should concern the Minister, and it certainly concerns me. Over time, the milestones for the benefit-cost ratio got worse. In 2019, the benefit-cost ratio was 1.1 to 2.4. Now it is down to 0.3, although potentially it could be raised to 0.5 and potentially to above 1, so it is not doing very well on an absolute basis. An argument may be made that there is a social benefit to railways that goes beyond the financial benefit-cost ratio. Governments of all stripes—not just this lot; it was my lot before—have, as it were, counted other things in already. Perhaps it is possible to stretch it and say that there is even more public benefit, and I will come to what that may be in a minute. This is why the benefit-cost ratio causes even more concern.

Let us just take a wander down the benefit-cost ratios of Britain’s railway projects in the recent past, so we can see whether East West Rail is an outlier or part of the pack with the usual returns. The benefit-cost ratio of HS2 was originally 2.3; it is 1.5 to 2.3. HS2 phase 1—the London to Birmingham part—had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.7, which is getting close, but is still four times the benefit-cost ratio of East West Rail. For Crossrail 2, it is 1.7 to 2.7—way ahead. For the Bakerloo line extension, it is 2 to 3, and for Sutton tram link extension, it is 1.3. I challenge the Minister to find a railway project that is such a grotesque waste of public money as East West Rail. I do not think he will.

This matters, because being honest about public money matters. We should be honest when something sounds like a really good idea, but when we actually put our mind to it and do the detailed work, it starts to look like a really bad idea. We really should have the courage—we need to have the courage in this House—and the Minister and the Government must have the courage to go back to first principles and say, “We just don’t want to be part of continuing something that has started to look completely wrong.” Year after year, I make the case to Ministers of all parties to have that moment of courage of going back to first principles. Their first principle is that they should look after public money as though it is their own, rather than just fritter it away because someone else in the past said it was a good idea, and perhaps that is the consensus, so we have to stick with it because someone said. That is no way to have our Executive run this country, because it just leads us into all sorts of mistakes. My hope is that the Minister will be that man of courage. I look at him and I think, “I am in with a fighting chance.”

In that spirit, I have some questions for the Minister. As I said earlier, I do accept—I did not have the chance to brief the Minister beforehand—that he may not have the answers to hand, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me. First, when the last business case was produced, the Government used a discount rate of 3.5%. The Treasury has now decided to lower that discount rate to 3%. As the Minister will be aware, if we lower the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%, we will give more credit to revenues in the future relative to costs in the near term, which is clearly the profile for a rail project. Will the Minister commit that when, and I hope it will be tomorrow, he publishes the current business case, the financial case or full cash projections—I do not mind which of those three options he chooses—he will in all those cases ensure he has provided the information so that a like-for-like comparison can be made? Basically, we need the numbers for the period in which he is discounting the costs and revenues, so that we can assess the impact of the change in the discount rate.

Secondly, in coming to Bedfordshire the wonderful initiative of Universal Studios has an impact on East West Rail and vice versa. As I understand it, to handle the structural demand, Network Rail has lined up an estimated £650 million of funding to help with the track capacity extension required. That takes us back to the decision in 2020, when there was a straighter, more direct route south of Bedford, and there was going to be a station—a hub station—at Wixams. Now that Universal Studios is being built at Wixams, would it not make sense to look at creating that hub station for Wixams, rather than going into the town of Bedford and going north? This is a very significant change, and Universal Studios is going to have 10 million visitors a year.

Tempsford may or may not be a new town, but taking a village of 300 people and building a town of 100,000 is big change. One of the problems is that East West Rail, desperate to justify its business case, may want to take credit for new housing growth at Tempsford. Frankly, I do not think East West Rail contributes very much—certainly not in the near term—to the growth of Tempsford, because that planning has been there for quite a long time. Will the Minister commit to ensure that the case for East West Rail is made to stand on its own merits, rather than trying, artificially and in my view wrongly, to claim benefits from other measures, such as Tempsford new town?

East West Rail has built part of its railway. It has built the part from Oxford to Milton Keynes, which was opened to passenger traffic two years ago this month, in October 2024. As the Minister knows, since then not a single passenger has travelled on a train, because it cannot work out with the union whether or not there needs to be a guard to open and shut the doors. That is two years of zero passenger revenue against expectations, which will surely have an impact on the business case. Will the Minister commit to publishing an assessment of the financial impact of the failure to run a railway for two years on the overall financial case for East West Rail?

Originally, East West Rail was to run trains on diesel. Then it was proposed to be electric. Then it was proposed to be battery. Now, it is proposed to be battery, electric and diesel. Can the Minister confirm whether East West Rail has finalised what form of traction it will use on its railway? It seems to me to be critical to know how it is going to pull the trains along on the line. I am not a railway engineer, but even I think that that is kind of a basic requirement. East West Rail needs to be forced to make a decision. I understand that it may not want to take a decision, but it really needs to.

Finally, in closing, as I look to the Minister, who I trust to be a courageous man and a good man, I want to ask him a candid question. If he was given a proposal to spend billions of pounds on a railway to which he could say yes or no, and he was told the railway would be lose billions and billions of pounds, and he was told that on value-for-money terms it would be the worst railway built this century, and he was told that after 20 years of operation the company had still not decided on how to power its trains, and he was told that two years after opening its railway it still had not carried a single passenger, would he really give the project the go-ahead?

19:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for securing the debate. I have taken a note of his questions. He will be aware that I am not the Rail Minister. As he gracefully pointed out, I did not get advance notice of his questions —certainly, some of them were of a more rhetorical nature than others—but I will endeavour to ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with a response. I will speak more generally to start with.

East West Rail is a priority transport project for the Government. It will significantly improve connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It will help to unlock good growth, jobs, new homes and opportunities across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. As we know, the corridor boasts a number of strengths. It is home to world-leading employers and universities. It has one of the highest concentrations of high-tech firms in Europe. It is attracting inward investment, as we have heard, from the likes of Universal, for its new theme park at Stewartby, and in science and innovation at sites such as the biomedical campus in Cambridge.

However, the corridor’s growth has been constrained with high house prices, pressure on existing infrastructure, including the road network, and a long-standing lack of east-to-west connectivity. Those issues are summed up perfectly for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents by the fact that there are no direct rail routes to Oxford or Cambridge, and that it is easier to travel to London by rail than it is to get across the region. That leaves people reliant on cars, infrequent bus or coach services, or not making journeys across the region at all.

The Government are committed to addressing those constraints to growth, and East West Rail is central to our ambition to realise the full potential of that corridor. The remaining stages of the railway involve upgrading the existing Marston Vale line between Bletchley and Bedford and constructing the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge, which the hon. Member focused his comments on. Those stages will be delivered from 2030 onwards, and East West Rail completed its final route-wide consultation on them in the spring. It is currently finalising its proposals for a development consent order application, which I understand will be some time next year.

The plans for the railway include eight new stations, including at Tempsford in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and up to five passenger services per hour. It is not just local journeys that will be improved; the new line will have interchanges with major rail lines, expanding connectivity with the rest of the country. At Tempsford, the new station will also be served by the east coast main line. The East West Rail line will also be partly electrified to support net zero operations using hybrid battery-electric trains, providing greener and faster journeys for passengers. I hope that in part answers one of the hon. Member’s questions.

All those new changes will mean a step change in connectivity across the region and will offer benefits to the hon. Member’s constituents. He has diligently raised—not for the first time—the business case for East West Rail. The BCR is an important measure of value for money, but it is only one part of the overall assessment. Together with the strategic case for East West Rail, that wider evidence informs Government decision making.

For East West Rail there is a clear and compelling strategic case for the project in overcoming the constraints in the region, and in particular, providing opportunities for new jobs, and for new sustainable communities to grow. The line will serve potential new town sites that have been identified by the Government in Tempsford and Milton Keynes, as well as supporting the Government’s aims to unlock development in both Oxford and Cambridge.

We are already seeing investment being brought forward along the planned route, whether that is in new housing developments or the new Universal theme park at Stewartby. Because of that, the project has backing from major employers and institutions across the region, as evidenced by the support of the Oxford to Cambridge supercluster group. Details on the case for the project were set out in the consultation earlier this year, and the economic and technical report on the project published in 2023 provided a significant amount of detail on the different options that had been considered to improve connectivity, as well as the case for the railway.

The hon. Member identified that that was some time ago, and that there have been a number of changes, possibly further strengthening or weakening the case. Further information on the case will be provided as part of the development consent order application and a full business case will be prepared once planning consent has been secured.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not think that the Minister has taken up my offer of releasing the business case tomorrow. If we go with the process that the Government are hiding behind, will the decision to go ahead by the Government, as well as the DCO from a planning point, have been approved by the time that case has been presented to the public?

[Justin Madders]

The exact sequencing of those things is something that I would defer to the Rail Minister on, and I will get him to write to the hon. Member. It is the case that the economic benefits and the business cases are considered in tandem with those issues. Publication will be issued once the planning consent has been secured, which is typical for those types of projects, as the hon. Member will know. I hear what the hon. Member says about transparency. He is right that it will not be released tomorrow, but it will become a public document, and I can assure him that he will have his opportunity to make further comment on it.

It is important to state that the benefits that the line will unlock will come from the railway as a whole, in particular the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge. It is also important to say that unlocking the opportunity here is a key part of the strategic and economic cases for the scheme and, in accordance with departmental guidance, additional benefits that are dependent on the scheme will be included in the overall value for money assessment. The latest estimates suggest that the East West Rail line will increase the regional economy by some £6.7 billion GVA per year by 2050 and, obviously, those figures will be updated as we go forward.

There will be significant benefits from the development of the East West Rail line. It is important to state that the latest plans will mean delivering services between Oxford and Stewartby, and then between Oxford and Bedford, ahead of the completion of the line in full, which will allow services to run to the new Universal theme park at the earliest opportunity. I heard the hon. Member’s question about the location of the theme park, and I will take that back to the Rail Minister, too.

While is important to recognise the benefits that East West Rail will deliver, we also recognise that the construction will have some impact on the communities that the hon. Member represents, and significant work has been done to assess alternative routes through public consultation. That work has concluded that serving Bedford directly and enabling fast, direct journeys from stations on the Marston Vale line to Cambridge are a key part of realising the full benefits of the project, which may be the answer to one of his questions—I will ask the Rail Minister to confirm that in writing.

As the hon. Member will be aware, the East West Rail company has worked to reduce the impact of the line on local communities whenever possible, which includes impacts on homes, local businesses and farmland. In its spring consultation, the company set out a range of ways in which it has responded to feedback in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, including moving and lowering the alignment of the railway to reduce visual impacts between Clapham Green and Colesden and working to reduce construction vehicle movements and potential impacts on properties.

I recognise that the hon. Member raised an awful lot of other, more detailed matters. As I have already committed to doing, I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides a full written response.

Question put and agreed to.

19:36

House adjourned.