Commons Chamber

Monday 19th October 2026

(began 17 hours, 29 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:36
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
sending our heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues, particularly his wife and children. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer questions two, should like to answer questions two, 16 and 19 together. There has never been a better or more important time to join defence. I'm determined to make sure that we determined to make sure that we give people from all backgrounds opportunities to succeed, while creating the skills and talent that creating the skills and talent that keep our country safe. As part of the Defence Industrial Strategy, we're investing £182 million to improve Stem skills for young people and increase capacity in the education system.













As well as backing Defence technical excellence colleges in England with £50 million. With the ambition and intention to see this expand to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have got to strengthen our defence industrial skills base to provide opportunities for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next generation, and this government, with this investment, will certainly do that. Jessica Toale thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jessica Toale thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently opened a new cyber competence centre at the University of Bournemouth, which University of Bournemouth, which provides courses in cyber defence, intelligence and autonomous systems in partnership with industry. This in partnership with industry. This centre is creating a vital pipeline of talent to keep our nation safe and to ensure economic resilience.
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:46
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that this House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98 clause bill to which over 300 amendments, including, I think, 144 government amendments, have been tabled to the end that the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself. The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed, on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerning the programme motion makes it clear that we will only have about an hour for Report stage, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun for happy to give way to my right hon.























































Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, can I just thank the Shadow Secretary of State for making the point that he is making making the point that he is making for highlighting the lack of opportunity for this House to properly and thoroughly scrutinise this legislation, either today or this legislation, either today or tomorrow, to lament the fact that this Democratic chamber will have much less of an opportunity than much less of an opportunity than the House of Lords in the other place, and only to encourage that once the Shadow Secretary of State concludes his remarks, that we do not need scores of people making the same point, because that too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would eat in to our scrutiny time. Yeah. I entirely agree with my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The yeah. So yeah, we we look it looks as though we will we look it looks as though we will we'd get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to this House to debate this properly, I think is laughable. On Wednesday this House is confining itself to the church Appointments bill. On Thursdays we Appointments bill. On Thursdays we have. On Thursday we have a general debate. So this House will not get to vote on any of the government's 144 amendments directly, will not get to vote on any of the government's 98 clauses individually.

































The new administration has done one good thing here for which it should take the credit in that it has rolled the remedial audit into this legislation. We strongly support that. This was something that the the conservative benches were calling for through for throughout the process, progress of this bill. But having done this, we think it would have been far better. As the right hon. Gentleman from Belfast East said during the carryover debate, for the government to adopted its own amendments and created a new bill and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the government is now up to.





















The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that this would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the bill, the new bill in its entirety as it is. As my right hon. Friend from the DUP has pointed out, the main scrutiny is going to have to be done by the upper House, and although that Lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, sir. Julian Smith Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak up for this issue want to speak up for this issue that the front bench is putting forward for more time. This issue of legacy has been dealt with by of legacy has been dealt with by the UK government for over seven years. It's been going round in circles. I've been quite critical circles. I've been quite critical of some of the previous government approaches on this, but we're talking about victims of some of talking about victims of some of the most horrendous crimes in our country.



We're talking about veterans who worked for our country to protect it against some of the worst examples of terrorism. We're
15:49
15:50
Sarah Owen Portrait Sarah Owen MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Luton North, Labour)
-
-
Minister Sarah Hall. the shadow frontbench for setting out their views on this issue and for keeping them brief, and I will carry on in that vein, and I'll carry on in that vein, and I'll keep my remarks on this programme. Motion brief. As I'm keen, we move straight to committee proceedings, straight to committee proceedings, and I'm sure that right hon. Members and hon. Members of this House are similarly keen as well, and I want to just address some of these points, particularly on amendments. We've tabled our amendments a week before committee, in line with the usual practice for government amendments.



















































These amendments have followed significant discussion with many members of this House and many stakeholder groups over many weeks and many months, and the shadow frontbench mentioned that there are many, many amendments. Many of these he has to recognise are also technical amendments. Over the course of the full two days, we will be able to scrutinise, debate and consider these amendments in detail before this Bill is sent to the other place where I have no doubt it will receive significant further scrutiny, and the hon. Member from Skipton and Ripon is absolutely right. This is about victims and we cannot allow those victims to wait any longer for answers.



































Almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, the issue of the legacy of the troubles remain unsolved, unresolved. After many years of bereaved families being let down, this may be our last chance to get it right. The troubles Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to fix the failed systems the Tories created, and ensure a reformed Legacy Commission can be the root for families to get the answers they need and deserve. More than a quarter century after the end of the troubles, too many families are still waiting for the truth about what happened to their loved ones.























 Their grief has been prolonged by uncertainty and unanswered questions. We cannot accept that any longer. It is critical we move this bill forward. And to that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members across the House to support this motion, and I commend it to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, program number two motion. That's program number two motion. That's on the Order Paper, as many of that opinion say, I. On the contrary, no, opinion say, I. On the contrary, no, The The question The question is The question is the The question is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill programme number two motion is on the Order Paper, as many of that opinion say, I.

I the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes Harpreet Uppal and
15:54
16:07
16:07
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mark Garnier it's good to see you in the chair. And I beg to move. As you've just said, today, we will be debating parts 1 to 5 of the bill. I'll speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of the amendments that have been tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including where they amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the bill. But I wanted first to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow, important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers important that it is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background, whoever the probable perpetrator, important to that, it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country. The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including the First Amendment that we are addressing today. Government amendment 143, which is which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to the matters that were raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with these more substantive matters under three main headings. Firstly, well, I haven't even got to my headings yet, but as he knows, I'm very fond of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him. Our exchange. Is. Going to get him into trouble. Can he tell the House he talks Can he tell the House he talks about balance? Quite who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Can you tell the is important. Can you tell the House how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish government before they were brought to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House? I haven't shown a single

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't shown a single amendment in. I've talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some of the members of the Irish government, but I haven't shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish government, and I think the first they ever saw the amendments was when they were when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else on occasion, we. In as part of the consultation with various Special Forces groups and others, we have, of course, looked at. We've talked around some of the broad issues. I've wanted to consult as wisely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, to the Special Forces Association, to some of the generals and others, but we certainly haven't done that with any other governments.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Miss Carney. Firstly, of my three headings, firstly, improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the Commission. Secondly, ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. And thirdly, addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence. So first, Miss Carney, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learnt in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The Legacy Commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the Commission's investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































It is why the bill repeals the immunity scheme, which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow, and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Irish authorities. Of course. Thank you for setting the scene and we look forward to to what his comments will be. But in relation to the Republic of Ireland, of course, in the paper today and course, in the paper today and others will have seen it. I know I'm not the only person who reads the papers. Brian Stack, who was a prison officer down south, was murdered. His son's in the paper today saying he knows who the murderers are. He knows, and he's murderers are. He knows, and he's given the names to the An Garda Siochana, but nothing has happened.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































So how can this legislation we have before us today make the Republic of Ireland more accountable and ensure that those who killed Brian Stack are a prison officer and republic are made accountable?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because that's what we all want to Stack. Well. The hon. Gentleman makes a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. And it's similar to a point he made last week in the carryover debate. And I agree with him. Of course, the Irish government has got to provide all the information that could possibly lead to further families being able to get the answers that they need. And of course, there are instances where the answers won't lie in any of the paperwork the UK government of the paperwork the UK government has, but they might lie somewhere in the in the archives and the records of the Irish government. And that's why one of the one of the most significant achievements, I think, that was achieved was secured by my right hon.





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Friend. My predecessor was that cooperation with the Irish government. One of the things I've been very keen to ensure is that whereas people in the previous debates worried that we were going to introduce our legislation and then they would introduce their legislation, they have already now put together and published their heads of terms, which is the equivalent of a draft bill, and they've committed both privately to me and publicly, that they will work in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation comes into force on the same day. I think that's an important part of making sure that people can be guaranteed, that they will get the answers they they need.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. Will he consider extending the remit of the extending the remit of the commission to include September 1998 and thus the Omagh bombing, because he'll know in connection because he'll know in connection with the Irish Republic that the Irish, Irish agencies and the Irish government specifically, will have quite a lot to say on the subject, given the events of September 1998. And as things stand, there will be no way for victims and families to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get the answers that he has mentioned in his preamble. Well, this is, of course, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this is, of course, the subject of an amendment that's been tabled by the hon. Member, the leader of the DUP. I am going to be leader of the DUP. I am going to be resisting that amendment. Whatever date you choose would be, in one sense, an arbitrary one. I think sense, an arbitrary one. I think the best date that worked for the previous legislation. I will in one moment and and would also work in moment and and would also work in relation to this legislation, is the date of the Good Friday Agreement, and that's what we're sticking to.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I understand the point that's being made about OMA, and there is a public inquiry ongoing, and I think it's important that the Irish government can cooperate fully with that process. And indeed, I raised some of these matters directly with my counterpart, Jim Callaghan, the other day. I give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. If we're going to discuss these things, I do think it is important to be accurate. And is important to be accurate. And the tragedy occurred in Northern Ireland in August 1998.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the point that the hon. Gentleman was making was that he just wanted to extend the date to be able to accommodate the amendment that's been tabled. But I understand that I she's talking whilst I'm talking, which makes it difficult for me to hear, but I difficult for me to hear, but I think she's made her point. I did just see the gentleman over there, and then I'll come back to the leader of the DUP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julian Smith how confident is he on the Irish legislation that if there is a Sinn Fein led government,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is a Sinn Fein led government, that legislation will not be overturned. It will be legislation of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will be legislation of the government and the. As always happens, of course, whatever the happens, of course, whatever the government is at the time, you can't bind your successors. But I'm very confident that this legislation will stand the test of legislation will stand the test of time in the in in the Republic of Ireland. I'm happy to give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the leader of the Lib. Thank you, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy. Chairman. Chair, can I just express my profound disappointment that my profound disappointment that here we are at the start of two days of Committee stage and already days of Committee stage and already one of the most inoffensive but constructive amendments that has cross-party support across this cross-party support across this chamber. That is not to one side's benefit or another, but to assist the families of the victims to achieve the answers they deserve, most notably from the Irish Republic, from the Irish government and the Secretary of State has just indicated that he wishes to resist it.



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































There's no point lamenting that two days aren't enough. If the Secretary of State has already made his mind up, and there's no interest in discussing the substance of any of the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us this afternoon? Well, I think that's a slightly ungenerous way of interpreting this. I'm very happy to listen to the I'm very happy to listen to the debate, and I'll respond to it. At the end of the day, I've tried. I'm trying to persuade, but proceed as trying to persuade, but proceed as much as I possibly can on a cross-party basis. I'm simply making the argument that was I was asked about an amendment and and asked about an amendment and and I'm expressing a view, which is that I think that for most most legislators in this country, we've legislators in this country, we've tended to go as the cut off date being that of the Good Friday Agreement.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I'm not going to give. I see another gentleman who wants me to wants me to give, and I'm going to give way to him first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To the Secretary. Could I just take him back to the point he was making about the Irish government's making about the Irish government's legislative progress being in lock step with the UK government. Could you give the House this assurance? Because it's a very key and pivotal Because it's a very key and pivotal point, as he knows that the usual channels will timetable the channels will timetable the progress of his legislation to ensure that it would not go for ensure that it would not go for royal assent until the final stages of the Irish legislation in order to ensure that it is absolutely in lock step, as he said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, that's one part of what we might do, but it might actually be better or it might be more convenient for everybody concerned. convenient for everybody concerned. If we simply said that certain clauses wouldn't have their commencement until such time as both parties had agreed. And in both parties had agreed. And in addition to that, I've tabled an amendment which actually is remarkably similar to one tabled by the the hon. Gentleman who speaks the the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the opposition in relation to tabling a written ministerial statement to clarify how much agreement there has been, how much consistent, how consistent the Irish government has been with its obligations.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































So I hope that between all of those different elements, we will manage to land on the on working in lockstep. But there's a further point, which is, of course, I think all hon. Members would expect me to be robust in saying to the Irish government, first of all, congratulations when you have provided material that is important to this and we want to cooperate with you entirely and fully, but also push them where we feel that sometimes that has fallen short. So, for instance, as one of the issues that was raised with me last week, I'm going to give way in just a moment, if you'd be patient.









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































One of the issues that was raised with me last week was the issue of the evidence that's been given to the Omagh inquiry, and I think there are some questions that have been asked by the leading counsel already, and I've put those to Jim O'Callaghan, who I expect will be responding to me. And then there's the issue of gelignite. I'm also conscious that only a few weeks ago I stood in a field looking for where people were looking for digging up the field to see whether they could find the body of a man who was murdered some 30 years ago.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 And some of the answers to those issues will also lie with the Irish government, rather than in our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paperwork. We'll give way. But I do need to make a little bit of progress. I'm very grateful yet again, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful yet again, but it's to make the point that there is not one defined, cut off point for the troubles. Everyone in this House accepts that the Omagh atrocity was the largest atrocity of them all, and it happened outside his defined date for the outside his defined date for the troubles. But if he doesn't like amendment 23, then look to amendment 24 because the date on it amendment 24 because the date on it is the 12th of April 2010. And why was that picked? Because this House legislated for anyone who is a troubles related pension entitlement.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































That's the truth. So it is just wrong to indicate to this committee of the House that there is one agreed date. Legislators have chosen a number of dates, and all we're asking is that at least include the largest atrocity of the troubles in its totality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm happy to listen to the speech that he will doubtless make if he manages to catch your eye, if he manages to catch your eye, though I'm fairly confident that he will. And and then I'll respond will. And and then I'll respond towards the end. Well, let me just make a little bit of progress and then and then I will come back to him. Government new clauses 36 to him. Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment booklet, introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the Legacy Commission by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which will ensure any emerging problems with the effectiveness and or efficiency of the Commission.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 Investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and are taking corrective action. This should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation, and as many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new Legacy Commission should be very much focussed on the on the families themselves. I've also tabled amendments 193158265266247248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the Commission's judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate Registrar of Deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. This seems basic, I know to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it. A vital change we're also introducing is the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, modelled on Operation Kenova Successful Victims Focus Group. However, some hon. Members expressed understandable concerns about the composition of this group in order to meet the amendments tabled by the members for North Antrim, Belfast East and Wimbledon, I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background or someone representing their interests.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I note amendment 52, tabled by the Member for North Down, which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair. I don't know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to go on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Madam chair. Hi. for giving way. Madam chair. Hi. How can this House support the government on that when we have a government on that when we have a political party called Sinn Féin, whose members supported violence, he supported the killing of RUC officers supporting the killing of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and Her Majesty's Armed Forces and supported the killing of civilians. How can you? Sorry? How can we stand here in all consciousness and support a bill that potentially will allow people who supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in a political party to be on the board? That is just not right. Thank you. Secretary State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary State. Well, I note the point that the hon. Member makes. But if he if he hon. Member makes. But if he if he looks at clause eight and four B, I think it's important that the Secretary of State, when putting Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that the membership is balanced as. Respects associations with the different communities in with the different communities in Northern Ireland. Of course, it means that the whole of the group has to meet the requirement that requirement, but also has to meet the requirement of of, of supporting victims.





























































































































































































































































































































































































































I hear what he says, but I'm afraid that that his amendment would be, I think, disproportionate, though I'm happy to listen to his contribution later. I will I'm conscious that the hon. Member there wanted to. She's being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very generous, characteristically so. Clauses four and five, sections

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clauses four and five, sections four and five govern the appointment of members of the Commission and Directors of Commission and Directors of investigation, a mandate that some of those should be drawn from people with experience outside Northern Ireland. Can you explain Northern Ireland. Can you explain why that is and who these people will be, and which countries he will be, and which countries he believes they will have experience of? I'm assuming the Republic of Ireland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh no, no, I don't think that was the intention at all. So one of the complaints that there has been about the the body that was established by the Legacy Act in 2023 was that there were some there were potential conflicts of were potential conflicts of interests. And that's why the idea of having two directors was introduced. That's the important part of the change to the Legacy part of the change to the Legacy Commission. And the idea was that one would definitely have experience of Northern Ireland and one would have experience of one would have experience of elsewhere.





































































































































































































































































































































































































It wasn't specifically that this should be in relation to Ireland. I would have thought the more likely place that somebody would have further experience was other parts of the United Kingdom. Now, Miss Ghani, full disclosure by public authorities to the Commission is absolutely vital to enable families to get answers to what happened to their loved ones, which is why it is required that the Commission has to see everything. To build on this, I have tabled amendments 155 to 160. These will allow directors of investigations and judicial panel members of the Commission to impose a timescale on state authorities when requesting disclosure.

























































































































































































































































































































































































This is another of the key asks of the families. The amendments tabled by hon. Members primarily relate to the onward disclosure from the Commission to the public. In other words, after the Commission has reviewed the disclosure and is preparing its report here, I have to be very clear the primary responsibility of any government is national security, and I am accountable to Parliament on matters of national security, as they pertain to Northern Ireland. Some even information, even if it is historic, has present day implications for the life and safety of individuals, national security or international relations.













































































































































































































































































































































































 That is why schedule five provides. I will. Sorry, I didn't hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but chuntering he admits he was chuntering. Just for the record, Mark Garnier he was Chuntering and he admits it. And that is why schedule five provides essential safeguards allowing the Secretary of State to prohibit the onward sharing of sensitive information by the Commission only whether disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Bill already changes the Legacy Act onward disclosure regime in a number of important ways. Material will no longer be designated sensitive based on the organisation which owns it, and the Secretary of State will be required to conduct a balancing exercise when considering disclosure of sensitive information, and to give reasons for decisions not to disclose.





























































































































































































































































































































































I cannot, however, accept amendments that would change that balance, which is designed to ensure the maximum possible disclosure of information to families whilst ensuring that we do not compromise national security. I now turn to the question of how we ensure that those who serve the state are treated with dignity and tribute to the work that he's done on this subject. And previously the I think it's very important that we don't over promise in any of this legislation, because whilst I saw the first report into the death of Rory O'Kelly recently, and I spoke to Ann O'Kelly, his daughter, and she was very moved and felt a great sense of liberation by its publication.















































































































































































































































































































































Nonetheless, it doesn't come to perfect answers, and I'm guessing that many of the families will not get perfect answers, though they may get a degree of closure and a degree of healing because of being able to go through the process, I am very keen to make sure that the, the, the, the remit of the commission doesn't increase dramatically so as to make it more difficult for it to meet its obligations. And of course, I'm in discussions with the Treasury to make sure that the finances that are available to be able to do the job properly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. Yes, of course. I thank. You for giving way. Before we get to, I think, the centrally get to, I think, the centrally important part of the speech which he is about to come on to, but just on making sure that we have the on making sure that we have the correct duty of candour, he will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the Human Rights, which I have the privilege to sit, has raised concerns that the duty of candour that this government has introduced under the Hillsborough law may not necessarily apply equally to coronial inquests, as it would to inquisitorial inquisitorial proceedings under the Legacy Commission.

























































































































































































































































































































Could he take this moment just to confirm that it is his intention that the duty of candour will apply to both streams, and that if that is not made clear through the Committee stage in this place, that it will be made crystal clear through the legislation as it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progresses through both Houses of Parliament. Well, first of all, I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, to my hon. Friend for his question, and he's quite right about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its request for us to look at this its request for us to look at this issue. As hon. Members will know, and right hon. Members will know, the Hillsborough law has not completed its processes through the House of Lords. It's still in Committee stage there, and so obviously, we will want to make sure that we can mesh the two sure that we can mesh the two pieces of legislation together when when it comes to that.







































































































































































































































































































But the, the, the, the Hillsborough laws commitment to truth and information recovery is mirrored in this legislation, which is why I'm proud to say that we would want to be able to, wherever possible, make sure that it applies. And we. New inquests which proceed under the Troubles Bill will automatically be in scope of the duty of candour, which is included in the Hillsborough Law and the processes of the Legacy Commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime, and we agree that the duty of candour needs to apply to inquisitorial proceedings under the Legacy Commission, and I note the committee's recommendation.



























































































































































































































































































So I'm very confident that when it comes to the House of Lords processes, we will be able to mesh these two pieces of legislation together. And if that's all, I'll move on to my next point, which is about how those who serve the state are treated with dignity and respect. Of course, the goal of this legislation is to create a human rights compliant legacy process which all communities, including veterans and former police officers, can have absolute confidence in. When we introduced the bill, we included a number of safeguards for former service personnel and following further engagement with a wide variety of groups, I, along with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, who I see sitting seated here, are now introducing further amendments to ensure our veterans are treated fairly, I.









































































































































































































































































Can she wait until the end of this next paragraph? I'm grateful, I think, and hope that all hon. Members agree that there is no moral equivalence between lawful actions of our armed forces and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. A number of members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford, have sought to do this through their amendments. Government new clause 32 makes clear that the lawful actions of soldiers in the course of duty cannot be treated by the Legacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission as equivalent to the actions of terrorists given to the hon. Lady. Giving way. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The hon. Gentleman talks about protections for those who served our country, but one of the key achievements of the Legacy Act was directly stopping new inquests, which could threaten to expose those who served our country to a vexatious claims, particularly obviously one of the most known being Le Gall. So do his amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he has put forward definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again? OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, vexatious. The term vexatious claim in itself could be argued as being vexatious. So, and I'm very keen to make sure it's a phrase that I've used a couple of phrase that I've used a couple of times, which is rinse and repeat. I will come on to that a little bit later. I'm very keen to make sure later. I'm very keen to make sure that nobody is subjected to this constant round of being brought back time and time and time again, back time and time and time again, to face the same kind of process. Well, I need to give way to the hon.











































































































































































































































Gentleman behind, I'm afraid. First, much as I am fond of the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary refers to new clause 32, new clause 32 introduced clause 32, new clause 32 introduced certain protections in respect of security forces in regard to the security forces in regard to the Legacy Commission and regard to in inquests, for example, it allows inquests, for example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account. The orders they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, etc. all of that is good. Why does that do the same? Provisions not extend? If there were a trial of such a person, if it's right to take those matters into account by the Legacy Commission and by coroners, why is it not right to have a Diplock court if it were investigating a criminal trial?























































































































































































































Also, take those matters into account.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Garnier I'm holding on to the fact that he said that this was good. Something that the government good. Something that the government was doing was good. And so I hope that that means he's going to be supporting our our amendment, though I'm very hopeful that it though I'm very hopeful that it won't come to a vote, since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. He's asking me, I think, to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation. I'll just finish this paragraph and then I'll come to the hon.













































































































































































































Gentleman there, and then there. Our new our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

soldiers. I give way and then I'll give way. every. Good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Intention, talks about preventing rinse and repeat. Yet the moment you introduce the the moment you introduce the situation into a coroner's inquest, the opportunity for judicial review the opportunity for judicial review arises. Multiple stages of judicial review. We've seen this already review. We've seen this already with inquest and you cannot stop, rinse and repeat. So you have a soldier going through 3 or 4 judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the government says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sector, state. Well, I'm conscious of judicial review, not least because my review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judicially, judiciously, judicially reviewed in the courts. judicially reviewed in the courts. Whether it's judicious or not is a matter for the courts to decide. Not not for me. I'm not challenging Not not for me. I'm not challenging their authority, but and of course, it's very we have to be clear about it's very we have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It cannot. It's about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual.















































































































































































I think that's a really important distinction to make. I'm going to come to the hon. Gentleman and then I must make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for having made the point about there being no the point about there being no moral equivalence. But does he recognise. I hope he does, that recognise. I hope he does, that there has to be legal equivalence between everybody who goes to for between everybody who goes to for this process, and in particular, in this process, and in particular, in particular, the question arises about the about the fact that if somebody is found to have been guilty of a murder, no matter how Highness, no matter how many people were killed, the provisions of the 1998 Sentences Act still applies.





























































































































































 Nobody, whether a terrorist or whether a soldier who committed a murder, will go to jail for more than two years. So we've got to recognise that when we're talking about the search for justice, there is really not going to be any justice in terms of the sentence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflecting the gravity of the crime. Active state. And yes, he makes a very good point, and he will know that. One point, and he will know that. One of the things he said to me last week was he would be very grateful if I said in the debate today that if I said in the debate today that there is no moral equivalence, and I've done exactly as he asked. But he's of course he's right. I'm very reluctant to give way too many times, Miss Garnier, because I'm conscious that lots of people will conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and and will want to catch your eye.













































































































































And so I'm not presently. Well, I haven't given away any much on this side, so I'm going to do one here and one there, and then I really will crack

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on, I promise. Miss Garnet. I'm very grateful. To Secretary for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Secretary for giving way. Just maybe it would be good if the Secretary of State would clear something up for the House, because we've heard a lot about justice and we've heard a lot about justice and vexatious claims and everything else. Of the 25,000 odd people who served time as a result of troubles related crimes, could he tell us how many of those were members of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the security forces state? Well, I'm not sure whether this is a quiz now, but I don't know the precise answer to that. But but I think he's made his point in, in his his colleague sitting next to him has said one. And I think he's made his point. I'm going to give way to the hon. Gentleman who also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had a piece of legislation. I'm very grateful to the Secretary of State. He's been very generous with his time. The. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford asked a very specific question about the inquest and whether any of this paperwork and any of this legislation will stop that going ahead, because I asked that going ahead, because I asked the Secretary of State that question. Secretary of State for defence that question on Tuesday. Last week at defence committee, he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last week at defence committee, he gave me a pretty definitive answer, but I'd be intrigued to hear the Secretary state for Northern Ireland. To state.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The legislation of itself doesn't know. He will know, of course, that the original inquest was set up was was, I think, commanded by a the former Attorney General, who was a who was a General, who was a who was a conservative at the time, who was still a conservative for that matter. And, and so the straight matter. And, and so the straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no. And Mark Garnier we are putting this the prohibition on cold calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill, through clauses, through new clauses 45 and 46.









































































































And when a witness is contacted, we will make sure they are treated with dignity and respect. One of the key asks I've heard from veterans is more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the bill. It is a right to seek anonymity rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses, which goes to the point that the hon. Gentleman made as well. However, I know that some veterans groups are concerned that this wouldn't mean anonymity in practice. So let me be clear that based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it and Mark Garnier the Welfare Protection Clause 69 will ensure that the Commission is required to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, which includes a consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all.























































































Some veterans I have met with have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement and Mark Garnier. I now turn to the question of how we ensure that individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory and repeated processes. I know some have argued that even before the Commission can open a review, there must be new and compelling evidence that is the thrust of the opposition's new clause 21 and amendment 47 and New Clause 22. In the name of the hon.











































































 Member for North Down, that is illogical and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence, even before a review was started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families and let's not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are. Service families will be barred from asking the Commission for information. Following extensive consultation, the government judges that the best approach to include these is. The best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness.





























































To be clear, duplication can only be essential. For example, where there is genuinely new evidence which has come to light, which would materially change the investigation, where new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry, or there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Number. Number two, amendment 192 will require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first. So individual witnesses, so individual witnesses, including those that serve the state, such as veterans, are not contacted unnecessarily. Where formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. And the third point, let me if you just let me finish this point and then I'll come to him.













































Amendment 192 also requires the Commission to consider if compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist, and that the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission prior to contacting a witness, so that a. The Legacy Commission and coroner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless essential to fulfil their statutory obligations. B the Director of Investigations will be required to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undertake and review disclosure From state authorities first. Only then could they consider if there was still a need to contact individual witnesses and see. Following this. If the director still believes that it is essential still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to, and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information not able to provide information not already known. That particular last provision we've taken from other legislation and the Overseas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Operations Act. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. For giving way and clarifying those points. And he knows I've raised this point with him before that. That covers veterans and former military personnel. Will those protections also extend to those protections also extend to former police officers as well? Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sir. Yes, madam. Mark Garnier, I'm sorry. I end with this. This process where we discuss improving a bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes we are. We use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important it is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can, and we will disagree about where that takes us. But at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth. Families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, or an uncle, or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances.





Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks. And you cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I beg to move.
16:43
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that government >> The question is that government amendment one, four, three be made. Francois. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you very much. Miss Carney. I am privileged to be speaking for Her Majesty's opposition, this very important debate today. I'd like to begin by moving our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47 in my name and that of my right hon. And, hon. Friends, in my remarks, I should like to refer to at least some of the government's 144 amendments to amendment 23 and to New Clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who is in his place. We face a very unusual situation this afternoon that we are debating a bill which had its Second Reading over a year ago, which has required not one but two carryover motions just to keep it alive.





























































































































































































































































































































































































This is, unfortunately indicative of the terrible mess that the government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four star generals and one air chief marshal as a direct threat to national security. General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former chief of the General Staff, reacted to the bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever want to consider joining the British Army in the future. It's worth reminding the House of the context in which we're debating these amendments today. During the troubles, approximately 3500 people tragically lost their lives.













































































































































































































































































































































































90% of them at the hands of terrorists, be they Republican or so-called loyalist terrorists. Only some 10% of all those fatalities were at the hands of the security forces. The British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment, or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. George Cross. It's important to restate that had it not been for the efforts of those units, including those British Army veterans who deployed on Operation Banner to help keep the terrorists at bay. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 would never have been achieved in the first place. Indeed, the respected military historian Martin van Creveld, in his 2006 book The Changing Face of War, described Operation Banner as one of the few counter-insurgency campaigns that have been successful Mark Garnier.



























































































































































































































































































































































 We have a number of veterans who served on Operation Banner with us in the gallery this afternoon. And I wish to pay tribute to them and all of their comrades, including the over 700 who were murdered and the many thousands who suffered life changing injuries in order to attempt to uphold the rule of law in incredibly difficult circumstances. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. With reference to amendment 23, which is the name of the hon. Member for East Belfast, Operation Banner commenced in 1969 and was formally ended in 2007. It was the longest running single operation in the entire history of the British Army.







































































































































































































































































































































One of the worst atrocities that took place during the period of the troubles was the Omagh bombing in August 1998, during which 29 people lost their lives and many more were violently injured. The House will be aware of the recent revelations of the Omagh bombing inquiry, as reported by BBC Northern Ireland on the 12th of October 2026, that an Irish Army camp received a warning that the town was to be the target of a bomb the day before the fatal explosion. We now know that a call was received on the eve of the bombing at Finner Camp, near Ballyshannon in County Donegal, and that the caller told the soldiers to check the back routes or back roads.























































































































































































































































































































And he then repeated three times. Omer. Omer. Omer. However, it would appear that tragically, this warning was not passed on by the Irish authorities and the bombing then took place the following day. I imagine the number of Right Honourable, hon. Members will want to refer to this tragedy during the course of the debate, but I mention it at this juncture as an example of exactly the kind of atrocity that our troops were deployed to Northern Ireland in order to seek to prevent. Turning now to our specific amendments themselves, our new clause 21, on which we took careful drafting advice from both legal experts and retired senior officers, would set a new evidential standard such that no further investigations of any kind could take place unless they were based on new and compelling evidence.

































































































































































































































































































This is a deliberately high bar, intended to prevent the endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation that many of our veterans have had to endure, unless they were evidence, which is both original and of a compelling nature, as determined not by a politician such as the Attorney General, but a UK Supreme Court justice. To be clear, this would not end all investigations under any circumstances. However, it would mean that a new investigation could not take place unless this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

threshold were met. Yes. What I don't understand is how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I don't understand is how he expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes from every single family that comes to the UN. Legacy Commission to start with the process where they have to prove to a Supreme Court have to prove to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Isn't that a process in itself? Wouldn't that process in itself? Wouldn't that put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? And has he checked with any Supreme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward? Yeah, I. Have two replies. If new and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have two replies. If new and compelling is such a bad phrase, why has the government included it in one of its own amendments? And in one of its own amendments? And and secondly, yes, it should be a high bar for just a second. I've high bar for just a second. I've got to reply to this one. You've I know you're keen, but let me answer know you're keen, but let me answer this one first. This is the point of the whole problem with the bill. Many of our veterans for years have faced the sword of Damocles because they have been perennially investigated and reinvestigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Fein, mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles.

























































































































































































































































So this wording does not stop any future investigation. It just means you can't keep raking over the coals again and again unless hang on, someone provides evidence which is new and compelling, and the legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations Act of 2021, as passed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by a conservative government. I give way again. I try again the bit I don't have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. That's as he has already said, it's one of the amendments that we have our the amendments that we have our table, but we've made that much later in the process. And my anxiety is he's putting it right at the very beginning of the process. the very beginning of the process. Before Mrs. Jones from number 42 turns up at the Legacy Commission, she has to prove to a Supreme Court she has to prove to a Supreme Court judge, which I would argue is makes it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge actually to perform their normal functions, that they have new and compelling evidence.





































































































































































































































 That in itself is another legal process. He's adding to the to the lawfare, not detracting from it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. No, we're trying to prevent lawfare. That's the whole point of lawfare. That's the whole point of the amendment now. This is a far clearer definition than that which clearer definition than that which the government has proposed. The evidence should be essential. This evidence should be essential. This is a much lower bar, and crucially, it's undefined in the bill. What essential would mean? Essential to whom? There's considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement I quote them, we've consistently proposed a straightforward solution a single route through which families can seek answers but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans.















































































































































































































 Unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established. Turning now to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss and some even relating back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act in effect as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of this amendment is that these factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated already, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.





























































































































































































Moving on very briefly to our new clause 13. This is included to restrict resort to civil actions. Less veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the Legacy Commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top. I turn now to clause 55, which is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described this bill as not fit for purpose, as the House will know, is more than capable of speaking for himself. And I don't wish in any way to steal his thunder. But given the order of speeches, I thought it appropriate to say something now.















































































































































































The essence of new Clause 55, as I understand it, is it would prevent the continuation of a dual track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the Legacy Commission. This is a very important point. We've seen in previous years that what I have referred to before is the conveyor belt of inquests, in which a veteran, often by now quite elderly, is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died and not to apportion guilt or blame.



































































































































































Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest which is then used by Sinn Fein and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them via this process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid. Many in the Republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and to place them in the dock. If you'll just let me finish this point, then I will. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnston, has recently described the process in the following stark terms in the times.





















































































































































He said because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews all the way up to the Supreme Court and families can access legal aid. It is lawfare on steroids. So whilst, as the House knows, we in the conservative benches are opposed to this bill, in principle, we nevertheless believe it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. And therefore, should the honourable and gallant member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment, we would certainly support him in the division lobbies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tonight, I give way. Grateful for the Member for giving way. He's talked a lot about the Republican movement. Maybe it the Republican movement. Maybe it would be worth, if he took the opportunity to clear it up. For those listening, to make it clear those listening, to make it clear that not every victim of state violence was involved in the Republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests that he might be of the inquests that he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British people were murdered by British forces on that day.

































































































































Can he make it clear that there's lots of people out there today crying out for truth, crying out for justice if possible, who have nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican movement or any other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisation. I think, in fairness, I was very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both people were murdered by both Republican and loyalist terrorists. They were men of violence on both They were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling people to forward their appalling aims. I would respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman, though, that even members of the Republican movement have been critical of the Troubles Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Fein publicity director and one time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August of this year and I quote him, there's absolutely no doubt about it, that the British government, in a way, has to protect its veterans, because if it doesn't now, who's going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?











































































































That is a very realistic point. Now, with regard to the government's amendments, and as there are 140 of them, I can't go through them individually. Miss Garner, you wouldn't thank me for it. But the Secretary of State has sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. But I have to say that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he's not achieved his aim there. Indeed, as the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has summarised the Secretary of State's amendments, these are their words. Despite repeated assurances that veterans will be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely by restating coroner's inquest and civil actions.



























































































The government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings, often decades after events were thoroughly investigated on behalf of our special forces. The SAS, SBS and SRR regimental Associations collectively pointed out in their public statement. And I quote again, the amendments still allow one a reinvestigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available, and two, a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation, even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence. All that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is essential to reinvestigate, and the meaning of essential is not provided.









































































This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades of past and where there is nothing new to learn. Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion. The government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who serve lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection. It is obvious that veterans don't support the government's amendments, because they're very clear in their own mind that the bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism to pursue them via lawfare to the advantage of those such as Sinn Fein.























































The process still remains the punishment and the ultimate outcome is still the same. The veteran ends up in the dock. To summarise, Mr. Carney, for these reasons, the veteran community, who fear they have now become pawns in a wider game to appease Dublin, are not fooled in any way. The Secretary of State would be naive beyond belief if he somehow felt that were this bill to become law, the Irish government in Dublin, which turned a blind eye to terrorist acts for decades north of the border, would somehow become a willing witness for. Would attempt to open all their files in order to allow families to seek the truth.









































We on these benches are not taken in by this, and neither. It has to be said of the veterans who know well that their former adversaries are determined to rewrite the history of the troubles. Even in some cases, more than half a century on, the SAS motto is who dares wins? If we can never dare, we may not win when we have to. I'd remind the Secretary of State, who I know has an interest in history, that the final stand of Rudyard Kipling's famous poem Tommy, which is very apposite in this context, for it's Tommy this and Tommy that, and chuck him out the brute.



























But it's saviour of his country. When the guns begin to shoot, and it's Tommy this and Tommy that, and anything you please. And Tommy ain't a bloomin fool. You bet that Tommy sees. Well, Tommy does see Secretary of State. I see in the gallery up there right now, and we see on these benches to. And we will not allow our veterans to be sacrificed as part of some wider diplomatic gambit with Dublin at the behest of number ten, North or South. Our mission, therefore, remains steadfast, as it has been throughout this tortuous progress of this wretched Bill.













It is to defend those who defended us, and that is exactly what we're going to do, if necessary, in the House of Lords as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hilary Benn. Miss Carney. I would like. To begin by congratulating my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the amendments that he has brought. Forward. Because, notwithstanding what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because, notwithstanding what we have just heard, I think they show that the government has beyond doubt listened to the points made doubt listened to the points made by many members, by veterans and by others. They have been carefully
17:02
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
thought out. They are balanced, they are reasonable and they are fair. They maintain the principle that everyone is equal before the law. I would just point out amendment 47, which is being proposed by the other side, would not ensure that because it singles out one group for special treatment, while at the same time the amendments recognise the special circumstances in which all those who served with such distinction as part of Operation Banner found themselves in. And in my view, they will enable the House to pass this bill to the other place with confidence. This legislation.





































































































































































































These amendments are needed for two principal reasons. First, because of the manifest failings of the 2023 Legacy Act, and secondly, because we need a system which can command confidence and provide help to all of those people who are still searching for answers after all of these years. This is what this is about. About how their loved ones died and at whose hands. And I say all of these people, because if I have a cause for regret, it is when I reflect on the debates that we have had in this House, on this bill over the last year and a bit, a lot of that debate has focussed on just some of those people who were involved veterans, hugely important, and many of them were killed.





















































































































































































And many of their families, too, are looking for answers about how and whose hands their loved ones died. But if we are honest, we have failed as a house collectively to reflect the hurt, the pain and the suffering of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones during the troubles. And that is what I want to focus on in my very brief remarks. I want to say this. There are some conversations and stories we hear as members of Parliament that never leave us. Yeah, never conversations that remain with us because they are imprinted on our very souls.





































































































































































And I can think of many that I have had in Northern Ireland. The first time I went to wave, that wonderful organisation that supports so many people who are affected by the trouble. The meeting I had in Newry with Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, found by an inquest. I shall return to this point by an inquest to have been carried out by the. I are a Eugene Reavey, whose three brothers were shot on the same day by the U. V f all of them died, and Michael O'Hare, whose 12 year old sister Majella was shot and killed by a soldier on her way to mass.



















































































































































I remember standing in the bleakness of Bragg and Bogue, to which reference has been made earlier with Columba McVeigh's family. As the search teams continued patiently to scrape bit by bit, the surface of the black and grey earth, trying to find Columba McVeigh's last resting place. He was 19 years of age when he was kidnapped and murdered by the IRA. The family of Private Tony Harrison, who was shot dead by the IRA on his fiancee's sofa in her home in Belfast. And so, so, so many others. And I am not alone because there are many members of this House who have also heard those stories.































































































































And I've heard too many times people say, well, somebody came from the police and said, don't worry, we will leave no stone unturned to find out what happened. They never heard another word. Now I understand. I think all of us understand that at the height of the troubles, the number of killings was so great, and the circumstances in which investigation would have to have been carried out were so challenging. Indeed, in some places, downright dangerous. We know why it was difficult for that work to be done, and that is why it is so important now that we have a mechanism that allows this work to be completed, in which all families in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom to have confidence.















































































































And I will say this about the 2023 act, which I have criticised many times in exchanges, though there were lots of it which failed to command support in Northern Ireland from any of the political parties, from victims and survivors. And by the way, we shouldn't forget that the current Legacy Commission, which it did establish, does have the power to undertake criminal investigations as well as fact finding. Listening to some of the debates we've had about this bill, people might think, oh, well, it's introducing this new thing called a criminal investigation. It is not. That is currently contained within the existing legacy, but it did establish the Legacy Commission.































































































And when that first report came out into the murder of Rory O'Kelly, I think it proved what the commission is there to try and do, because most important of all, for me was the reaction of his family. And his daughter said that when they heard the details of what happened, even though they couldn't name who was responsible for the killing, she said it moved the family and I quote, into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away. Now, it has always been the case that the success or failure of the commission will rest in the hands of the families who go to it, and the judgement that they pass.















































































When the Commission comes back with answers, insofar as it is possible to find them. And I would just say this about inquest, which I know we will debate in detail tomorrow, but I have heard criticisms from some. I've heard people stand up and say they achieve nothing. I disagree profoundly, even though the inquest will now come to an end. There's the eighth that had started already and it was profoundly wrong, in my view, to cut off an inquest that a family had seen begun. And the Solicitor General will deal with the remaining ones. I was very puzzled when I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because I grown up thinking if there is a suspicious death, well, there's an inquest, and to find there was so many cases where there'd been no inquest at all over 20, 30, 40, 50 years and you only have to look at I just finish this point and then of course, I will give way.



























































And you only have to look at the impact on the family of the Springhill inquest recently and its findings, and the apology that the former Prime Minister made from that Dispatch Box to see what it meant to the family who've been waiting for 54 years to hear that their loved ones who had been killed, including children, had presented no threat to anyone. Of course I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I thank the former Secretary of State for his incredible speech and the words incredible speech and the words he's making? But I think, of course, as well, of Raymond McCord and many of us in this chamber will know of us in this chamber will know Raymond McCord, whose son, Raymond McCord junior, was murdered by the UVF because he stood up to the UVF UVF because he stood up to the UVF in the Shankill Road. And it's a strong person. He's also a former member of the RAF reserve Raymond member of the RAF reserve Raymond has sought since the 9th of November 1997 to seek an inquiry and justice for his son.





































And not once in all those years has he been able to find that. So the hon. Gentleman is speaking about finding justice. Justice. I want the chance to speak up and speak about justice. But for Raymond McCord, if it wasn't to be able to come here today, but it wasn't for justice for his boy, and he grieves his boy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm almost 30 years later. Well, the hon. Member, my hon. Friend, if I might call him that, makes a very powerful point. Every makes a very powerful point. Every family deserves, insofar as it is possible to find an answer how and whose hands their loved ones died. whose hands their loved ones died. And that is what we're debating all of these amendments for. To create a means that people can have a means that people can have confidence in, which was the failure of the previous legislation and which people can go to, because there will be a means whereby hopefully they can find those answers.



















And I want to finish. I want to finish because I know many members wish to speak. This is unquestionably the the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement. Those who signed that extraordinary document knew it had to be dealt with. They knew it couldn't be done at the time. It is 12 years since the Stormont House agreement and people thought, right, we might be moving forward. Now everyone's getting older, people are sadly dying. The trauma is being passed from generation to generation. And is the legislation perfect? Well, of course it isn't perfect, but if we wait for the perfect, we will never, ever, ever do this.





Now is the time to take this legislation forward. So the families who still wait patiently after all these years for answers them.
17:13
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
They spokesperson Paul Kohler. >> Thank you, Miss Carney. >> It's been more than. >> A year since the. >> Northern Ireland Troubles bill was introduced to this House. In was introduced to this House. In spite of valiant efforts from the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the Member for Leeds South, to deal with the legacy left South, to deal with the legacy left by the Conservatives, I fear this bill still does not square the admittedly difficult circle of enabling victims to find answers, whilst providing veterans with the protections they need and deserve. It's important to begin by recognising the impact the protracted gestation of this bill has had on those who fought bravely in such difficult and dangerous circumstances to uphold the rule of law and save lives.





























































































































































































































































During Operation Banner, it's been more than a year of anxiety, uncertainty and anguish for former service members, fearing they would be dragged back to Northern Ireland for further investigations. More than more than a year in which veterans have found no solace in the vague, uncertain promises of improved protections. To recognise the realities of the circumstances under which they served. These issues are, of course, by no means all the fault of the current government. The Conservatives enacted a legacy act, was fit for purpose, delivered a suitable mechanism for historic inquiries. This bill would not have been necessary.















































































































































































































































Sadly, the Tories opted for a barely conditional immunity principle that is an abhorrent equivalence between those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law and the terrorists who sought to exploit sectarian division to murder, maim and intimidate. The Tory Legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations. International human rights law and the ECHR the very convention that was so important to our soldiers, challenging inadequate equipment, unjust LGBT exclusion and investigating sexual assault, bullying and welfare failures. At the time, this was just collateral damage, a damning indictment of their cavalier attitude to the rule of law and our international obligations.































































































































































































































But now it has become central to their ill conceived plans to leave the ECHR and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday Agreement. It also failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party from the unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition supported the Conservatives flawed installation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed the innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation. It would consequently be churlish of me to recognise that an enviable inheritance bequeathed by the Tories to the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the Member for Leeds South.

















































































































































































































Can I again thank them both for their continued engagement with myself, other members of this House? I am in no doubt that their good and noble intentions, but regret to conclude in its current form, this Bill is simply not ready to become law. Last week, I again cast doubt on whether a Committee of the whole House is capable of providing necessary scrutiny required for such a delicate and detailed legislation. The Secretary of State again repeated the line of his predecessor that allows members representing the communities of Northern Ireland to play an active role during Committee stage.





































































































































































































That is, of course, an absolute legitimate point. However, this could have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Lewes a solution I've raised numerous times, only to be ignored instead of thorough line by line scrutiny. The Bill will now be subjected to days of politicking rather than weeks of line by line scrutiny, where we could have come together to make this legislation work. We have the pantomime of the chamber. This simply impossible to give proper consideration to in excess of 300 amendments, new clauses in two days of often partisan debate.























































































































































































How can anyone expect such a process to deliver a workable legislation that commands confidence across the various communities and stakeholders? In spite of these challenges, I have brought forward and supported amendments that would rectify three key shortcomings. Three key shortcomings of this bill protection for veterans, promotion of reconciliation and ensuring proper oversight of the Secretary of State's power to block disclosure of information. Veterans are at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach to this bill. They include victims, of course, I'm immensely grateful to the continued support and engagement of the Royal British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, who have helped ensure the amendments I have tabled will deliver the protections veterans needs.





































































































































































The Sasra and other special forces associations have told me they are unable to support the bill as it stands because, and I quote those who seek to punish former special Special Forces soldiers for doing their duty to save lives all those years ago, will easily exploit its loopholes and vulnerable provisions. General sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall have likewise stated the government's amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill failed to address the fundamental injustice facing veterans. That is the injustice of the Secretary of State's own words rinse and repeat investigations. He knows the problem, so why not listen to the senior officers and veterans when they tell him he has not yet solved it?





















































































































































At the heart of every conversation I've had with veterans associations has been the fear of such repeated investigations in which the process becomes the punishment safeguarding veterans when they are being interviewed by the Legacy Commission is vital. But as it stands, despite the amendments, the government's amendments do not protect veterans from being repeatedly dragged into court and in some cases, facing decades of uncertainty. The case of soldier beetle strikes the problem in 2024, the coroner's inquest ruled the lethal force he used was reasonable and proportionate. In spite of this, appeals have now been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and now possibly the Supreme Court.







































































































































For all, facilitated by legal aid, with state resources spent hounding soldier B, who suffered years with the continued stress of sleepless nights, even though a High Court judge branded the case as ludicrous and utterly divorced from reality, the government must not unwittingly facilitate lawfare against those who served. If it wants to maintain the confidence of veterans and active service members, the state has placed a great deal of emphasis on the assurance the repeated investigations will not take place unless they are essential to do so. The government has imposed a duty on the director of Legacy Commission to give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist, for obliging a witness to be interviewed.























































































































That is simply not good enough. This is a factor to why not? A test must be met that the director can still compel a veteran who has already given evidence to do so. Again, compelling new evidence is not defined. It is not enough. That is a reasonably suspected to exist, and it is enough so to be expected to exist. The bar for repeat investigations is simply too low. That is why the table amendments one, two, 3 to 1, two, nine, all of which were the request of the SAS Regimental Association, which creates a formal certification process regarding new evidence under amendment one, two, three before an investigation, duplicating earlier proceedings can proceed.







































































































The Director of investigations would have to satisfy the material. New evidence exists. New evidence certificate rather than having regard to a vague requirement, they would require to lay out the exact reasons why the new evidence is material reasons that are, of course, open to challenge if inadequate. This is the pivotal, pivotal clause, which means the one two, 4 to 1, two, nine rely and which we wanted to press to a vote. But to my great surprise and dismay, this was not granted. Other protection I put forward or supported include a presumption against prosecution for veterans, proper oversight, proper consideration of intelligence and rules of engagement, proper representation on the victims survivors group, an end to new inquests and enshrining the right to anonymity.























































































Sadly, because this is a Committee of the whole House, we will not get time to consider any of these protections in detail. My party is proud of the number of veterans in our ranks, and we do not believe in playing politics with their protections. We will consequently be supporting amendment 47, new clause 21, tabled by the Shadow Secretary of State. I will indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since he says that he's supporting new clause 21, can he explain how it is right before Mrs. explain how it is right before Mrs. Jones turns up at the Legacy Commission? When she asks for a review that she has to prove prove somehow to a Supreme Court judge that there is new and compelling that there is new and compelling evidence. Isn't that another process, another piece of lawfare? And has he checked with the Supreme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Court whether they think that this is a tall possible for a Supreme Court judge? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I answered your state intervention. I much prefer our amendment one, two, 3 to 1, two, amendment one, two, 3 to 1, two, nine. I absolutely agree, and this is exactly why we needed a Committee of the whole House to Committee of the whole House to discuss these issues. We needed to talk together to discuss these issues. At the moment, I prefer issues. At the moment, I prefer what the Tories have submitted to what the what the Secretary of State is submitting, but I most certainly prefer amendment one, two, certainly prefer amendment one, two, three. But we need a committee of the upstairs to discuss these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things. Let me try again. Why does he think that a Supreme Court judge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think that a Supreme Court judge should be making this decision? Paul Kohler thank thank thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Kohler thank thank thank you, Miss Carney. As I say, I prefer our solution. Amendment one, two, three. But their solution is two, three. But their solution is better than yours, which is simply to. Then the Secretary states. Which is simply far too vague, but Which is simply far too vague, but yes, I strongly support our amendment one, two, three, as does the. As does the SAS Regimental Association. My party will also support amendment 23, brought by the Member for Belfast East to ensure the Omagh bombing. The deadliest single attack of the troubles is brought into the scope of the Commission and I just do not understand.











































Secretary States reasons for not doing so. I'm also proud to support the Member for South Antrim amendment. The Laos Victims of Sexual Violence Act. Access to the Commission's work. This is a crucially important amendment. I sincerely hope the government will support to allow as many as possible to heal and move forward. The events of the past month in Drumcree have highlighted the divisions still exist. Concerted efforts must be made to heal the old animosities and ensure current and future generations are able to grow up. Society characterised by mutual respect and tolerance. A Northern Ireland where a Unionist never has to apologise for being British, where a nationalist never has to apologise for being Irish.



























As the Member for Belfast East so eloquently put it. To conclude, it's one of the hundreds of government amendments. I do not believe this bill delivers on its essential goals protecting our veterans, promoting reconciliation, delivering answers to the families who have waited decades. General Parker and General Wall have concluded that no amount of legal ingenuity can fix the issues with the bill. The only path forward is for the Secretary of State to show political leadership by withdrawing this bill, entering into further dialogue with the various communities and stakeholders that must be satisfied to ensure we achieve truth, justice and reconciliation, reconciliation across all communities and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stakeholders affected by the troubles. Thank you. Chair. I note the member expressed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I note the member expressed disappointment in his amendments not being selected for a separate decision. Can I remind him that select decisions are a matter for the chair and should not be questioned? On the floor of the House Select Committee Chair Tony

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House Select Committee Chair Tony Antoniazzi thank. You, Madam Chair. And I would like to say thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I would like to say thank you to the right hon. Member for Leeds South for his work on this bill and also for the way in which he engaged with our committee, especially during our inquiry into the legacy of the troubles. As chair, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I have heard
17:25
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
first hand from families whose lives were changed forever by the troubles and who, decades later, troubles and who, decades later, are still searching for answers about what happened to their loved ones. And that is why it is so important that we get this legislation right for all those who continue to carry the legacy of the continue to carry the legacy of the past. Amendment 286 reflects the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Following our extensive inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, and speaks to the very heart of an issue we heard time and time again throughout our inquiry.







































































Victims, survivors and families spoke of the frustration of delay. Many have waited decades for answers and we should therefore be looking to remove obstacles to information recovery and not to create new ones. I would also like to pay tribute to Joe McVeigh, the Victims and Survivors Commissioner, who is in the gallery today, and the work that he has done, and for working with our committee. But as drafted, the bill requires organisations such as the PSNI to assess and classify material as sensitive or prejudicial before it can then be transferred on to the Legacy Commission. The committee concluded that this requirement is potentially unnecessary and risks creating a substantial administrative burden.





















































On a matter of principle, Madam Chair, an independent commission should be trusted to make its own judgements about the handling of handling and disclosure of information. If Parliament is establishing a body to investigate the past, it should have direct access to the records it needs to do that work. There is also a practical case for this amendment. Much of the material needed for legacy investigations is actually held by the PSNI, often in records more than 30 years old and spread across multiple systems and archives. The Chief Constable has warned that locating, reviewing and disclosing this material is already a resource intensive task.





































Yet the legislation places further obligations on the PSNI to carry out sensitivity assessments before information can even reach the commission, and these concerns are not new. Madam chair, during our inquiry, the PSNI argued that direct access for the Commission would be far more effective, pointing to Operation Kenova, which operated without such a requirement. The Chief Constable has recently written to the government to again voice these concerns, warning that without dedicated capacity there is a material risk of delay and damage to confidence in the wider legacy process. Critically, no additional funding has been identified for this work and that, Madam Chair, risks creates a risk that resources are diverted from present day policing in order to administer the past.

















This amendment would not remove safeguards for sensitive information. It would simply place responsibility where it belongs. With the Independent Commission itself. Victims and families are not asking for additional bureaucracy. They are answering, asking for answers. As the Secretary of State has rightly pointed out, if we are serious about delivering those answers, building confidence in the process and using public resources effectively, then we should remove this unnecessary hurdle. And I would encourage the government and the Secretary of State to reflect on the substance of amendment 28286.

 Thank you, Madam Chair.
17:29
Stuart Anderson Portrait Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-
Stuart Anderson thank. >> Stuart Anderson thank. >> You, Madam Chair. I think. >> Well, first of all, it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an honour to follow the hon. Member who speaks very eloquently about this topic. Now, I've I've spoken at length in every almost every debate we've had about this, every debate we've had about this, having served during the troubles, myself and I contemplated today. Do myself and I contemplated today. Do I stand up and speak again? I don't want to, as my hon. Friend has said, say what's already been said over say what's already been said over and over and waste time. But there was a comment that the Honourable right hon. Member from Leeds South said, and I he speaks very eloquently about the stories that never leave us.

















































































































































































































We've all heard these stories that do never leave us. I'm standing up for the soldiers that serve, that didn't hear the stories. They were in the stories. They saw this first hand. And our brave servicemen and women that we send sent to the troubles or send anywhere, have to do some of the most horrendous things in the name of freedom and protecting the country. And I've seen that first hand. And most of these veterans spend their time trying to forget those things that they saw. They come out occasionally in a with a few mates around a couple of beers, or they don't come out at all.

































































































































































































But what we're asking them to do is for them to relive that many, many years on. So there's three amendments I want to talk about here. Amendment 44, amendment 47 and New Clause 21. And if we look, first of all, amendment 44 about following orders. So I was a teenager when I deployed during the troubles, and I spent 18 months in Belfast. I'm not being naive here. I didn't know about the political situation. It was completely irrelevant to me. I knew what I had to do, I knew the rules of engagement, and we've heard about the different training and that, as I say, as a teenager, the intelligence briefs I had would have been the best at the time.

















































































































































































My age, a young lad, but I was experienced and everybody around me was also the same. We knew exactly what we had to do and I didn't think, was that person a Republican Protestant? Were they part of the IRA, inLa, whatever it was, it didn't matter if that person walked around the corner with a rifle. The same rules of engagement applied, no matter what their beliefs, what they were trying to do. So there was there was no politics for me. And I wasn't an officer. I was a rifleman. So I wasn't even at this stage a lance corporal.



































































































































































I was a junior rank riflemen, actually, some would argue as a rifleman is the most senior rank you can ever achieve. But but as a rifleman, I was following orders. I didn't choose where we went, what we did, who we stopped. If we got told to stop, set up a VCP, nobody, a vehicle checkpoint, nobody goes through that place. Nobody did. That was the process I had to follow. I knew exactly if following orders that I'm there with my multiple, your brick, your team, if somebody has a coffee jar bomb, it's a coffee jar with explosives and a junkyard confetti, a whole host of stuff designed to kill and main.



















































































































































If they're throwing that while it's still in the hands, I could have engaged that person and use lethal force to stop them killing me or my friends. The moment their hand is opened and it's left. I can't do that now. If you ever watch somebody when you're playing with your kids in the park or whatever, throw a ball the split second, you have to do that. But you watch that move. That movement goes so fast. I would have always followed my orders and throughout my operational tour, during all the troubles and any other time I never witnessed, all heard about anybody not following what they were supposed to do, the GSP, the rules of engagement.





































































































































We all knew exactly what what we had to do. I was in Drumcree in 96 when that kicked off, and that went from a very sort of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stable environment. Yes, I will give way. The government is telling a remarkable story from his own remarkable story from his own experiences, but from those officers he served along with. One thing that perhaps made this debate thing that perhaps made this debate is in touching upon, and it should, is a number of lives that the British Army and the RUC and the PSNI, the lives they save, and they. In this chamber there are many who In this chamber there are many who owe their lives to the. The investigations and the deterrent factor of the RUC and the British Army, including the.























































































































My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry, who had a bomb attack under his car, and myself as a member of Strangford who. Castlewellan IRA unit were coming to get me. But they didn't do that because they RUC they wanted that. That's an example of some of the good things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they've done over the years. Never heard about this time. It was. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the right hon. Member raises some really valid points. There's a lot of people in here with first lot of people in here with first hand experience, and there was an exceptional work done during the troubles by the RUC by by the military. There was an exceptional work where you worked beyond what work where you worked beyond what it's hard to even explain in here. And when when I look at it now, I look at new clause 21, an amendment 47, and I look at memory and history and how we deal with that. I'll explain in a bit more detail.





































































































I know that Secretary of State has said that it's illogical about new clause 21. I thought that was the route. I disagree. I believe the bar should be exceptionally high now. I went to the Green Jacket reunion in the summer. I hadn't been for 16 years because I spoke of my history and my past, and I had to have a break from my past. Nothing against my friends. I needed to move out of that environment for it was until it was safe for me. From violence and alcohol, all those issues. I've had to go back into that.



























































































I had an amazing time and I was with my colleagues and there was people telling me stories, and the five of us around all had a different memory of this story, exceptionally different. And I had people telling me stories about when I got shot. I knew they joined the military five years after, but they were recounting it of when they were there with me and everything. And it's not like they they're making things up in their mind. They've heard it that many times. They believe they're there. So you're reliving all of these points. And if.















































































Let's have a look at going and serving in Northern Ireland, and this is the sort of point that I think amendment 47, really, I want to grasp here. I grew up in Hereford. My dad was one of the first SAS soldiers to serve in Northern Ireland. We all knew people who had served in Northern Ireland. We knew people that would come back in the pub as young soldiers. I won't say what age I was first going to the pub, but we going to the pub that you, you just say they've been over the water, they don't talk about it or.





































































And they didn't want to talk about it. And it wasn't that they were smashing the place up. Some people did, you know, some people reacted differently. They had seen things that their mind hadn't processed. So I I've come through the other side of complex post-traumatic stress. And I look at this when I had therapy, basically, I witnessed and seen things in my life that my brain couldn't process. And it. And if you look, you see something, you put it into a library in your brain. If you take a traumatic incident, you can't process and put it in in your brain in the library.























































So it sort of sat in the foyer and you can't choose when you pull that up or when you don't. So what I did is I went through therapy to reprocess all of those things in my mind. I've got many friends that I know have post-traumatic stress and have not dealt with it. They have just left those issues there. When I went through eMDR and CBT, I've done through all these, they took me through things that I had no recollection of. She was able to pull it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out of my brain, and I hadn't remembered that for many, many years. So the memory and the years. So the memory and the process we're going to ask people to go through. I'm 50 now. I know you're all looking and going. You you're all looking and going. You look a bit younger, Stu, but I'm 50 now. And as I say, I was at the now. And as I say, I was at the very the very end of, of, of Op very the very end of, of, of Op Banner. And I was a teenager. So we're asking one and two generations above me to recount some of the things they might have suffered through post traumatic stress, things that they don't want to remember, things that they possibly can't remember.































And you ask 2 or 3 people on the same incident an hour after, they will all have a different reason for that. And I believe that we've got to stand here for our veterans. Draw a line in this, and this is not doing it. And I'm going to finish on the point that the generals, some of those who I served with on the operational tours, said this is a threat to national security, and I believe it is. It impacts morale phenomenally. I am yet to find a group of veterans and people might disagree who support this, and I have a very good network of people.

















My whole life has been in defence and security. I am not finding anybody that is supporting what we're doing, and I believe there is unintended consequences. So don't believe intentionally we're going after our veterans, but there will be unintended consequences where we will open the doors and our veterans will be in the docks for years to come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lillian Jones. I would just like to start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to start by placing my thanks on to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, for taking the time to meet with me for taking the time to meet with me and a very formidable local veteran from Ayrshire, Alan Middleton, who from Ayrshire, Alan Middleton, who does some fantastic work with the local Army Cadets Force under the
17:40
Lillian Jones Portrait Lillian Jones MP (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)
-
-
local Army Cadets Force under the West Lowland Battalion. My right hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and most importantly, he has listened to those of us who feel strongly about this legislation and has listened to the veterans and their concerns which deserve to be heard. Now, when this bill was first introduced, many veterans feared that the New Legacy framework would simply become another route to the repeated investigations that, of course, so much anxiety, frustration and trauma over recent decades. So I welcome the fact that the government has listened and that the amendments already brought forward by the government have significantly strengthened the bill.





































































 New clause 32, for instance, recognises the unique context in which members of the armed forces operated during the troubles. Amendments 192195 help ensure that investigations are rigorous and evidence led, with clear statutory duties on the Director of Investigations. Before cases progress further and perhaps most importantly, new clause 45 protecting veterans from unexpected or intrusive contact by investigators years or in some cases, decades after their service has ended. It places safeguards in law, including the involvement of the Secretary of State, and helps ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect that they deserve. The. Taken together, these changes have made the bill, in my view, more balanced and as a result have secured my support.

















































Nobody is asking for immunity. Nobody should be above the law. But equally, there should be no time at which a witch hunt against those who served our country honourably. Investigation should be driven by genuinely new evidence, not by the endless revisiting of matters that have already been examined. Time and again, the conversations I had with veterans in Ayrshire, including those who served during some of the most difficult periods of the troubles, have left me in no doubt about the anxiety the repeated investigations had on them, or even the prospect of such investigations that can cause decades even after service has ended.



































What they seek is not special treatment, nor to be placed beyond the reach of law. Rather, they seek a process that is fair, proportionate and focussed on genuinely new evidence. Ultimately, this legislation must command confidence amongst victims and their families, amongst the wider public and amongst those who served their country honourably. I believe that the changes made to the Bill will help us move closer to that objective. They strike the right balance between accountability and fairness, and for those reasons, I will be supporting the government's approach, and I urge members across the House to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Gavin Robinson. I thank you very much for being called so early, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, though I do hope I might convince her not I do hope I might convince her not to follow all of the government's approach in respect of some of the amendments, and I hope her ears are amendments, and I hope her ears are open, as well as her heart to some of the arguments that we will make. Mr. Gannon, I did indicate earlier Mr. Gannon, I did indicate earlier in some interventions that, and indeed earlier in the programme motion, that the way in which we are considering these amendments today is far from optimal, far from optimal.







In fact, we've had some very good speeches and contributions made already this afternoon, and yet they didn't touch on amendments at all and subject to the chair's indulgence and allowance for that point, of course. But they were talking more in general terms. And yet I look at amendment 52. It's signed by the hon. Member for North Down, or
17:44
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
should I say, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, but signed by myself and my colleagues, by by myself and my colleagues, by those around me, similar amendments tabled by myself and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party in the Democratic Unionist Party and signed by those around us in amendment 21 and 22 in amendment amendment 21 and 22 in amendment two, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim on a similar thread and amendment one tabled by the and amendment one tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim, a recurrent theme and yet, whenever the government bring forward their own to try and deal with the issues outlined in clause 33 and 34, they're deficient, totally deficient.

























































































































































































































































































































































































And when the hon. Member for North Down makes a salient point that it's not just about somebody being approved by a Secretary of State to serve on the body who may have had a terrorist past or a terrorist conviction. But actually political support matters to. And how outrageous is it that we still have people in political parties in Northern Ireland and indeed across the United Kingdom who glorify terror, who stand over terror, who eulogise terrorists, who honour their name and their memory, and their sickening and bleak contribution to society and life in Northern Ireland. And yet we don't even enforce the same legislation in Northern Ireland about glorification, because apparently for successive governments, it's all just a bit too difficult.







































































































































































































































































































































































Well, it shouldn't be difficult because what's right and what's wrong are pretty easy and fundamental concepts to understand. Children understand the difference between right and wrong, and yet we wreck ourselves trying to placate the necessity of some to eulogise terrorism. And I think it falls far short of what we should expect as a society. Amendment four, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim. Again, can I say he has our support in it, sir, when he's raising the issues around sexual crime and that sexual crimes associated with the troubles one, they existed. Two, we have heard testimony after testimony from people who have gone through the most excruciating trauma and revisited that trauma time and again.



















































































































































































































































































































































And yet here is legislation before us tonight, and we hear the government want to resist the notion that sexual violence and sexual trauma form part of the troubles, and therefore shouldn't be able to be considered by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Legacy Commission. Well, I will allow. Yeah, I'm very grateful. Just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I'm very grateful. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't resist the idea that sexual violence was part of the troubles. And indeed, part of the troubles. And indeed, one of the problems that we had with the previous legacy legislation was that it made it impossible for these to be impossible for these to be investigated anywhere. What we are making possible is that they will be able to be investigated by the be able to be investigated by the police, and all police forces in the United Kingdom have suitable teams able to deal with the specifics of these kind of incidents, and I think it would be inappropriate for the Legacy Commission to take on that piece of work without being able to set up a whole new team specifically to look at that.































































































































































































































































































































These are. However, the legislation does allow for police forces to be able to take forward those crimes. And if and if there is clear evidence that this would be that it was related to a death

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well, or to or to serious injury, then there would be able to be investigated. Thank you, Mr. Calum Miller. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Calum Miller. I disagree fundamentally with the Secretary of State because let's put it like this. The sexual violence that was used was used to pursue the same aims by the same depraved people who were prepared to take life. And they did. to take life. And they did. Whenever you listen to Maria Carl and her experience, remember this and her experience, remember this was continual trauma inflicted by people who were exerting coercive control in her community, who threatened her continually and repeatedly that she couldn't dishonour the virtuous. In their view, Republican name. And yet she was repeatedly raped by the same people who were committing murder in our streets.













































































































































































































































































































And the notion that we can argue the toss and say, well, she can go to the police, does it? Is there no concept or understanding in this chamber that there are people like Maria, who grew up in Republican West Belfast or other places where going to the police is still an alien concept. But here you have a mechanism which is being portrayed as the mechanism, human rights compliant mechanism, article two compliant mechanism that people can go for truth and justice, but not. Not if you just happen to be a victim of one sort, sexual crime and not a victim of the other, I think it's shameful.































































































































































































































































































Yeah, I will share.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Just on the issue of Maria, the doughty campaigner for many years on this issue, would agree with me that just at the weekend, we saw her respond to a former member of this House, Michelle Gildernew, for Fermanagh South Tyrone, and indicated that South Tyrone, and indicated that she, Maria, had reported the sexual violence to the former member of this House who did absolutely this House who did absolutely nothing about it. That was a Sinn Féin MP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend from East Londonderry and he's right. And Maria was actually he's right. And Maria was actually defending me in that tweet from outrageous suggestions directed outrageous suggestions directed toward me in that tweet. And yet the person who tweeted it, Michelle Gildernew, had the temerity to tweet it. Knowing that Maria Carl tweet it. Knowing that Maria Carl had confided in her in the 1990s and she did nothing. And I want to thank Maria for her steadfastness and her courage over many years and the issues she has raised. New clause 21 again, an attempt by the official opposition and many other attempts by many of us in this amendment book to ensure that the.



































































































































































































































































Any process understands the context of operation, the environment in which people serve, the rules of engagement, the pressure, the threats. How often do we hear people talk of Bloody Sunday and never mention the days that preceded it? Yes. That's not an excuse. That's not a challenge for what happened, but mention the days that preceded it. The two police officers who were murdered, two police officers who were patrolling that city on a cross-community basis, cross-community basis and murdered on the streets. I often remember a gentleman who was very senior in in the end in Northern Ireland and who said to me, Gavin, I remember one day being I was out at the top of the Land Rover, and I heard a clink and I turned round and I thought I was going to be shot because two of my friends had been killed the day before, and I nearly shot until I realised that it was an elderly lady putting out two milk bottles.















































































































































































































































And what he was trying to indicate to me was he was so perplexed, so scared. As a young 20 year old man, so scared, petrified, knowing he'd lost friends yesterday out wondering would he get home that afternoon not knowing the answer. And when he heard that clink first thing in the morning, he thought he was next. And he nearly shot an unarmed civilian. He didn't. And thank God he didn't. But he was sharing that story with me so he could understand. So I support New Clause 21 entirely. When we talk about contemporaneous rules and about the environment in which people operated, so too with the amendments that have been tabled.

































































































































































































































I understand the government have tried to meet in some ways on on equivalence again, new clause 31, government, new clause 31. It replicates amendments from the hon. Member for Strangford at number 56 and the hon. Member for North Antrim Amendment ten, to my hon. Friend in Upper Bann a new clause nine and the effort she's put in on on the runs and putting those beyond the pale, I understand again, government have moved on that, but they could engage in support rather than always tabling their own. And so I mention new clause five support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.



















































































































































































































I make no apologies for saying support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be before this House tonight. We talk all the time of veterans and rightly so. My grandfather served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, though not during the troubles he served his community and 302 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary served their community and paid the ultimate sacrifice that was right that they were honoured. The George Cross. It was wrong that they were so disgracefully dishonoured through the changes that were brought about in policing, and here we are, just weeks away from celebrating or acknowledging 25 years of renewed policing in Northern Ireland.



































































































































































































And here we are with questions around support for police. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman from Leeds South, but I share with him and with the House that when he was talking and talking about engaging with victims, and I acknowledge that he has engaged with many victims, I got a text message from a victims group that had hoped he could have visited as Secretary of State and didn't, though he sent a junior Minister and that same victim. I remember visiting him on the main street in Omagh. And he served as a police officer that day on the 15th of August in 1998, and he showed me the shop where he was laying bodies that day, 28 people lost their lives.



















































































































































































Miss Carney and two unborn children as well. And then he took me into the entry next door, where he had to bring other bodies because there simply wasn't sufficient room in the front of the shop. And this RUC man, this RUC man, who he and his colleagues have been demonised for years, was weeping when he was sharing with me the pain he still had, though that wasn't his intention, the pain he still harboured from those days. And he has asked the government to support him and his colleagues whenever they engage with the inquiry. He has lamented the fact that the Omagh inquiry is but a partial piece of the jigsaw.

































































































































































The inquiry Mark Garnier only has a terms of reference that allow it to answer this question. What could the British state authorities have done to prevent Omagh? What could we have done to prevent an act of terror? Omagh was blown up because dissident republicans from the Republic of Ireland sought vehicles in the Republic of Ireland, move through the Republic of Ireland, and came to Northern Ireland to destroy that market town. And so they did. But our inquiry will only answer what we could have done to prevent it. And time after time after time, we've raised this issue about the legacy commissions dates.



















































































































































Why? Why are we, as a House of Commons, still prepared to pass legislation that says the troubles ended in April 1998, when we knew Omagh occurred on the 15th of August 1998, and whenever we raise these issues, people say, oh, you're just having a go at the Irish. The Irish have promised they're going to give information. Well, no, they have not. And it was referenced earlier by the right hon. Member for Rickford and Whaley. All right. Rayleigh and Wickford John Ware last week. John Ware is a Panorama journalist and he gave evidence in the inquiry last week, and he made reference to a call that was received by the Irish Army camp in Ballyshannon on the 14th of August 1998.

































































































































And colleagues may remember me raising this last week and the hon. Member for North Antrim raised it as well. The reason why John Ware made those comments in the inquiry last week was because he felt, and core participants felt that the details he was about to outline in the inquiry were with them mistakenly that had he not read them out and the Irish government realised that they had let it slip, it would have been rescinded. And that's why I got a call four weeks ago giving me the details on a similar basis so that it couldn't be rescinded.





















































































































Yeah, I will briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government how they were the Dublin Government how they were going to cooperate in the Omagh inquiry. And yet we find that they were sitting on information. And were sitting on information. And when 50 plus questions were sent to them, the answer to. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Carney. There's a recurring theme because we were told that they would have a Garda Legacy unit, that they would answer this mythical telephone and they don't answer, and they don't provide answers, and they don't respond to emails, and they still have an interstate case against our government. And they expect much of us, but they give nothing in return. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 14th of August 1998, a telephone call was made to the thinner camp and an Irish Army document was handwritten, and the phone call came in at 10:30 on the 14th of August.

































































































And a male caller who sounded reasonable, according to the person who took the notes and said they did not appear drunk, said pay attention to the back roads of Colac. Border control checkpoints 197 and 198 inform guard, Akuna and any SF Northern Ireland Security Forces Road leads to Enniskillen and Irvinestown and then he stops and he says, Forget Clogher, it's OMA, oma, OMA An Garda Siochana spoke to BOS and S and the names are redacted on the 16th of August, where they decided for themselves that that wasn't actually a warning. It was a warning, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one with the most devastating consequences.















































































Ten days later, there was another effort to try and retrofit the call. But why am I mentioning any of this? I am mentioning these things because there was government knowledge, An Garda Siochana knowledge and their intelligence service knowledge of that call that came in on the 14th of August. Yet Baroness O'loan, from the other place, who was a first Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland, she conducted an inquiry into Omagh. For two years. She investigated the Omagh bomb. Was she aware of these calls? No, no she was not. And the revelation last week was a revelation to her.

































































 The Irish government commissioned the Nali report in 2002 and reported in 2004, exonerated An Garda Siochana. They knew nothing. Another report where no mention was made of this call that came in. But it will come out in the inquiry that An Garda Siochana did ask about these calls in 2002, and that a catalogue of information was presented to the bowel. Jennings, Dermot Jennings, Garda Jennings, the Holder of Truths and the keeper of Dark secrets, somebody who did not give that information over to Nuala O'loan did not give that information over to the Nali report. The Keeper of secrets, the man who knew who was stealing the cars for the bombing campaigns not just of Omagh, but of 17 incidents in the run up to it.









































The man who had the information that could have prevented such a loss of life and didn't, and when he had the chance to share it, though it would have been embarrassing for his government. He didn't either. And so when I am asking colleagues tonight to consider amendment 23, I do it for a number of reasons. One, the Legacy Commission has crossed jurisdictional abilities that the inquiry does not. Two, The Omagh families are again in Dublin tomorrow with their judicial review in the hope that they can secure truth and justice for their families. Remember, the Omagh families are not of one nation, nor are they of two.

























Spain, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, others all creeds and none. How often have we heard Secretaries of State, past and present, say the Last Legacy Act commanded no support from any party in Northern Ireland? Well, here we have an amendment supported by the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, an independent unionist, a traditional Unionist and Alliance member, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I hope I can add them into that unanimity. Secretary of State, unanimity of Northern Ireland, political parties, at least represented in this chamber, all of whom can see the practical and compassionate benefits for agreeing with amendment 23, all of whom recognise that we cannot allow the pain to continue.









In this case, the biggest single atrocity. And that's not to put it above any other Mark Garnier, but it is certainly to recognise that as it currently stands in this legislation, unless amendment 23 is agreed, it won't be considered where others will.
18:03
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
Al Carns thank you, Mr. Carney, and it's an honour to follow the and it's an honour to follow the hon. Member from Belfast East. I'd like to, first of all, thank the government for putting forward their amendments. I support the no equivalence. I support the highest bar for evidence and I support the double lock on prosecutions that is moving forward. I also would like to thank the veterans that have come here today to watch and observe this debate. All parties, for having a conscientious and solid debate around this issue. And importantly, the veterans, commissioners and all those observing this from afar.





























































































































































































































































If one takeaway this should really be above politics, it's gone on for so long with so much pain amongst so many people. This should be above politics to come to a solution in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland. I brought forward several amendments Mark Garnier to highlight the overarching problems. I thought with this Bill, and whilst I support many of the amendments brought forward today from the government, I am still deeply concerned that this bill opens up the floodgates to hundreds of lawyers to pursue what can only be described as a strategic effort to rewrite history, to paint the state as the aggressor, and indeed use the process as the punishment to hit back at our brave servicemen and women who served in Northern Ireland.















































































































































































































































Now, I served in Northern Ireland. I served in 2003. Was after the troubles. It wasn't the most kinetic environment then, but I went through the same training that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and women went before they deployed to Northern Ireland. The requirement for split second decision making, the requirement to engage with the population in some cases that did not like or did not want you to be there, a very difficult operating environment. I was young troop commander at the time. I then went on to serve in Afghanistan, a multitude of other operational theatres with those skills became very, very useful in other theatres.

































































































































































































































I know what it feels like when I then went on to be the Minister for Veterans and People. I then opened up to another side of the debate that I hadn't necessarily engaged with when I was a young troop commander in the Marines, which was speaking to victims, victims of all sorts and all creeds from different sides of the House who were seeking truth. Many of them had given up on the chance of justice, but they were seeking truth for the loved ones, and closure, usually on people who'd been lost during the troubles. Now, my amendment that I do not intend to push to a vote today was quite simple.





















































































































































































































It was to move all inquests into the Legacy Commission, create one simple body for truth and reconciliation, with an acceptance that the likelihood of justice is vanishingly small. The likelihood of prosecutions, I quote unquote, is vanishingly small. There is a question around justice and whether we are ever going to get justice, and whether truth and reconciliation should be the priority. Now, my amendment overall overnight would worry a great deal of lawyers in Northern Ireland, as it would cut off what has become an exceptionally lucrative business, with inquests costing hundreds of millions of pounds. This amendment would not only have saved the taxpayer fortune, but it would have centralised and, I believe, revitalised and created one central mechanism to trouble related incidents.

































































































































































































So why cannot this. Why can this not take place? Well, because it breaks the framework agreement with the Irish. Now I'm Scottish, I have an affinity with the Irish. Do we do we here in this house, in this great place. Expect the Irish to open up their police and military intelligence files and provide us with the dearth of information and intelligence that must exist on cross border. Our activities over 30 years. Just think about that from a political perspective. We are all politicians here. Would you be keen on opening 30 years of that evidence? Think of the political blowback.

















































































































































































Think of the legal issues and think importantly, how that is going to potentially pull you or individuals involved back into the system. Indeed, there are many accounts from various sources. The Republic of Ireland was used to store capabilities, weapons, explosives, and even for terrorists to flee security forces south of the border. So are we, as a framework agreement, as the Framework Framework Agreement states, really going to see reciprocal evidence gathering and exposure of IRA activities from the Republic of Ireland? The answer, in my mind is highly, highly unlikely, because to do so will result in every sliver being legally scrutinised, people being held accountable, the reputation of Ireland being in question and it will have political consequences for them.































































































































































I just don't think it's going to happen, perhaps in the view in which we would want it to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen. Absolutely. I'm very grateful and I'm grateful for the way in which he's conducted his campaign. And he's as conducted his campaign. And he's as he knows, he's informed many of the amendments that we've tabled today. amendments that we've tabled today. I just don't want to give the Irish government a free pass on this. I government a free pass on this. I think we need to be ambitious, just as there should be a duty of candour for us, so there must be a duty of candour for the Irish government. Every time I've raised this with my counterparts in Dublin,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they have insisted that they intend to stand by their commitments, and I think we must make sure that they do. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. I'd like to thank thank you for that intervention, but also the way in which the sector has approached this this bill, the engagement with all parties, has been second to all parties, has been second to none. And I absolutely support support that engagement. I've got so many people phoning me, talking so many people phoning me, talking to me about that engagement and the positivity of it. So it has been taken forward in the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mechanisms. I will give way. And he's right to bring up the role for the Republic of Ireland role for the Republic of Ireland and what they do or what they don't do. I think it's more the case. The two superintendents, Breen and two superintendents, Breen and Buchanan, who were murdered at the border, it was Gareth Bacon who colluded with the IRA to let them colluded with the IRA to let them know what was going on. And yet now we find that they that the IRA murdered and killed them. But we murdered and killed them. But we find as well that the Republic of Ireland and the government in particular fell short, very far short.

































































































































There's many other cases. My cousin's an example of that there. There's many other ones as well, but I think it's. Well, Jack Lynch, just cast your mind back. The hon. Member's mind back. And he was the the Taoiseach for the Republic of Ireland who was going to arm nationalists against the the unionists in Northern Ireland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's where the, where the the canker lies at the very top. I'd like to thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the hon. Member for his contribution and his consistent analysis, scrutiny and consistent analysis, scrutiny and support for all things Northern Ireland. So whilst my amendment isn't going forward, we will, isn't going forward, we will, unfortunately in my mind, continue with the twin track twin track approach Legacy Commission on one approach Legacy Commission on one hand, in some cases underfunded and an inquest on the other will waste a huge amount of money in this process because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is just very unlikely to come across. We will allow this to drift on for potentially up to 15 years.











































































































Now think about that. If you're 80 years old, 75, 70, 15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether you will have to be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form on an incident 30, 40 years ago. Sometimes I can't even remember what I did yesterday. And we will keep our brave veterans who I think serve valiantly. Waiting, of course, in limbo. Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors one, the willingness of Ireland to support us, and I completely support the Secretary of State's move to hold them to account in what they said they will do, but let's see if that happens.



























































































 The second one is the cost. The costs are astronomical. Minimum inquest 20 million. Minimum £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go. Even if they go into Legacy Commission, you're still talking £5 million an inquest that's significant. Then we've got politics to think about as this progresses. Sinn Fein's activity, either in Northern Ireland or, of course, in the Republic of Ireland, and how that affects both the legislation and agreements they've made recently. And then, on top of all of this, if new evidence, new biometrics, the silver gun, the smoking gun is found, you only go to prison for two years.











































































So what is the point? Information recovery. There is no new information unless it comes from Ireland. New evidence. It's highly unlikely and we can talk about it being a nonsense. But the reality is it's not going to happen. It hasn't happened for the last ten years. It's unlikely to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen now. There will be 1 or 2 cases. I will give way. Respect the member's opinion on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respect the member's opinion on this, but does he accept that over the last week or week and a half, there have been two former paramilitaries in court on the basis of things that happened long ago? It is not the case that these cases aren't being brought forward. cases aren't being brought forward. His biggest complaint is that too many of the cases have been forward, brought forward. Now you're saying there's no no chance of new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's no no chance of new evidence. I don't really understand this argument. The likelihood of having a huge amount of new evidence that justifies the amount of money spent, the pain and anguish you're going to put all of these people through just doesn't weigh up. It doesn't weigh up. There needs to be one single process to deliver it. We have a twin track approach that's going to cost a huge amount of money that if you are a victim, sat underneath, you can't decide which way to go. And it's in complete contradiction to each other. So I do agree.



















































If there is new evidence, then by all means pull it forward. Of course, of course we do. That's the in line with the rule of law. But you've got to put this in balance of the greater aim, which is truth and reconciliation. And so from my perspective, and perhaps equally important, we allow those in Northern Ireland who were defeated in a military campaign to now engage in a political one, one that uses every operation to rewrite history, paint the state as the aggressor, and convince the good people of Northern Ireland that reunification is the answer to all of their problems.







































If you're a 15 year old now and you have to put up with five, ten, 15 years of this going through the courts consistently, it paints the state in a negative light, morally and ethically. From my perspective, this doesn't support our veterans as it should. Strategically, it deals the best possible hand to our adversaries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Martin thank. You, Madam Chair. And before I begin with some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And before I begin with some brief remarks on on a narrow section of the bill, I just want to section of the bill, I just want to pay tribute to honourable and right hon. Members from across the House for the quality of the debate. I for the quality of the debate. I think this is an incredibly difficult topic to deal with, and I think that the vast majority, think that the vast majority, particularly today, have engaged with it in the spirit in which it should be engaged with. I want to speak in support of amendment 103, tabled in the name of my friend the hon.



















Member for Wimbledon, and quite simply, what this amendment seeks to do is where a case has already been investigated. At an inquest, the director of investigations cannot reopen it unless materially new evidence has come to light. And let me be clear from the outset, I say this as a former soldier myself, anyone who wears our country's uniform and commits war crimes should be prosecuted. Of course, these standards and this adherence to the rule of law is what makes our armed forces the best in the world. But justice also has to be fair. And so those who served have made split second decisions.



I think, as really expounded brilliantly by the hon. Member from South Shropshire. And those conditions are conditions
18:16
18:16
18:16
Mike Martin Portrait Mike Martin MP (Tunbridge Wells, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
decisions and found innocent, we cannot then try them again without material i.e. investigation, changing outcome, changing evidence changing outcome, changing evidence being brought to light, and the amendment 103 in the name of my hon. Friend stops that. It means that the file cannot be reopened by a different team, or the same questions be put to the same soldiers. It requires genuinely new evidence, and it draws a sharp line between justice and harassment. I want to make a wider point about the standards that we judge by. And during the troubles, fatal shootings by British personnel were investigated by the military police until 1973, and then after that, by the RUC, by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.















































































Since that time, article two of the ECHR, the European Convention on Human Rights, which creates a duty to investigate deaths to a standard that did not exist at that time in domestic law, was applied to UK courts through the 1998 Human Rights Act. The courts have since then applied that duty retrospectively and in my view, Madam Chair, this is wrong. You cannot judge historical allegations against more modern legal tests that did not exist at the time. And this is also what sets apart allegations from Northern Ireland, from the troubles and those recent allegations that we have seen and are currently being tested in the Haddon-cave inquiry relating to Afghanistan.



























































The Haddon-cave inquiry is investigating allegations from 2010 to 2013, but those allegations at that time pertain to a time that the law was the same. The same human rights duties existed, and the same investigative standards are extant today as were in 2010 to 13. This is quite different to the situation that we face with Northern Ireland veterans, from troubles for incidents that happened in the 1970s and the 1980s and even beyond, when we're dealing with Afghanistan and the Haddon-cave inquiry, nobody is being judged by rules that did not exist when they served. And the Northern Ireland veterans are in quite a different position.











































And I want to just make that point and put it on the record, because often in discussions in the media and even in this House, those two inquiries are conflated. And I think they're quite separate. And then finally, I think I'd want to remember how we got here. The previous legislation promise certainty, and instead the Legacy Act from the previous government was opposed by every party in Northern Ireland, by almost every victims group and by the Irish government. It was found to be incompatible with the law. And I think many veterans also didn't want immunity because it then put those in uniform or veterans who had previously worn uniform on the same footing as those terrorists and paramilitaries who acted outwith the law.

























So my position is simple, Madam Chair. Those who commit crimes in uniform should face justice. Bereaved families deserve the truth, and those who've already been investigated deserve finality. These aims do not conflict, and a fair system delivers all three and amendment 103. In the name of my friend from Wimbledon, my hon. Friend from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wimbledon helps deliver that system. Colum Eastwood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Chair. I have to say it. Is very frustrating sometimes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is very frustrating sometimes to go through these debates, and I know from speaking to victims, as many of us in this House do, not many of us in this House do, not enough of us do speak to victims? How frustrated they have been with some of the language that's been some of the language that's been used in our many debates about this issue. I feel that the first people we should always talk about are the people who were murdered and those who were left behind, not the people who did the shooting. That's what I feel.





And I think that we let ourselves down, actually, in this chamber by focusing far too much on veterans and people in this place are entitled to be proud of the British Army if they want. But
18:20
Colum Eastwood Portrait Colum Eastwood MP (Foyle, Social Democratic & Labour Party)
-
-
why is the focus nearly wholly on those people who have been, who've those people who have been, who've been charged or should be charged with shooting children, for example, with shooting children, for example, you know, 26% of the children killed during the troubles were killed by somebody in a uniform, killed by somebody in a uniform, 26%. You wouldn't really understand that. Listening to some of the that. Listening to some of the people in this room. And I get that people want to represent veterans. I understand the politics around all of that. And yes, they might be worried about getting a knock on the door, but, you know, people get knocks on the door over 30 years.









































































































































































They might have only got one knock on the door from a police officer and never heard from anybody ever, ever again. Those are the people we should be concerned about. I listened this morning for the today programme, someone I know very well, Emmett McConnell, was on representing his brother Stephen. So let's talk about this for a split second decision. Stephen was 11 years old, playing with his friends in front of lots of witnesses on Fourth Street in Derry. British soldier shot him in the back of the head with a plastic bullet. He died a couple of days later.





























































































































































A soldier was pulled in, interviewed for about half an hour and let go again. Not that long after, the police and the army raided his mother's house and the Bishop of Derry at the time, Bishop Daley, said they were in the house longer than he was in the interview suite. Was that a split second decision? Is that soldier who did that? Should he not be hauled in front of a court? If that happened on the streets of Manchester or Liverpool or Edinburgh, people who most people in this House would see as British citizens shot and murdered by the British Army, or a British police force?















































































































































Should those people not be entitled to the same level of justice, if it can be achieved as any other citizen in the United Kingdom? I don't understand the argument against it. I get and many other people will have made this argument, including victims, that justice is becoming more and more difficult to achieve, and many victims want different things, but they're entitled to seek it, and they shouldn't be barred from seeking it by any government, because their rights should be upheld in the same way as any of us would have expect our rights to be upheld.



































































































































The former Secretary of State, the Member for Leeds South, I thought, gave a fantastic speech, an important speech, actually. He reminded us of who this should all be about. He talked about Majella O'Hare. I spoke to her brother Michael today, as I do most times when these issues are coming up. And I want you to remember what that was about. Again, the 12 year old girl going to mass, going to chapel. Actually, she was going to do confession. She was shot by a member of the Parachute Regiment. Killed. That wasn't a split second decision. Majella didn't have a a rifle in her hand or a coffee jar or anything else, and I, I the Member for South Shropshire gave a powerful speech and I understand his own personal experience and I respect it.

















































































































But to talk about the issue of memory loss, as some others have, I don't know about any of you in this room. If I shot a child of 12 years old on her way to chapel, I would remember it until my dying day. It's just not the case that that can be used as an excuse for not doing anything. Last week, Wave Trauma Centre Fantastic organisation brought some victims into this chamber. I know many, I know many people met them. They had good experiences and bad experiences actually with some of the people who they met.





































































































Jennifer Gillespie, Patsy Gillespie's daughter Jennifer was among them, a braver family you couldn't meet. Jennifer was 12 when the IRA came into her house, held her at gunpoint and her mother at gunpoint took her father, Patsy, away, chained them to a van full of explosives, and made them drive that van into the British Army base in on the Buncrana Road in Derry, killing Patsy and five soldiers. Patsy tried to warn the soldiers, but the IRA remotely detonated it. Jennifer is no supporter of the Republican movement. She wants truth and justice for every victim that can get it.





















































































We also met Mo Norton and her husband. Her brother was killed. Soldier again in the M62 bus bombing. And she said to me what I thought was a very powerful thing. Why are we never talked about when they talk about veterans? What about all the soldiers who were murdered or the police officers that were murdered, the families that were left behind? Are they not entitled to seek truth and justice? Because that's what I think some people the argument that some people are making would lead us to, I just don't understand why we don't swap about those soldiers.









































































When we talk about about this issue. I was also at an event last week with the family of Sean Brown, who was the chairman of Ballyhea GAA club. He was closing the gates and he was taken away and shot repeatedly outside and left outside his car. There's been two court cases already, five High Court judges, the Lord Chief Justice included, who have mandated this government to open a public inquiry into what happened. We think 25 odd people were involved in that murder, and the state has admitted that that included state agents. The next week, we're going to have to go to the Supreme Court because this government is appealing the the judgement which mandates this government are bringing to bring about a public inquiry.























































I would appeal to the government today to take the opportunity to listen to what Brady, Brady Brown has had to go through. An elderly woman, her husband brutally murdered like that. She's demanding a public inquiry, and she'd be entitled to it because the court has said she's entitled to it. And I would ask this government to drop that appeal. There is one of the reasons I'm opposed to some of the disclosure elements within this is because I looked at the files that were released to to the brown family, Black pages from start to finish. I've seen it a thousand times with victims.









































They have to fight and fight and fight to get disclosure, and all they get is blanked out. Pages. There are cases right now of dead children who still haven't got access to, to, to their files and won't for many, many years. So look, we have issues with some of this. We have issues around the national, around the national security veto, which has been used, frankly, many times before as a national embarrassment veto and should not be, again, a I also, though, know that this is the last chance that we have. I've been working this issue for 20 or 25 years.





























People have been working on for much, much longer than me. But victims have had to think about this every day. And I get that some veterans are worried. My first concern is to the victims and the people that were left behind. This is the last chance we have. We have amendments and we support other people's amendments. Even people we don't normally agree with. But the bottom line is this if we do not pass this today, this is not going to be passed. This is not going to happen. We saw what the last government tried to do.



















They tried to close down access to truth and justice. Let's take the opportunity with all our issues with this legislation. Let's take the opportunity to give those people who've been left behind as part of this process some chance of truth and the vanishing hope, as I, I agree with but hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a prosecution as well. Thank you. Doctor Andrew Murrison.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Extraordinarily powerful speeches. This afternoon. They've been all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This afternoon. They've been all first rate up to this point. I'm first rate up to this point. I'm going to start by laying out what I am. I'm the member of Parliament am. I'm the member of Parliament for a part of Wiltshire, which has, I suspect, as many servicemen and ex-servicemen as any other, any other part of the South of England, probably rather more so. I'm proud to represent them. And it's
18:29
Andrew Murrison Portrait Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
important I say that because, unlike the hon. Gentleman member unlike the hon. Gentleman member for Foyle, my perspective is probably very different to his. Given the people he talks to and Given the people he talks to and the people I talk to, and we will differ. But that doesn't in any way differ. But that doesn't in any way take anything away from my respect for the hon. Gentleman and the for the hon. Gentleman and the thoughts and sympathies that he has expressed. I'd like to take us back to Mrs. Jones, the apocryphal Mrs. Jones that was cited by the Secretary of State.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Well, most of us will probably know somebody like Mrs. Jones, and what we must not do is to suggest to Mrs. Jones that we have a remedy for her, that we can make this right for her. Because at the distance of several decades, I'm afraid, as the honourable and gallant member for certain, member for Oak. That said, it is unlikely we're going to be able to achieve for her what she might want. Now, in my profession, the first rule is to do no harm, and I fear that in pursuing measures in this bill, in the way that the Secretary of State proposes, we may very well be doing some harm, in particular to our veteran community and to our national defence.







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































And I'll go on to explain why, if I may. Now, I do welcome the changes that the Secretary of State, jointly with the Defence Secretary, proposed in their letter on the 12th of October, and I've said so before, and I think that makes a bad bill better. I welcome the six new protections he announced in September last year, but they're not enough. This bill allows paramilitaries, particularly the IRA and its confederates, to continue the rewriting of the history of these islands to their entire satisfaction. It, however, unwittingly promotes lawfare and damages our national security. Now, the Secretary of State says he's met veterans.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I'm sure he does. I'm sure he meets them a lot. Several of us this morning had the privilege of meeting veterans in Parliament Square, and some of them are in the gallery right now, and they're watching this, and their sons and grandsons. And if I may say so, as the father of two servicewomen, daughters and granddaughters are watching it too. And they'll be working out whether they should join the armed forces of today. What they need to know is the government of the day and its successors will have their back when events of the sort that we're describing today come to light and are raked over by our friends in the legal profession and the High court of public opinion.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Others have said, well, the Secretary of State grimaces. It's the High Court of public opinion, as articulated by our wonderful tabloid media, that influences opinion, I'm afraid. And that is a reality. And it's how we project this debate that will influence how those stories are projected. And it's important that we just keep some of that in mind. Now, the remedial order contained within this bill absorb within this bill, and it's right that it should have been absorbed in this bill rather than presented separately, opens the door again to civil and criminal jeopardy for servants of the states of the state, with special forces particularly feeling the heat at the moment.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































They're considering what Haddon-cave might have to offer, and I suspect there will be some quite extensive material when Charles Haddon-cave has finalised his work, there may cause some discomfort to many, but it is important that the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those sent out to do extremely difficult things, which I'm very glad I didn't have to do when I served in the armed forces have to keep in mind, and the idea that you're going out to do these things, difficult things, split second things, very often believing that if it goes wrong, then you're going to have your collar felt.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































You may have your collar felt when you're in your 70s and 80s as Op Banner veterans, fear is not a great recruiting sergeant. Now in this place. National security is one of our prime imperatives. It's a prime imperative of the government. It must be the prime imperative of the government, particularly at this time when this country faces the threats that it does. And we know that people are leaving special forces right now. And we've heard from people associated with special forces that fear. We will have that extraordinary part of our national defence degraded at a time when we are facing hybrid threats, principally from Russia, but from other players as well.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































And I think that is germane to this argument. The honourable and gallant member mentioned the financial costs of a lot of the things we are debating today. Well, the national security costs need to be borne firmly in mind, too. And I have to say that I agreed with every single word of the honourable and gallant member's remarks this afternoon. Now, this bill, of course, shouldn't bother too much. The paramilitaries who wreaked mayhem and chaos on Northern Ireland for all those years. They never kept any records. They haven't got any filing cabinets. Indeed, they went out of their way to destroy evidence.





































































































































































































































































































































































































And they did that in 1992 in the bombing of the forensic laboratory in south Belfast. We know that governments, of course, in the conduct of the 1998 agreement, also went out of their way to wittingly or unwittingly destroy evidential material relating to decommissioned weapons and indeed, the use of people who had been might be disinterred. And the way in which that forensic material could be used as admissible evidence. But I think my principal concern would be process becoming punishment. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned that we've seen how punishment has been meted out to those who have served in our armed forces, and that is, I think, our principal concern when those of us who be, who listen to veterans get time and time again, it's that fear that they're going to be apprehended in some honourable, right hon.













































































































































































































































































































































































Members have mentioned memory and recollection and how memories fade with time. Well, I'm afraid that is right. And the hon. Member for Foyle makes a good point. You never forget if you shot someone, of course you don't. But you probably don't remember some of the detail around that. Indeed, you might shut it out and others will remember things differently as well. And with every year that passes that recollection, that memory fades. And that's just the way it is. So to Mrs. Jones, I would have to say, I can't give you what you want because this material is from 50 years ago.































































































































































































































































































































































And memories fade and memories change, and the material that may be submitted through the course of all of this may in fact, be a pale reflection of the reality of things as they were on the ground at that time. What we know, what we know is what was investigated at the time through the processes of that were available at that time. That surely has primacy because that was contemporaneous, not through the prism of 50 years ago. It's impossible to contemporaneously investigate events now. It's one of the reasons many of us are keen on having immediate justice in justice delayed is justice denied.

















































































































































































































































































































































50 years later, are you going to get justice? I don't think you are. And the version of justice that you may end up may be off beam and and unsafe. And that's one of the big concerns I have about all of this. We should always strive for it. And the Secretary of State is quite right to try to do his best with his bill and his amendments. But we need to be realistic with Mrs. Jones and say to her, we are unlikely to give you everything that you want, much as we would wish it not to be.





































































































































































































































































































































So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Secretary of State is twitching. I wonder if he wanted to disagree with me. Twitching. I was trying to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Twitching. I was trying to intervene. Look, I, I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has advanced his case. I don't know whether he's had an opportunity to read the report by EFRA in the read the report by EFRA in the first report that they produced into the murder of Rory O'Kelly. But it was very striking to me that although it didn't come up with perfect answers to everything, it was felt as an enormous release to an O'Kelly. And that's why I think it's really important. Whilst I don't want to oversell what we will be able to achieve, I think it's also important that we don't underestimate the importance and significance of this piece of work.























































































































































































































































































































 Getting answers for families, including many, many armed forces families. Mrs. Jones is as likely to be somebody whose husband served

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the military or in the RUC. No, I accept that point and I appreciate the way that he framed appreciate the way that he framed Mrs. Jones. He's he's perfectly reasonable to do that. I think my point is, we do ourselves and Mrs. point is, we do ourselves and Mrs. Jones a grave disservice if we suggest that this process is going to bring answers. When answers to bring answers. When answers there may very well come none because of the passage of time, because of fading memories, because because of fading memories, because of people who have passed away and evidence that has degraded or been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliberately or unwittingly destroyed. Of course I will. I am a friend for making a point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a friend for making a point. But what you were saying is people who were involved in the Hillsborough campaign, Contaminated Hillsborough campaign, Contaminated Blood campaign, the many campaigns which have highlighted the state cover ups in this country. So they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just give up because of the passage of time? Yeah, yeah. And and he knows that's not what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And and he knows that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is undoubtedly with the passage of time, memories fade. Material isn't available. People unfortunately deceased trying to recreate reality 15 years on is extremely difficult. And when when you when you when you do so, you just need to make sure that you have a margin of error and, and you have to admit, you have to admit that what you've come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That's all I'm saying. And, and the of course

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I thank my friend for giving way. The the Secretary of State, when he The the Secretary of State, when he intervened, said something very important. Secretary of State gave an example of where an investigation had brought comfort to a family. And it's important to a family. And it's important that he placed that on the record. So if it Icrea established under So if it Icrea established under the conservative 2023 Legacy Act, is succeeding in that sense, doesn't it make sense to bring to an aide the old motto that if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, well, I'm I'm grateful. I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend for his in intervention. Friend for his in intervention. Indeed, indeed. The the phrase if it ain't broke, don't fix it is is a reasonable one. I think I would a reasonable one. I think I would say that the 2023 act was imperfect, perhaps in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR. But I regret very much that that act was not a. Appealed by the incoming government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar being felt so well represented today, here and in other places.





















































































































































































































































And I think that was a mistake, if I may say it was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to is to make this bill a better bill. I hope very much that in the other place, they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve on it now. The right hon. Member the Member for Belfast East bemoaned the fact that these committees of the whole House are basically a rerun of Second Reading debates. I think that was the essence of what he was saying and rarely deals with the specifics.









































































































































































































































So, Madam Chair, I will, if I may, touch on 1 or 2 of the specific amendments in this particular measure. But before I do so, can I make a brief comment about immunity? Because this government appears to be allergic in in bringing forward its forward the remedial order to this issue of immunity. And really, it's not a new concept. The Good Friday Agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well, and I was intimately involved with the events of Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide.

























































































































































































































 But this idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. It's 1998. Since then, of course, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland Bill, which established to try to establish immunity for one side of this particular divide, not for soldiers and not for police. And I'm very pleased that the opposition at that time with others, not that back, and it was withdrawn. In contrast, immunity in the 2023 act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might be of help in dealing with some of the concerns of people like Mrs.





































































































































































































Jones, potentially. But it was important that that immunity was conditional, and I think that is where the difference is. So this idea that we can't give immunity, that the government is certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds South have said this before. His concern, as expressed, was that he didn't want to have immunity. And he's I understand that it's a noble concept, but the fact of the matter is 1998 was built on immunity. Peter Hain tried that in 2005. And in 2023, the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional government. Of course I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dropped him again. He's making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what I think has contribution to what I think has been a very respectful debate all round. Just on the point of conditional immunity. That was a fundamental principle in the 2023 Legacy Act. It was based, in part Legacy Act. It was based, in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and indeed on lessons learned 2017 and indeed on lessons learned from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So I'm very grateful to him for making absolutely plain. The Legacy Act only offered conditional immunity as to be adjudicated by Icrea in return for information, for instance, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried.









































































































































































It's a very important point, and I'm grateful to him for making it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I thank my. Right hon. My right hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right hon. My right hon. Friend for that. Now, when I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said the Secretary of State, he said that commissioners and directors of investigation would probably be taken who were not from Northern Ireland, weren't weren't used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland, would probably take them the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, I will, of course I can't. I just if you step back and. Have a think about where we are, if you're either a terrorist, a soldier, an individual engaged in troubles of the last ten, 20, 30 years. And you remember, if you have engaged in kinetic activity, killed someone, conducted something of violence that you then want to seek solace from. So you want to give evidence. Now, if you give evidence, you're going to be prosecuted. It's just worth thinking about that. When I talk about justice, a lot of people in some cases will want to come forward and they will want to clear the deck on the past.



















































































































































If they do, they will be dragged into the courts. And perhaps you can't I can't give way to you because I'm giving away on someone else. But you may just want to have a think about it. Because if you put yourself in their positions, you're looking at the system. The system is much more difficult to get to truth now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's, it's the, it's the point of information recovery and how best to get that, how to extract it even at this late date, so that we can give some solace and comfort to those who have been wrapped up in those who have been wrapped up in these terrible events from whatever whatever side of the divide they whatever side of the divide they hail from. Can I bring in the spirit of the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Belfast right hon. Member for East Belfast to 1 or 2 specifics, that is to say, clause four and five, relating to the appointment of the commissioners and the Director of Investigations.

































































































































Well, paragraph two of clause four says, quite specifically, in exercising the powers under subsection one, the Secretary of State must, so far as practicable, ensure that one or more of the commissioners have experience gained outside the United Kingdom. Now, that wasn't what he told me. Now, he is quite right that the Director of investigations covered by clause five should have experience of conducting criminal investigations outside Northern Ireland, so it's perfectly reasonable to infer that they. They may they may be drawn from people operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. But that appears to be not the case in relation to the commissioners.





















































































































So I'd be very grateful if the Secretary of State, when he comes to make his remarks on winding up,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be able to clarify that for me, or now, if he wants to. Could he just clarify what question he's asking? Because I'm question he's asking? Because I'm not sure whether he's asking about the commissioners or the directors of investigation. And whilst I'm on of investigation. And whilst I'm on my feet, can I just gently suggest to him that his his figures about recruitment in the armed forces are recruitment in the armed forces are wrong? Actually, for the first time in a decade now, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving. Recruitment is up by 7% and outflow is down by 7%.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Andrew, I expect him to comment on special forces, but I do suggest he looks at special Forces suggest he looks at special Forces specifically, which is what I said in my remarks. Now, if he wants to in my remarks. Now, if he wants to heap laurels on me as a as a as a previous Minister for defence people, since these things have a people, since these things have a very long. I'm perfectly happy to take some of the credit. So I'm very grateful to him for that. But very grateful to him for that. But I don't think that was the intent of his remarks in terms of my.































































































My question to him, it is clause four. That's to say clause four, subsection two, about the commissions. He satisfied me, I think, in relation to the directors of investigations. It is commissioners I'm concerned about, and I think unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I'd be very grateful if he could perhaps at some point just clarify that for me. Can I turn to government amendment 259, a new clause 34 para 16, concerning commissioners and members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. There is a mandate that they can't have been convicted of an offence.

















































































Quotes anywhere in the world, and I just think that needs a bit of further thought, because there are some parts of our benighted world today where people are convicted by jurisdictions that I don't think we would have a great deal of respect for. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, for example, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely, but nevertheless in that jurisdiction. And I feel perhaps we need to have some revised wording, either here or in the other place, just to be clear about what the government's intent in this matter is it neither does it mention anything to do with the rehabilitation of offenders.

































































New clause 34 at least puts a limit of three months on the custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think there needs to be a little bit of drafting done in this particular part of the bill to make it more sense. Government amendment 162 touches on providing information by a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticality test. What I'm not sure about, and which I would seek clarification on, are what the circumstances are that would make it impractical for a person to provide information through live provide information through live audio or live video links.















































Madam chair, some comment has been made on the part that the Irish government plays in all of this. Through the Framework Agreement, there is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on this particular legislation, and we've heard, particularly in relation to Omagh, why that should be now, I accept absolutely the Secretary of State's assertion that the Irish Government has not been involved in the drafting of this Bill and indeed have not seen the amendments prior to them having been published, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State anticipates the Irish Government implementing, through its legislative channels the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary in order to have some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic.



























Because, as the honourable and gallant member, the Member for Sir Liam Fox pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point, it has been untapped, and until it is, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin. In trying to provide answers to many of the problems that we have heard expressed today, Madam chair, the hon. Gentleman member for Foyle was right to say this is all about victims. It's all about. It's also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There has to be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years.











There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles. It's our job to do what we can to remedy that. Difficult and imperfect though that process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State's endeavours. He approaches this, as did his predecessor in good faith. But I fear what we've got at the moment simply won't do. Alex Ballinger thank you.
18:54
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking the Secretary of State for thanking the Secretary of State for the constructive way he's approached this bill since he was appointed. He's built on the good work of his predecessor, the the work of his predecessor, the the right hon. Member for Leeds South, who's not in his place, who gave a very powerful speech about why this very powerful speech about why this bill is so important for victims as well as others that are being affected. But but I think today we've presented a bill that should give veterans reassurance that the process of repeated investigations is coming to an end, and it should also give survivors and families of victims many, many who are soldiers and police officers themselves, a stronger route to find answers and a route to justice for Crawley crimes committed during the troubles.



















































































































































Today, I want to speak to the new protections for veterans and why I think they address the real concerns of those who were worried about repeated investigations. And I also raised concerns victims groups have made with me about their privacy and the anonymity of the process. First, on the additional protections for veterans. I do know how difficult it was to to serve in in Northern Ireland. The Member for South Staffordshire spoke very powerfully about the difficulties they faced. I didn't serve there myself, but I worked alongside many soldiers and Marines who had done and I.







































































































































They told me in some cases it was more difficult in Northern Ireland than it was in Afghanistan because of the complexities of the environment they were operating in. So we should accept that, and we should thank the veterans who are now not with us for the service that they that they gave. I think it is right that the New Legacy Commission considers that. And so I strongly welcome New clause 32, where the new Commission or any inquest is required to take into account the context that soldiers are operating in. This is now made explicit in the legislation that the training experience and perceived threats, among other factors, must be considered by the Commission in any inquests.

























































































































I also welcome the statement in this amendment that the investigators must not regard lawful action taken by security forces in the course of their duty as equivalent to actions of terrorist purposes. I think many people have made that point, and it's an important one to be in the legislation. But the biggest concern I've heard from veterans in Halesowen and from veterans groups across the country, as well as from many members in this House, is about repeated investigations. Soldiers under the existing legislation were concerned about being asked to come back time and again to go over evidence they had already given.













































































































So government amendment 152 sorry, 192, which directly addresses these concerns is is very important. The amendment requires the Director of investigations to first consider what information can be obtained from public authorities before unnecessarily duplicating work that adds to the existing protections in the bill against the duplication of previous investigative work. And I discussed that concern. The veterans had explicitly, explicitly with the senior members of it. When I spoke to them last week, they told me so many of these cases have been investigated in the past. There have been so many inquests, there have been so many other cases where veterans are accused of crimes, that there is more than enough evidence already available in public bodies, and they didn't think there would be any veteran under investigation that would be taken forward by the new Legacy Commission under this new legislation, and I and I think veterans should take reassurance from that, from the people who are involved in conducting these investigations.

























































































But at the same time, there has been improvements in evidence collections, for example, through DNA or technical evidence since the 70s 80s, when a lot of these crimes were committed. And we do know that the same commission is looking at the links between these different types of evidence, for example, that the campaign of bombings that happened inside England in the 1970s and the M62 bombing that the Member for Foyle mentioned, the Guildford pub bombings and others. And they think there are there are connections here that may lead to further investigations that might be able to give answers to some of the victims.













































































And a reminder, a lot of these victims are family members of servicemen that were killed in England. By going through this process, and they felt that on occasion, veterans who were witnesses to those crimes may be asked to give evidence to the commission to add value to that new evidence that's coming forward. And I think veterans would appreciate that, because they are giving evidence that may give answers to the family members of their colleagues that were killed by terrorists. And that is something that the commission is doing correctly. Indeed, it's protecting veterans while at the same time getting answers for victims.

































































There are other amendments that are welcome in this bill government amendment 162, which allows witnesses to give remote evidence and not travel to Northern Ireland government new clause 45 and Government Amendment 240, which ensures veterans will not be approached by the Commission directly. So there are no cold calls. I know that was that was a big concern, but I also appreciate that although there are many improvements for protections for veterans, that many veterans groups. Indeed, some have said publicly in the last few days they still don't feel that this bill goes far enough to provide those provide those protections.



















































So I think it does feel that these protections are giving a lot of support against repeated investigations, but there needs to be a backstop to ensure that they are working properly. And that's why I'm really pleased that. New clause 52, sorry, 53 requires an independent review within two years of whether these protections are going to give veterans the safeguards they need against these repeated investigations. So we know we will practice it. I think, after this bill passes, how it works, and veterans should be reassured that even though these protections are in place, the government will look again after a number of years to check if they're working properly and they will come back again.





































But I would like the Secretary of State in his in his closing remarks, if he could address what would happen in the case that that review finds that the protections are not working as we intended. If there are additional investigations happening in a way that we would not like, what the department's reaction to that to that review would be, I'd also wanted to raise concerns that victims have raised with me about the process. I, too, met the Wave Trauma Centre last week. Very powerful stories from victims, and they had particular concerns about the anonymity of the evidence that they were giving and the privacy that they wanted to put forward.























I know that some of this is addressed in the Bill, in particular, new clause 41, which strengthens the privacy provisions that already exist. These include provisions for witness anonymity, safeguards before sensitive material was published. And I think it gives victims control over how and if their personal statements will be published. New clause 41 strengthens these protections by allowing these restrictions to be in force, while applications to protect their identity or evidence are pending. So I think that gives a little bit of extra reassurance to victims and family members of victims. But maybe the Secretary of State could also say in his closing remarks, how these amendments will ensure that the victims and their families, who do want to give their an anonymity in this process.







If you say a little bit more about how he's going to ensure that that is the case. So in closing, I welcome the bill, the amendments presented ahead of this debate, the increased safeguards for veterans and how the reform Legacy Commission will be better placed to give victims the answers they are asking for, and I hope the committee of the House will support it. Moving to Third Reading what day?
19:02
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Robin Swann Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Robin Swann Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary State? Can I thank the Minister for veterans and the former Minister of Veterans for their engagements around this bill? It has been a around this bill? It has been a long time getting to this stage, but I think there has been engagement, sometimes a struggle, to feel as if we've been listened to or just heard in regards to the concerns that are actually coming from Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland MPs. But can I thank the members who have spoken so far today in this debate, because it's a very different tone and tenure than the one we had in the carry over motion, and I welcome that.





















































































































































































































































































































As a Northern Ireland MP, I welcome that on behalf of the veterans and the victims organisations who will be listening to this and listening intently in regards to how this debate is actually handled, because as we consider this legislation, I believe our focus should remain where it should be long and not with those who bear the scars of the Northern Ireland troubles. It's not about veteran against victim or victim against veteran. It's about those people who suffered at the hands of terrorism and so loved ones lost, loved ones traumatised and loved ones still carrying those scars, be they Northern Ireland victims and veterans or veterans.





































































































































































































































































































And sometimes in this place, I know what some members in the other side think that it is victims of war and veterans are over here. Sometimes we feel that mismatch as well, where veterans that are talked about to my right aren't the same as the veterans that we talk about on this side, because when we talk about veterans, it's about those members of the UDR, the RUC who didn't serve a tour of duty on return Home, it's those veterans who served after they finished a day's work, went out and conducted those vehicle checkpoints that the hon.

























































































































































































































































































Member talked about earlier on, and then still went and did a day's work the next day in regards to that. So, so that's sometimes where the challenge of the debate of this full House and the honourable, right hon. Member for East Belfast mentioned that in regards to somehow where where we feel sometimes that our voice maybe isn't heard. And that's reflected through the voices of our our veterans and victims organisations as well, because rushing through legislation or even attempting to force through measures without proper scrutiny and consensus actually only deepens distrust. And I think this is an opportunity to get this process right, to find that balance and actually to establish institutions that command broad public confidence and to resolve these matters for good.











































































































































































































































































 Mention has been made to work in the first report that has been published for for Rory O'Kelly, a member of the extended family, actually was in contact with me in regards to the work that was done, and I raised it with the Secretary of State in our carry over motion. That what concerns me is that the work now, not the same as the frontbench for the opposition, that the work and the confidence that has now been built up in ICRIR is lost. It's lost by victims, it's lost by their families in regards when they see another process, another body created in regards to something they have to trust.





























































































































































































































































And I hope this can provide reassurance and confidence to those members and those families who do engage, that they will receive that full support, and it won't be a cumbersome bureaucracy, that they have to restart the whole process over again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Chris Bryant the hon. Gentleman with that assurance, and I think it's really important that I think it's really important that we take from what is good and build on that, but also sort out some of the problems that have existed. He the problems that have existed. He would have seen the Peter May report. He would have seen some of the the problems that there have been in the courts. We're going to been in the courts. We're going to put all of that right, but we're not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers for families. The Secretary of State for that reassurance, because it is in some of the amendments that those concerns are actually raised. And I think it was the Member for South West Wiltshire actually raised in regards to the second Director of investigations having experience inside the UK, or, sorry, outside the UK, and where they could actually come from. And they know the Selby of state has provided reassurance as to what that actually means in the debate today. But, Madam Chair, I want to to talk specifically about the amendments that I have tabled in my name on regards and supported by the Ulster Unionist Party, because I have tabled a number of members to this Bill.



































































































































































































































But I want to start by focusing on the one that is actually before us, hopefully for separate decision, and I will seek support for amendment for this evening, because this amendment will give victims of trouble related sexual violence the right to a Legacy Commission investigation. That's a proposal that actually has support from parties across this House, but also includes members and has been signed by members from all the Northern Ireland parties who take their seats in this place. And can I thank the Lib Dem frontbench spokesperson for his comments and his contribution to actually supporting this amendment?





















































































































































































































Because the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, also, in its report on the government's new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, actually included a recommendation calling on the government to address the de facto exclusion of most troubled related sexual crimes from the Commission's remit. But the government's response to this ask so far has been incredibly disappointing for victims, because the government has advised that Legacy Commission investigations are only for those who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.







































































































































































































And the state reiterated that point earlier. Madam chair, that's not good enough because we know we've heard that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is overstretched and underfunded as things stand, and the Chief Constable has raised concerns about the duties that will be put on him and his officers in regards to this legislation, come forward tonight so they simply cannot provide the best possible investigation for those victims, because the trauma and actually lasting physical and mental injury that these crimes have caused cannot be dismissed because we know the paramilitaries used rape and sexual violence to instil fear and maintain control, and that has been overlooked for far too long.

























































































































































































Maria Cahill, known by many in this House a victim of sexual violence at the hands of the IRA, has shared with me last week and others the real impact of these crimes. She told me last week that my abuser used a conversation about guns to frighten me into silence, about his horrendous, year long abuse of me as a 16 year old. His comrades in the IRA later forced me into the same room as him. In a year long forced so-called investigation into that abuse. And when I eventually went to the criminal justice system, it failed us so much that Sir Keir Starmer's report led to an apology from the DPP.











































































































































































She goes on to say. Worse still, police intelligence showed that the RUC knew from the year 2000 that her abuser was abusing children and did nothing, a retired chief inspector is quoted as saying that they would not have been interested in the child. The child abuse aspect, because they were focussed on the terrorism. Madam, madam chair, Miss Coghill, like me, is worried that now this government is going to ignore troubles related sexual crime victims all over again. That is why this amendment. Amendment four is so important, because those victims must be central and they must have access to justice.





























































































































































Another victim, Paddy McLaughlin, was raped by a North Belfast IRA man, Seamus Marley, when he was in an IRA safe house. He threatened his victims that if they told anyone about it, they would be found dead on a border road. Marley was later convicted in the Republic of Ireland, but the provisional IRA members who forced their victims into a kangaroo court, some of whom were from Northern Ireland, were not prosecuted. There are other victims out there for whom the criminal justice system is inadequate because it cannot cope with paramilitary forced interrogations into victims of rape and abuse.















































































































































Madam Chair and Maria Cat Eccles own words sexual crimes have for too long been swept under the cloak of conflict, as have paramilitary actions. If Labour votes down this amendment, my abuser can access the shield of this Troubles Bill and seek amnesty for any of his IRA activities carried out while abusing me, but afforded me no protection whatsoever as his victim. Madam chair, almost 30 years later, Maria wanted me to share that with this house, that she is still receiving psychological care because of what happened to her as a 16 year old. These victims deserve an investigation and they deserve justice.

































































































































She also asked me to remind the Labour frontbench that their Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade, convinced the conservative government to include troubles related rape. In the last iteration of this legacy bill, he raised the fundamental concern that the legislation, as originally drafted, could allow perpetrators of rape and other sexual offences committed during the troubles actually to benefit from immunity from prosecution. He warned that the bill contained no specific prohibition on immunity from sexual violence, and therefore he tabled what was amendment 115 seeking to exclude certain sexual offences explicitly from immunity provisions.



















































































































 That amendment was agreed on support in committee and the government subsequently brought about a replacement provision expression excluding troubles related sexual offences from immunity. So I will work with the government and the Secretary of State in remedy on this, but it's important that this amendment is made tonight because the context matters, because it actually demonstrates that Parliament has previously recognised the need to address sexual violence explicitly in troubles legislation, rather than simply assume that existing provisions will adequately protect victims. My amendment addresses an equally important gap in the current bill because it would allow victims of sexual crimes committed as part of the troubles, who suffered physical or mental harm to request an investigation.



































































































So we must not allow sexual violence or abuse to become an overlooked part of the history of the troubles. Nor should victims be left without an effective route to seek answers about what happened. That intervention demonstrated the importance of putting protections into the legislation itself, and I'm asking this House to apply the same principle tonight on the right of victims to seek an investigation. This isn't about party politics. It's about recognising the experiences of victims, ensuring that sexual violence is properly acknowledged in the historical record, and making certain that the legislation does not leave that behind.





















































































If Parliament has accepted that sexual offences require explicit protection in the context of immunity, it should also give serious consideration to ensuring the victims of those offences are not excluded from the process of seeking truth and accountability. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, when she was the government's Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, acknowledged in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that in conflict societies, sexual violence should be recognised as part of the reality of conflict. She added of course, I think that anyone who suffered sexual violence because of complex conflict, that that should be taken into account.







































































She also stressed that victims experiences must be handled sensitively to avoid retraumatization. Her evidence reinforces the principle behind my amendment because victims of sexual violence during the troubles deserve recognition and the opportunity for their experiences to be properly investigated. I listened to the summary of debate this morning when he said he wanted to bring forward a balanced bill that gives as many people answers as possible, so I asked him to listen to those people. Madam chair, on this bill, if table number Valour amendments as well, in regards to different factors. But that is the main one I want to put forward.

























































Of course. Gedling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm enormously grateful to him. And look, I, I hope he understands that everybody I think everybody in that everybody I think everybody in the House wants to ensure that people are not barred from being able to take these issues forward through the Commission, though it may, as he's just said, need to be dealt with so sensitively that the dealt with so sensitively that the Legacy Commission may not be the place where they want it to be addressed. It may be somewhere else that they want it to be addressed. But I'm not sure that his his amendment is necessary to be a to be able to achieve what he's trying to achieve.













































I'm very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I'm just not sure that it's necessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the greatest respect. Now, the reason that I'm putting it into the bill is because it's not there. the bill is because it's not there. When you look at the lists of serious physical harm and what it actually means under clause 27.3, actually means under clause 27.3, serious physical and mental harm means paraplegia, quadriplegia, severe brain injury or damage, severe brain injury or damage, severe psychiatric damage, total blindness and deafness, loss of one or more limbs, or severe scarring or disfigurement. It doesn't mention sexual crime in there, and that doesn't come in under any of those.































The previous answers I've had from his department on previous departments that it would be included if they were killed or seriously injured, and the victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That could be said about any victim coming forward in regards to this. So I do ask them to seriously consider where sexual violence and crime could fit into a part of this bill. It's not a wide section of victims nor multiple cases, but it will bring reassurance to some in regards. And I think that's I seriously do believe that's what the government wants to bring about by this bill.

















So I'm keen to work with them in regards our our many victims and survivors in regards to this specific experience in regards to that. So, Madam Chair, just on one other amendment in regard, I mentioned the the investor or the second investigator, director of investigations within the Commission. We don't feel it's necessary. We feel it undermines the current provision. There has been no serious complaint in regards to the operation of either the chief executive or the director of commissions that we see would actually bring forward the necessity of a second position. And I do ask members of the House to support my amendment four in regards to making this.
19:17
19:17
19:17
Matthew Patrick Portrait Matthew Patrick MP (Wirral West, Labour)
-
-
constructive engagement with many people in this House and outside of it, and I think it strengthens what we have before us today. The Good we have before us today. The Good Friday Agreement is rightly one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour government. It changed last Labour government. It changed the course of history. And whilst praise is understandably lavished praise is understandably lavished upon those politicians who negotiated its terms, they would be the first to tell you that its success is not theirs to own, that is owed to the people of Northern Ireland who, day in, day out, make that progress possible.











































































































They do so without fanfare and they embrace it. It's not that they have forgotten pain and suffering. How could they? But they chose a different future. And in so doing, they wrote a different story for Northern Ireland. And what a story they are writing. The economy is exciting. Creative industries are booming. The defence sector. You've got technology, you've got the lowest unemployment in the whole of the UK and the highest growth, excellent schools helping to equip the next generation. A generation not growing up, knowing the sound of a bomb, not growing up to fear a Protestant or a Catholic.





























































































Brilliant charities and community groups helping a generation to see that they have more in common with one another. I believe if we are to protect that progress, we need a legacy process that commands confidence. I think it's helped by the amendments before us today. Now, of course, none of this is to pretend there are not problems in modern day Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have shown us that it showed that the peace we have was not a replacement for the pain, and it did not change what happened in the past either. That can never be changed and we should never ignore it.

















































































And let's be clear that pain will also be known. As members have said in this House by those who served in Northern Ireland, where in the army or in the police and by their families. Amendments that I support, including stopping repeat investigations, matter a great deal to them, and I will always be in admiration of those who stood in harm's way to keep people safe. They lost far too much and how they were tested in their service of our country. I would wish on no person. Now, whenever this issue has been debated before in this House, there has been a contingent of veterans in the gallery.



































































And each time I've learned so much by going to speak to them, I've learned about the horrors that they encountered. I've learned about how rightly proud they are of their service, and how frustrated they are about the injustices that they faced that their friends faced, that their comrades faced. And often our conversations then turn to immunity. Whether they would want immunity for that period. They don't. They tell me that they fought to defend the rule of law, not to be above it. They simply want equality before it. Surely in this House we agree that it is all of those people, those who have helped make Northern Ireland what it is today, who have helped make peace possible, who we should be putting first.





















































If in this bill, it helps a father in his late 80s end the torture of not knowing what happened to his daughter in her final moments. Can we say he's not worth our support? Should we tell him how glad we are that he never allowed his grief and devastation to stop his commitment to a peaceful Northern Ireland? But we can't do this for him. And if this bill helps, a widow of a veteran murdered by a terrorist group get the justice she has been denied for decades, can we say that that's not worth our support?









































Should we tell her that her pain, her anguish, that her children having to grow up without knowing their father. That's really awful. And we're sorry, but we can't do this for her. And for those brave veterans who helped contain the worst of the violence, it clearly is not right that they should be forced into the dock to relive the worst day of their life, when they have already been cleared by an investigation that looked into all of the evidence. They were asked by our state to act. They don't deserve to be tried again, again and again until a different result is found.





























And that is precisely why the protection from repeat investigations is so important. It is why I welcome the amendments set out by the Secretary of State that strengthens these very protections. That is how you honour the sacrifice of people who went out to defend the rule of law without cruelly and needlessly making them relive the very worst moment of their lives. Now, this bill, I don't think, will be as totemic as the Good Friday Agreement was. It won't go down in the history books in quite the same way, but it can deliver, with fairness to all those I mentioned at the very start.

















It might bring answers, maybe even justice, to people who have lived with very deep pain for many, many years and put their country first. They put peace first. Those people who make progress possible each and every day. I am proud to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them and I am proud to support this Sorcha Eastwood thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorcha Eastwood thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make some remarks on some amendments tabled, and then I want to make some more general I want to make some more general remarks. Given the debate so far, I want to discuss amendments 39 to 42, which the government amendments, in my opinion, have not addressed. So these amendments provide for these amendments provide for judicial panel members to be appointed by Niac, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, not the Secretary of
19:23
Sorcha Eastwood Portrait Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)
-
-
State for Northern Ireland. Judicial appointments should remain within Nia Jax remit to maintain independence and public confidence in the process and to safeguard against future politicisation. It against future politicisation. It is disappointing, therefore, that the government's amendments make no provision to address this, despite provision to address this, despite concerns raised by the JCHR and UN experts. Indeed, the CAA also notes that the Secretary of State for that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appointing judges would actually reverse the process put in place after the Good Friday Agreement reforms, which created Niac as an independent body to appoint the judiciary.













































































































































































































































































































The Secretary of State's broad powers mean a future Secretary of State for Northern Ireland opposed to an independent rule of law. Legacy investigation could make further appointments to frustrate the Legacy Commission's purpose. One example would be appointing a judicial commissioner to write the findings of Legacy Commission reports after investigations. Indeed, there is precedent for the risk the irregular appointment of the second Police Ombudsman was followed by a lowering of the office's independence and legacy investigations, leading to an independent inspection and suspension of the historic function at that office. I also want to turn to probably some of one of my most greatest concerns in the amendments that we're going to discuss today.





























































































































































































































































































 There are some for tomorrow. I think the hon. Member for Foyle has already started to tease out some of these issues. And indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, in terms of the national security veto, this really bothers me, and I do feel it should bother other members. The veto itself can hide state involvement in killings. Indeed, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge and actually start today with that aspect of our past. The bill that the Secretary of State redact Legacy Commission reports to families on national security grounds. This is not limited to protecting lawful covert methods.















































































































































































































































































It can conceal the role of state agents and informants in killings currently attributed solely to non-state actors. And just for a moment, Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me very briefly, I want to pay tribute to the Member for South Antrim and his amendment, and I will be supporting that, as I already have done. But I also want to say that we had that discussion almost within the realms of paramilitary offenders, of which the Member for South Antrim has very eloquently articulated. But there are also state agents who were paedophiles, who operated with impunity, who we were told after the fact, were involved in saving numerous lives.

































































































































































































































































And that's obviously for hindsight and very conveniently difficult to disaggregate. However, there are on record paedophiles who were used by the state and indeed often the same mirror image used. But they were there to serve a purpose. We knew about the paedophilia, we knew about the child abuse, but we let that go because we felt there was a security value to that. I'll just let that sit with members for a moment. The relevant Secretary of State could be marking their own homework. The joint framework suggests the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary could also redact reports, even though MI5 and military intelligence are potential subjects of the investigations in question, it has already been found unlawful and the government has pressed ahead anyway.















































































































































































































































The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found the equivalent provisions in the Legacy Act 2023 incompatible with the ECHR and Dylan. The government's appeal is yet before the Supreme Court undetermined, yet it still has included them and certified the bill as ECHR compatible on the strength of quote unquote, and expectation of winning. It conflicts with international and ECHR standards. UN special rapporteurs warned the veto could curtail victims right to know the truth and be incompatible with international law. The government's neither confirm nor deny stance. Earlier this year, much maligned to the stage of being mocked with the Stakeknife case, showed that the involvement of agents at all should be disclosed.

































































































































































































































This cannot be described with the ECHR duty to hold effective investigations capable of establishing state agents involvement in the death. No comparable jurisdiction gives Ministers this power over transitional justice reports. I just want to draw attention to a theme that has been present throughout this debate and many other debates. We live with this every day in Northern Ireland. And that's not to say that those veterans who live in England are further afield don't either. But this dictates our policy in Northern Ireland of how we do things today. It's still there. And as other members have alluded, those members that served from Northern Ireland didn't get to leave.

















































































































































































































They didn't go away. They served their two tours of duty on their home patch. And the reverse is true as well. For many victims of paramilitary violence, they will still see the perpetrators today, and many of them will know through hearsay or rumour or gossip, and they're not quite sure. And if this bill provides a way to try and give those people the knowledge and understanding of who of who pulled the trigger and where and when, then I will support it. I want to thank the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Member for Leeds South, and I'm really glad that he's in this place, and I want to get something off my conscience that has bothered me since the day I stepped foot in this House and took part in these debates, and we have not done justice to all victims through these debates.





























































































































































































We just haven't. And it hurts. And I think it's shameful. And I stand here as somebody who has veterans in our house, and I'm proud of them, and I do not try to diminish them. And I don't try to do away with them. But I also stand here as a family that has suffered paramilitary violence as well, through nothing other than sectarianism. And I'm not going to stand here and pretend that this was an unusual happening. I'm really glad that my friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, for bringing something into this debate that is never said, but he said it, and I will say it.

















































































































































































This happened within a part of the United Kingdom in modern day, in modern day. The Member for Liverpool West Derby has mentioned the Hillsborough law. We wouldn't for a second in this House stop to think about whether that was sensible or not, or whether we would decide to be the arbiters of family thought it was going to be useful, or if the passage of time was too great, we simply wouldn't take that decision upon ourselves. And neither we did. And I'm glad that I was involved in the passage of that law. And I pay tribute to the campaigners.



































































































































































But there seems to be an othering of Northern Ireland. There seems to be an othering. There seems to be a situation where we say that a national security veto should be in place. So in the case of Julie Livingston, a teenager who was shot and killed by a plastic bullet, her family shouldn't receive the file until 2054. She was shot and killed by a plastic bullet murdered by a plastic bullet. They knew that. Why is that in national security? To retain that. That doesn't make any sense to me. I also think about the families of the RUC UDR regular army that I know that are part of my life and part of my friendship.























































































































































And I have in my office, to the side of here a medal from the ABF, an Army charity that I volunteered with for many years. And it's the Sefton Medal. And obviously we'll remember the story of Sefton and all those who were murdered in that attack. And someone gave me the medal because they said it was about the triumph of good over evil. And I worry about the narrative emanating. I worry about it. My party didn't agree with violence at any stage in the troubles. We didn't care whether that was from paramilitaries. We didn't care who that was.











































































































































We didn't care if it was a state actor. All of it was wrong. And we've said so many times. But I also have in my office a memorial plaque from somebody who's already been mentioned today. The hon. Member for Foyle has mentioned the Ravey family, and I have a plaque for meeting Reavey and his brothers who were so brutally murdered. And I have that plaque in the office because I first met Eugene nearly ten years ago, and I was proud to be in court with them earlier this year. And it's really important that we actually said out loud, see, the acknowledgement that families have whenever they were stained for years.































































































































Oh, there's got to be something there. Oh, but they must have been killed because they must have been in the IRA. Oh, but they're Catholic. Oh well, OK. Well, well, you know, something must have gone on and actually there was nothing other Than a sectarian murder that had taken place. But the slurs on the cover up. That hurt even more. And I sat in court in Belfast in the opening days of the Ballymurphy inquest, and never more in my life did I understand where people were coming from. Whenever they said, see, whatever happens, this is about correcting the public record.

















































































































And if we want to talk about the rewriting of the past, as far as I'm concerned, it's right across the board. I don't want anybody in Northern Ireland to think that terrorism was ever an alternative at any stage. But I also don't want anyone to think probably more across the water here, that it was acceptable for anyone who wore a uniform to think that the state would guarantee all of their actions in perpetuity, without stopping to ask whether it was legal. But that implies another point, which is the discussion around veterans almost somehow implies that every single one of them, at some stage acted illegally or wrongly.

































































































I just don't think that's the case. I know many, many of them. Many of them are related to me. Many of them are very close to me. And believe you me, they did not break the law as part of an ongoing plan. It simply did not happen. But it would also be wrong to say that it did never happen, because it did. And I think the government, for their work on the so-called on the runs, I was proud to play my part in trying to lobby to see that being brought forward. And I think that's really, really important because whenever we talk about this, there cannot be a situation that arises where we accept that that distortion and perversion of the law was ever acceptable.

















































































And I'm glad that it will be on the record that there will be no hiding place for terrorists, that there will be no cup of tea and sit down for terrorists. That is absolutely non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I also want to talk about a group of campaigners that have reached out to me ahead of this debate today, and asked the Birmingham pub and Birmingham pub bombings families, Julie and those incredible campaigners. And I really do feel it's remiss whenever we're having this discussion that we do not pay tribute to their calls for a public inquiry.





































































And on that point, I want to reference somewhat because so many other members have and I think of Michael Gallagher, and in the last weeks he has suffered a stroke due to the stress and the pressure of him participating in that which he still would do every day of his life. But that brings home the stress and the pressure that everybody in Northern Ireland lives with. I just want to conclude my remarks by talking about an incredible group of people that we met today through the Commission for Victims and Survivors. Two of them were my constituents, two very different people.

























































An incredible woman called Mary, herself a veteran. Her husband was a UDR soldier, gunned down, murdered in cold blood. And another constituent of mine from my Lurgan part of the constituency. And his relative was an RUC officer who was at mass and was murdered on those two people are my constituents, and I don't discriminate between the power of them, and neither should anybody else in this House. And too often I find that narrative has slipped into the public consciousness, and I'm sure members in this House would not wish to do that. But it's important nonetheless that we put it on the record.











































It's difficult to know what to say in these scenarios, because everyone on these benches, no matter our politics, faces personally and at our homes and in our communities, and you never feel that you've done it justice. But I would encourage members across the House know that this isn't going to be perfect. Know that we will all want things that have not been able to come to pass, that we will all be seeking to influence the other place. But do know that if we don't do this, it's never going to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done. Thank you, Madam Chair. David Smith madam chair, it's a real pleasure to speak in this real pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly to follow my friend from Lagan Valley, who I think made a very powerful speech, and I commend her for her honesty and I commend her for her honesty and for sharing her personal experience, as I do for many members who have shared from their personal experience in this personal experience in this important debate. Madam chair, this bill is about one thing. How do we deal with the legacy of the deal with the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland?

























In my view, we can't deal with that legacy unless we are focusing on three things truth, justice and ultimately reconciliation. Everyone affected by the troubles deserves truth and justice. This seems to be the core of what the Legacy Commission is really about. But if we're honest, the difficulty in achieving an adequate balance between these two fundamentals of truth and justice is why this bill and the last one have been so contested. It is why at times there has been more heat than light in the debates. It is why victims and veterans have so often been rhetorically pitted against each other in these debates.











And as we know, and I think, as we have seen today, this is a false dichotomy. Member for Foyle made a good point on this, that so often veterans are victims when it comes to the troubles. But we have to ask, I think, as we stand here, why is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill necessary at all? 28 years after the Good Friday Agreement, the answer is that all parties, all parties to the conflict, have failed to take the steps necessary to deal with the legacy.

And here we are literally relitigating the troubles. So firstly, truth is
19:38
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
important, and I say the Legacy Commission will enable important work to establish truth. That work to establish truth. That includes hundreds, arguably thousands of veterans and their families, many victims and families, many victims and survivors of the troubles do need that closure, regardless of what has happened in their life, but has happened in their life, but about what and when happened to their loved ones. The Reformed Legacy Commission and the Independent Commission on Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, which will be talked about tomorrow, create the possibility of learning those truths and the seminal commitment of the legacy framework with the Irish government to undertake, through new legislation, the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities and legacy issues, including through the new guard Guard Unit, opens up new opportunities to uncover the full truth.































































































































































That is historic. Truly historic. What I would say to the Minister is that these commitments by our partners in the Irish government must be followed through on. And so I would ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to confirm that the entirety of the framework, including our pledge to reopen, in some cases, a limited number of inquests, is contingent upon the Irish government putting its commitments in the framework into Irish law. At the same time as the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill becomes law. The second key foundational element here around justice. Justice is so necessary for her today, but the people of Northern Ireland really need to determine what form of justice will satisfy them.

















































































































































We heard about the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission earlier about the shadow Minister, but the Good Friday Agreement avoided any extensive public or social judicial process. And so we are not just left with the legacy of the troubles itself, but the legacy of the last 28 years of smouldering, pent up frustration about the lack of justice, or even acknowledgement at times of the events of the preceding 30 years. In part five of the bill, the Legacy Commission allows for both the uncovering of truth in a quasi judicial setting through the inquisitorial proceedings approach and for suspected crimes uncovered in this way to be referred to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions.



































































































































That means that the criminal justice route remains possible for troubles related crimes. Now, the Member for South West Wiltshire, who is not in his place, talked about giving false hope to Mrs. Jones. What I would say at times is as much the absence of a process that can be that fear and disappointment and frustration for people, even if they can't get full justice, whatever that may be. And however you may define that, the lack of an opportunity for it even to be looked into, how their loved one was affected, killed, maimed, is in and of itself is part of justice.





















































































































And that's why it's important that we must make sure that any attempts of lawfare as well against veterans are confounded. So I welcome particularly New clause 50. That means that the Attorney General will have to give consent to all serious troubles related prosecutions. I welcome new clause 32 on the explicit requirement for corners of the Commission to recognise that operational circumstances in which veterans served and, you know, the split second decisions, etc. and amendment 192 require the Commission to consider whether there is compelling new evidence before contacting individual witnesses. But, Madam Chair, the question must be asked at what point will we all realise that we cannot either litigate or prosecute our way out of the legacy of the troubles?





































































































So on to my last point about reconciliation, because the missing piece in Northern Ireland, the whole reason that we're in this chamber today, is the failure to pursue and deliver what you might call positive peace. The Good Friday Agreement has in many ways been a huge success. It stopped a large majority of the violence that we saw in the troubles, and there is no question that Northern Ireland is a better place today than it was in 1998. I saw that improvement with my own eyes as I lived there between 2002 and 2007. But the mere absence of violence is not enough in and of itself to deal with the legacy of the past, let alone build the future that Northern Ireland deserves.























































































And it's for that reason that despite the much more peaceful society that we see today, the Northern Ireland still feels frozen to some degree at a moment in time. 1998, to be precise. How else can we explain the visceral response that we witnessed so recently on the Garvaghy Road? Some may say that governments cannot make people or communities reconcile, and that would be correct. But that does not cannot mean that government and politicians like us more generally cease to have a role in fostering reconciliation. The Bill does outline in clause 11 that the the first principle of the Legacy Commission is that reconciliation must be promoted.







































































However, there is scant, if any, detail thereafter how this will be achieved. Even if part four of the Legacy Act is taken forward. Although it is grouped for tomorrow. This is why I put my name to my hon. Friend for Gower new clause 54, which commits the government to engaging seriously with the efforts to foster reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the troubles. Some people want to see justice done, others want to see truth uncovered. And these are legitimate desires. And the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seeks to help those desires come to fruition. But there is clearly a great social and corporate need for acknowledgement and even contrition on all sides in relation to the legacy of the troubles.

























































Generation after Trimble and Hume won the Nobel Peace Prize. Our ambitions for reconciliation have fallen silent, and we politicians need to lead by example. This isn't familiar territory for any government. Truth and justice are easier to deal with than the fragilities of confession, forgiveness and ultimately love. When President Mandela spoke in Cape Town Cathedral at the Commissioning Service for the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he led by example, acknowledging and I quote, that the whole South African nation has been a victim and it is in that context that we should address the restoration of dignity and the issue of reparation.











































The healing process is meant for the individual, the family and the community. However, above all, the healing process involves the nation because it's the nation itself that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself. So I would ask us, what could it mean if the people of these islands, Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland could convene moments through which we could acknowledge, repent and heal? What could it achieve if the UK, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland governments convened, resourced and facilitated memorialisation of the troubles and symbols of forgiveness and reconciliation?































Because I have to say that only governments, as we've seen throughout the world, have the scale and authority to create these spaces and moments. And above all, it does start with us. We politicians need to step up and model relational humility, to be willing to forgive and to ask for forgiveness. The missing ingredient in dealing with the legacy of the troubles is summed up in one word sorry. Even if we have played no part directly in the troubles, the roles that we play as political leaders give us a responsibility and an opportunity to lead by example.

















So for my part, as little as it may mean as a British parliamentarian, I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the times when the British Parliament has made things more difficult for the people of Northern Ireland. I'm sorry for the times. If my rhetoric or misunderstanding has hurt colleagues in the cause of peace and hope. As I conclude, Madam Chair, that this reconciliation gap can be closed, at least in a little part in legislation. I hope that as we pass this bill, all of us, including political leaders here in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, will take up the mantle to be the generation of leaders who will finally deal with the legacy of the troubles, by leading by example in our interpersonal and political relationships to bring true reconciliation.
19:47
Alex Easton Portrait Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
Alex Easton. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I have examined clauses 1 to 72 and the government's amendments with care and as best I can in the short and as best I can in the short period that we have. I regret to say that I still do have grave concerns. The central question is whether it draws clear blue water between those who serve to protect the public and those who pursue terrorism. Security forces were responsible for around 10% of the trouble related deaths. Terrorist organisations for about 90%. Yet many who served have lived with the prospect of being summoned to court, while some suspected of terrorist offences received so-called letters of comfort, which has been addressed for veterans and their families.





















































































































That contrast has created a deep sense of injustice. I am not asking the House to place anyone above the law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it must be examined. But a fair legacy process must recognise the profound difference between someone who wore a uniform to protect life, and someone who deliberately set out to take it. Nor should the Republic of Ireland's role escape scrutiny. Families seeking answers about attacks planned or supported across the border deserve meaningful cooperation and access to relevant information. A legacy process that looks only where it is easiest to look will not command confidence.







































































































 Justice must not stop at the border, and we look at the examples that have come out recently where the Republic of Ireland's government have failed to give information. We see what has happened with Omagh. We know that the Irish government, in the early part of the troubles supplied weapons to the IRA. We know about Brain and Buchanan superintendents murdered on their way home from Dundalk. An Garda Siochana were involved. Yet they were never brought to justice and no information was given to our government. I welcome the government's decision to bar former partners from the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, and to provide a place for a veteran.























































































I hope that it will be more than just one veteran. Those are important changes which have engaged partially with my amendment number 52, but they do not fully address my concerns about appointing someone who belongs or has belonged to a political party, linked to, or supportive of a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. Victims and survivors must be able to trust the independence of those appointed to speak on their behalf. I implore government not to divide the House on my amendment, as we cannot allow those from any political party to go on to the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group if they believe that the troubles were justified, if they believed the murder of a PSNI officer was justified, if they believe the murderer of Her Majesty's Armed Forces was justified, if they believed a civilian murder was justified for their cause.



































































Because murder is never justified, no matter who you take, it took part. Let me get on with it and I'll maybe let you in such. If such individuals were allowed, even unintentionally, they would make a mockery of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. They would use it for their own agenda, and nobody would have any confidence in the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. Please do the right thing. Secretary of State, don't divide this House on this amendment, which actually strengthens the bill. It does not weaken it. There must not be allowed to be on the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.



















































Anybody who believes that a terrorist campaign was right or given the opportunity to be able to use that position to rewrite history, because if they are allowed on it, they will do that. Madam chair. Magna Carta declares to no one will we sell to no one. Will we deny or delay right of justice? That promise must always apply to every family seeking answers. And to every veteran who has lived for years under the shadow of possible prosecution. Passing a bill is not in itself progress. The test is whether it delivers a process that is fair, credible and worthy of the trust of those it is meant to serve.





































 I recognise that no legislation can undo the grief of the troubles, but this House has a duty not to compound it. We owe victims the truth. Veterans, fairness and the public a process that distinguishes service from terrorism without placing anyone beyond the reach of law. The government's amendments are a step, but they are not enough. For this reason, I can't support the bill and I employ implore the Secretary of State to actually listen to what I'm saying. As somebody who is a Unionist, and throughout my life I've. I've watched politics coming through Westminster and all the different deals that have been done from the Belfast Agreement, the Anglo-Irish agreement, right through to the Windsor Framework.

















I see every successive government not listening to me or my predecessors unions about their concerns. We feel unloved. We feel that we're never listened to. And you, Secretary of State, have a chance here to reach out to unionism and our genuine concerns. And please listen to us, because we have to get this right. Because if we don't, it's just going to be a complete disaster.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Ian Byrne.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we debate this bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose lose sight of the families whose decades long fight for truth and justice has brought us here. Mothers who wait for 50 years to Mothers who wait for 50 years to understand why the children were killed. Siblings told to move on. Widows denied information about
19:53
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
Widows denied information about their husbands deaths. Children who grew up without a. Parents still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones, but whether parts of it were involved, enabled or concealed. What happened? Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to repair the damage caused by the Legacy Act. But that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know.





















































































































































































The government published a substantial amendment shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The Independent Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests are met, a government law officer could withhold consent.







































































































































































I believe that Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families confidence, where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power. Families will understandably question why government member should have the final say. Whatever the government's intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear. We must also remember that in litigation, the courts of Northern Ireland found that legacy acts immunity provisions incompatible with articles two and three of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force.























































































































































The government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respect to human rights obligations to protections underpinning the Good Friday Agreement must be upheld. As a Labour government, we have a particular responsibility to protect our achievements and never, ever undermine it. Nor do the concerns and prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State's control over sensitive information. Restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings, and the independence of appointments to judicial panel. These are fundamental issues. Who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence.





































































































































The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear. That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It will require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office Accountability Bill, known as the Hillsborough Law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part four of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both houses. The principle is straightforward public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant, relevant evidence and actively help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

establish the facts. Well, I have a friend, of course. Will my hon. Friend agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will my hon. Friend agree with me? Who knows? We'll find out. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be absolutely clear that I completely agree with him about the principle of candour. Just as we principle of candour. Just as we argued for it in the Hillsborough law, which, as we know, is still making its way through the House of Lords. It's still in the Committee Lords. It's still in the Committee stage down there. So we I want us to be as open and transparent as is possible, and I undertake to. Him that I will work with him and with others in this House to make sure that that principle is adhered to.







































































































When we mesh together the two bills, this bill and the Hillsborough law

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the House of Lords. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out into to ensure that what comes out into the House of Lords is the Hillsborough and does exactly what we wanted and applies to Northern Ireland, because families should Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions where conduct has been examined, nor face a lesser been examined, nor face a lesser standard of candour, because their case before the Legacy Commission rather than the coroner. Amnesty international has highlighted the importance of disclosure, transparency and accountability in legacy cases.



























































































The Joint Committee on Human Rights Scrutiny report on this bill recommends that the Hillsborough law duty of candour must apply equally to revive coroner's inquest and proceedings conducted by the Legacy Commission. New clause 55 would apply these principles directly to those proceedings, and I thank the Secretary of State for those words. But an investigation can only establish the truth if the evidence is brought forward. The public bodies, with all the information providing complete accounts or protect themselves, families are forced to fight the same battles again and again. That is how allegations of collusion remain unresolved.















































































Suspicion becomes distrust and justice is denied for generations. We should do everything possible to prevent that. As a survivor of Hillsborough, I know the damage caused when the state closes ranks against the people, it has failed. 97 people unlawfully killed their families and survivors endured decades of lies and cover ups. The consequences continue today. Families should never have to fight to establish why their loved ones died. Survivors should never have to defend themselves against lies. Public authorities have a duty to tell the truth and assist in establishing it. Instead, those same institutions protected themselves. Evidence was withheld.

































































The truth obstructed. That experience is why we fought and fight for the Hillsborough law to require public bodies and officials to be honest, disclose evidence and assist the search for truth. Not blocking that duty must apply fully in Northern Ireland. Families there know the pain of losing loved ones and spending decades seeking answers from the state. They also know what it means to suspect that the state may have concealed, enabled or colluded in the wrongdoing they are trying to understand. They deserve the same candour and assistance as any other family. Their right to truth must carry equal weight.



















































We cannot, as families across new proceedings, while leaving uncertainty about whether those holding the evidence must assist them. The Prime Ministers have promised to change the culture of the state and make it more open, honest and accountable. This bill provides a real opportunity to put that commitment into practice. That means accepting scrutiny by requiring institutions to disclose evidence, even when it exposes their failures, and properly investigating allegations of state collusion, rather than leaving questions buried in classified files or unresolved inquiries. Above all, it means putting bereaved families at the very heart of the process. New clause 56 asks the government to apply the principle embodied in the Hillsborough law to these proceedings, and he urged Ministers to accept it.



































I also urge them to listen to wider concerns raised by families and their representatives. We were elected to repair the damage caused by the Legacy Act. We must deliver legislation that aims the confidence of those who suffered that damage. These families have waited decades. Many have lost parents and grandparents who died without the answers they deserved. They should not spend the rest of their lives fighting for what the state should have provided a long time ago. Truth, justice and accountability. The not unreasonable demands that the very least bereaved families and entitled to expect. Madam chair, we must ensure that this legislation does not repeat the failures of the past, that the search for truth is not obstructed by those responsible for providing it, and that no family is left wondering whether the state has again put its interests before their rights to justice.

















The government must, on its promise to these families. It must deliver accountability, uphold human rights and ensure the truth can no longer be withheld behind the power of the state. This bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must honour them. Lincoln Jopp. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I have to start by declaring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I have to start by declaring an interest. This legislation would affect me because I did four tours affect me because I did four tours of Northern Ireland serving in the Scots Guards. The first in Belfast Scots Guards. The first in Belfast in 1992. We lost guards and Damien in 1992. We lost guards and Damien Shackleton, murdered by the IRA. We lost guardsman Andrew Watson, murdered by the IRA. And we also had two Guardsmen convicted
20:02
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
subsequently in a zip lock court for murder and were given life sentences for a judgemental shooting situation in north Belfast. shooting situation in north Belfast. On that tour. I remember being as a platoon commander at a pig point in just outside the flats, and just outside the flats, and basically a vehicle control point, stopping ingress and egress into the city centre. And the my road man, who was the guy who stopped the people in the in the checkpoint, my road man called over to me and he had his hand on the the driver's shoulder and he said, say to the platoon commander, what you've just said to me.























































































































































































































































And this guy looked me in the eye and he said, I've got a bomb in the back of this vehicle. Now, fortunately, I knew that he was lying, but the drill at the time was that you grabbed a hold of this one witness, and you took him out of the car, and you did not let go until the bomb disposal people turned up because they needed to question them in order to find out what the situation was, how long the vehicle had been taken away to get the bomb in the back of it. And the IRA tactics at the time were were all designed not only to kill and maim, but also to put the British forces and the police on a series of horns of dilemma in order to make their job incredibly difficult, as well as trying to kill them.







































































































































































































































I was then my second tour. I was an operations officer in East Tyrone on a tour that spanned the cease fire and right up until the midnight on the day the ceasefire kicked in, the IRA, IRA were trying to mortar and bomb and murder our people in RUC Pomeroy right up until midnight. I was in a company commander in accompanied by my wife and children, and we were based out of Ballykinler, and we would go away for five weeks at a time, predominantly to Armagh and to South Armagh and to Portadown, and particularly Drumcree. And my last job was as a policy, two years as a policy officer in headquarters, Northern Ireland in Lisburn.























































































































































































































And it was through that progression, the challenges that you face and the insights that you glean are very, very different and by the time I got to the top, John Reid was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time, and we were doing the demilitarisation of South Armagh, the golf towers, the Downing Street Declaration. And I asked my boss, I said it was a civil servant, brilliant civil servant, who said, I asked him who won. Now he did actually answer me that question, but the answer that he gave me isn't probably something that's going to help our debate and our consideration today, but sufficient to say that the Good Friday Agreement left that out there as a question who won because it was necessary for a peace agreement.





































































































































































































It was very important not to rub people's noses in it. That one side had very clearly won, and another side had very clearly lost. And so because of that grey area, what we have seen subsequently is people seeking to use various ways of answering that question. It's not just relitigating the case, it is rewriting history. And I particularly remember one instance when Stormont had to be recalled in order to debate the colour of flowers. They were on Easter recess and someone had put some flowers in the lobby at Stormont, and they had to recall everyone in order to debate the colour of the flowers, which sounds absurd, but of course the colour of those flowers was an answer to the question who won?



















































































































































































Now the trouble is that our considerations today are not as apparently innocuous as the colour of flowers. Our debate today is about the way in which those four guardsmen that I mentioned went to Northern Ireland. They received orders. They had a rifle strapped around their neck. They were given very, very few additional powers to those of a private citizen, and they were told to go out into the streets of the United Kingdom and to protect the police while people tried to kill them. And it's into that in that context that I see this bill today and the amendments which have been tabled, because what we are witnessing is an extension of the troubles by other means.

































































































































































And I'm afraid the what the Secretary of State, I think, in good faith, has been attempting to. Bring various parties together and to ensure that this legislation does indeed. Have the confidence, I think the former Secretary of State for a. Have the confidence of all parties. The trouble is, it doesn't do it. And we've heard from my hon. Friend the shadow defence spokesman, that various veterans organisations have come out and said that they do not have confidence in in this legislation and the amendments to it. And the former Secretary of State said, if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this.

















































































































































 Well, I don't want perfect, but I do want something which protects our veterans from the rinse and repeat. And this isn't it, as the Secretary of State well knows, because I tried to table a. I tried to bring a private member's bill to the House, which said that there should be no new investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless there was new compelling evidence in the eyes of the Supreme Court judge. The government sought to talk that out and did successfully talk that out. And so our front bench have brought forward new clause 21, which essentially represents that.

































































































































And I wish the government had taken me up on the offer and simply had this as one of their amendments, because this is the this is the crucial amendment which has the support of all the veterans organisations, because do you know what they wrote it. And and so that's how I know that they support new clause 21. And the word essential, which has been substituted for new and compelling, I'm afraid, doesn't do it for me, because I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning and he said, essential to my mind means completely new evidence or a new forensic procedure.





















































































































But that's the Secretary of State's interpretation of it. Who is to say how this non legalese word essential is going to be interpreted in the future? There are just far too many cracks in the pavement into which our service personnel could again fall and be rinsed and repeated. And the very fact that the logo that the Secretary of State has admitted that this doesn't do anything to stop the lock wall inquest going ahead, and indeed, the Secretary of State for defence confirmed that when he came in front of the Defence Select Committee last week, he said I asked him, so does anything that you've written in these amendments trump that i.e.





































































































the requirement under the framework for lock all to go ahead, or will they automatically be restarted? Will the interpretation of essential be? Well, yes, it is essential because we have committed to it in the framework, and the Secretary of State for defence said in terms of the inquests and those particular inquests, there just isn't a way of kind of circumventing that particular issue in a way that is consistent with our treaty obligations and where we have got to, I think, with the amendments we have laid, is a place that deals with, I think, some of the really fundamental concerns that I had as a member of Parliament, let alone colleagues.























































































 So both Secretaries of State admit that these amendments will not stop that inquest going ahead. And so the combination of veterans groups not supporting this and the fact that the by their own admission, the government can't get round what they've already given away in terms of inquests mean that I cannot support the Bill, and I will be supporting new clause 21 tonight. I will give way, of course, grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's just that he referred to his own private members Bill which. Which said that a Supreme Court judge should be deciding whether judge should be deciding whether something was new and compelling evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he indeed approached the Supreme Court? Lincoln Jopp funnily enough, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lincoln Jopp funnily enough, I haven't actually approached the Supreme Court, but I really don't Supreme Court, but I really don't see that that this is the sort of thing the Secretary of State should have been doing, because this is what the veterans told him would be sufficient, a sufficiently high bar in order for them to have confidence in this. And so hon. Members across the House will be being asked to vote tonight. I was going to ask the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, when he was considering all the people who were affected by this legislation, whether he just thought that the 1572 veterans that he has in his constituency, they just don't matter.























































And all the hon. Members have got veterans who live in their. Well, of course I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's a very poor point. And of course they matter. But lots of people. Speaking of veterans, tonight I wanted to give the tonight I wanted to give the families the voice and my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability. So that's what I've focussed on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoke about veterans with great expertise. And of course, with great expertise. And of course, I've met veterans in my community. I've sat down and I've got friends with veterans. So it's a pretty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with veterans. So it's a pretty poor point you just made. I don't think it is a poor point because we we we all have to make judgements in this place and, and we all have to vote with our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conscience. Of course I will. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I understand where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. I understand where you're coming from in part. But the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the hon. Member. Do apologise. Reigate I have mentioned veterans tonight that I mentioned veterans tonight that I know that are prepared to support this bill, and there are veterans groups who have a different view of this. I completely appreciate that there are veterans groups that are absolutely against it. Some of them are my constituents too. It would be wrong to say, though, that there is a homogenous view amongst all veterans, and I think that that's worth restating if we just express my gratitude for your service. And it sounds like you were very close to my home whenever you were in Lisburn, you'll remember that last week was the 30th anniversary of the bombing of Thiepval Barracks, in which one soldier died.























I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

completely understand where you're coming from. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogenous group, but the closest we can approximate to it is the we can approximate to it is the veterans organisations who have come together and spoken with one voice saying that they don't think there are sufficient, sufficient protections in this bill for them protections in this bill for them not to be, not to suffer the rinse and repeat. And for that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bayo Alaba. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to be able to participate in today's debate. I did not serve in Northern Ireland, but I did in Northern Ireland, but I did spend time as a Parachute Regiment reservist and experienced that laid the foundations of my path to the foundations of my path to becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford. It afforded me opportunities I would never have otherwise experienced, never have otherwise experienced, and I know the same is true for countless others.

Paratroopers
20:15
Bayo Alaba Portrait Mr Bayo Alaba MP (Southend East and Rochford, Independent)
-
-
served alongside members of our armed Forces and the Northern Irish Security Forces throughout Operation Banner, often in the most dangerous situations. They were asked to do an immensely difficult asked to do an immensely difficult job in the hope of delivering lasting peace. Many of those soldiers, now in their 70s and 80s, soldiers, now in their 70s and 80s, have spent decades fearing a knock at their door. The unjust reality at their door. The unjust reality is that is that just most. Is that most fearful of historic prosecutions are largely working class men who served in the late teens and 20s.

































































I also want to sort of just talk to the point that the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned about sort of justice for victims and civilians, and I fully understand. What I would also say is that these young service personnel are victims to. They saw things and experienced things that they cannot unsee. They were deployed to Northern Ireland on the instructions of the British government and fulfilled their duties as commanded by their chain of command. That is why I feel so passionately about this bill and about the protections it must offer. For more than a quarter of a century, the job of properly addressing the legacy of the troubles has been kicked down the road by successive governments.

















































 This legislation is an attempt to end that unwillingness and to deliver justice to all those affected. What it is not is an attempt to unfairly target British soldiers with legal proceedings, or to reopen wounds that are barely healed. The truth is that is that it is this legislation that if this legislation is not passed, those who served in Operation Banner would be completely exposed to spurious prosecution and lacking the immunity that they were falsely promised. The this legislation will offer veterans new protections, including strict guidelines, on what can be considered new and compelling evidence, measures to adequately recognise the contexts in which soldiers were operating, and explicit rejection of equivalence between service personnel and insurgents.





























That is why this, despite my concerns about certain details of this bill, I have worked extensively with the veteran community, most notably the Parachute Regiment Association. Throughout this process, I would like to commend them for the good faith nature in which they have engaged. This bill is not perfect, but it is not. But it is a marked improvement on the flawed legislation passed in 2023. Yeah, the consequences of not getting this bill right are very real. And while the failure of the process would belong to us, all its impact will be felt hardest by those we claim to support.















If we are unable to talk, listen and make good faith compromises, we risk repeating the mistakes that this legislation seeks to correct. No one here wants to see our children and our grandchildren patrolling the streets of Belfast again. Yeah, we have a duty to prevent that cycle of violence from reigniting. I want this bill to go further, even further in protecting our veterans, and I will keep working with the veteran community and the government to make this happen. We do need justice. We need closure. Families need answers. But most of all, we need long lasting peace.



Thank you.
20:19
Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hear Angus MacDonald. >> Hear Angus MacDonald. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to speak on the amendment 130 in clause 36. My son, myself, my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather pretty well. All my ancestors forever have served in the army. I was a subaltern in Northern Ireland in the peak of the troubles in 1984, and my regiment, the Queen's own Highlanders, had seen the death of the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel David Blair, and 17 more soldiers killed in the two explosives in Warrenpoint, 1979, and the pain of these deaths were still very live amongst the many of the regiment who were serving.



























































































Five years later when I was serving and despite the pain, I do not recollect a single person who felt any desire to take revenge. The professionalism of the British shoulder soldier could be depended on. Now I have a son who has just left the army after several years as a trooper, and he tells me of an anecdote, and because I told him I was coming to this and he said, well, let me tell you a story. He said, there are four guys all armed, and they're clearing a building in the Middle East. And they go upstairs and as they go along the corridor, out of the back of the building comes a man.











































































And in front of him is is a female. And over her shoulder he is firing AK 47 bullets and spraying them. And they shoot that man and that woman, OK? They kill them, but they had no option. And it happened in the spur of the moment, and they couldn't really decide how to get out of it. They would all have been dead. Now, is there any chance that these British soldiers could be charged for murder? And if there is, then I would strongly recommend the young I meet not to join the army. The British soldier in my day were always able to depend on the support of the British public, the government and the judiciary.

























































And as regards my time in Northern Ireland, we knew that we had our backs covered and that we had to abide with the law. What we didn't have then was sharp suited lawyers looking for any opportunity to pursue us in court, possibly for decades, recruitment of soldiers is extremely poor at the moment, and unless the concern of those serving and veterans are put to rest, we will not be able to rebuild our fighting force to the strength we need. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blair Anderson. Thank you, Miss Noakes. Almost three decades on Noakes. Almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, the challenge of legacy remains unsolved. And that is so important unsolved. And that is so important for agreeing on these amendments tonight and moving forward with the bill tomorrow. And it's it's an bill tomorrow. And it's it's an honour to be part of this process that will be so historic in the future of Northern Ireland. And I future of Northern Ireland. And I do praise the work of the right hon. Member for Leeds South, for Wirral West, for the sector, the Secretary of State, for the Minister for Northern Ireland, and to the Northern Ireland Select Committee for all of their work on this Bill and bringing us to this place and also to the victims groups and also individual victims, many of whom have not spoken out in this debate.































 But we are thinking of them to veterans. My grandfather is from Northern Ireland and served in the British Army and to the Northern Ireland Assembly members, who are also bringing forward legislation all the time to create a peace for Northern Ireland, to the community leaders who are building that peace every day and to people across Northern Ireland. We hope that in passing this legislation and agreeing these amendments, of which I support the government amendments tonight, that this will bring us closer to that permanent peace, justice and reconciliation which everyone in Northern Ireland and across the UK we can build on as we begin this Committee stage.

















Every clause and amendment should be judged by one simple test. Will it help victims and bereaved families finally get the answers they have waited decades to receive? That they have woken up every single morning waiting for, that they are passing on that they don't want to, but they are passing on to future generations, to their own children and looking forward to that being passed on and on with despair. No, we want to draw a line. And so this should enable peace and reconciliation to set everyone in Northern Ireland free from the dark past. Earlier this afternoon, members of the Victims Forum spoke to MPs about parents, siblings and grandparents killed during the troubles.

One victim said it's now been 53 years since my father was murdered. I have moved on from
20:24
Fleur Anderson Portrait Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)
-
-
justice, but I want the truth, that window of truth and the potential of getting that truth is closing. of getting that truth is closing. More than 3500 people lost their lives during the troubles, and nearly a third of those deaths nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved. Behind every case is a family still living with those unanswered questions. And the unanswered questions. And the greatest risk before us is delay. So for those members who are considering voting no to these considering voting no to these amendments and no to passing this bill, that is what is before us.























































































































































 Every year that passes makes establishing the truth harder. Witnesses pass away, memories fade, evidence is lost, and doing nothing means accepting that some families may never learn what happened to their loved ones. Instead of accepting this carefully balanced bill in which the the former Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have stopped and listened so carefully to victims and have brought forward the. The whole bill and these amendments, the previous Legacy Act, as has been said, failed to command confidence across Northern Ireland. It closed down routes that families had pursued for years and left many feeling further away from truth and accountability.









































































































































This bill takes a different approach. The Reformed Legacy Commission will have stronger investigative and disclosure powers, and a clear focus on providing families with as much information as possible and learning from the Canova inquiry as well, and that victim led process and way of taking action, asking victims at every stage what they want to know. Not every case will lead to a prosecution. Many are now 40 or 50 years old. But where prosecutions are possible and it's been proven already that they are that this, that families can have the fullest possible account of what happened.



























































































































So I welcome amendment 192, which ensures documentary evidence is considered before witnesses are contacted and requires compelling new evidence before individuals are approached. I welcome new clauses 33 and 34, with amendments 148 and 149, which establish a Statutory Victims and Survivors Advisory group. This is so important, and I can see has come from many conversations with Wave, which has been mentioned before in this debate and others, but other victims groups as well, asking for something for a place where their voices will be heard, a statutory place. And if this process is to command confidence, victims voices must be at its heart.















































































































And there it is with the new Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. I also really welcome New clause 35 that the Legacy Commission must carry out its duties in a way that avoids unnecessary any necessary cost, because I feel in all of this process, too often it's only lawyers that are the winners in this process. And so I'd like to ask the Secretary of State how will this be checked? How will it be checked that there's no unnecessary cost in the process? And how will it be reported on to this House? The provisions related to inquests are equally important to families who have fought for years.

































































































For answers deserve a process that's effective, independent and focussed on delivering outcomes alongside this victim centred approach, the Bill contains important protections for veterans. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner, and we have all of their gratitude, did so with courage, professionalism and distinction. I welcome the statutory duty to avoid unnecessary duplication of previous investigations. The rinse and repeat clause, as well as New clause 32, which recognises the operational circumstances in which veterans served. These new amendments are further real clarity within the Bill of some things that were there already, but needed, need to be said to provide assurance.

















































































I welcome amendment 240 and new clauses 45 and 46, which prevent veterans from inappropriate cold calling by requiring contact to be made through the Ministry of Defence. The provisions protecting older witnesses are also sensible and proportionate, and a result of many conversations with veteran groups. Supporting victims and protecting veterans are not competing objectives. There needs to be a careful balance. A credible legacy framework must do both. It was never going to be easy, but I think this bill achieves it. The Secretary of State has already reiterated in this debate that there can be no moral equivalence between those who serve lawfully in our armed forces and police service, and those who carried out acts of terrorism.

































































The IRA, UVF, UDA and inLa were responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths during the troubles, and nobody involved in such acts should receive immunity from accountability. Miss Noakes, I therefore welcome the removal of the previous acts, immunity provisions and the restoration of routes to accountability under the rule of law. I also welcome the greater consistency and oversight sought through new clauses 49 and 50. However, on new clause 50, which would require the Attorney Attorney General consent for serious troubles related prosecutions, victims and survivors have raised with me concerns about independence and how the safeguard will be perceived.

















































So can the Secretary of State reassure the House that it will not create the impression of a special hurdle for Crown related cases that prosecutorial, prosecutorial prosecution? That's a really hard word. Prosecutorial. Thank you everyone, very much. Decisions will continue to be taken independently and applied equally to all those under investigation. It's about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being equal under the law. Yes. I'll do this now. Yes, completely. And of course the the completely. And of course the the this is one of the things that was recommended actually by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Committee on Human Rights of both our two houses. And it's important that the Attorney General would only who is also the Advocate general in Northern Ireland, would general in Northern Ireland, would only be able to operate in a quasi judicial function and would be precisely. And using the same prosecutorial process as any other prosecuting decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary. That's a very helpful clarification and will be very much clarification and will be very much welcomed by many victims and survivors that I've spoken to. Chair, more than 25 years after the Chair, more than 25 years after the Good Friday Agreement and 12 years after the Stormont Agreement, Northern Ireland has been Northern Ireland has been transformed, as I saw time and time again, and I do now. Growth is so much higher than the rest of the UK. Unemployment is less. There's so much to build on, but too many families still carry the burden of unanswered questions.



















And this holds back Northern Ireland in so many ways. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the passage of time does not become the final barrier to truth. And I also really welcome part four of the Legacy Act, which has only been mentioned one other time in this debate, but it's a really, really important part of the whole of the legislation. For these reasons, I support the government's approach because it offers the best chance in a generation to deliver what victims and families have sought for far too long. For answers. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Danny Kruger. Madam. Madam Chair, and can I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair, and can I just start by remarking that in the seven years I've been a member of this House, I don't think I've ever been in a more respectful, more been in a more respectful, more positive, more high quality debate. There have been some absolutely outstanding contributions from from outstanding contributions from from across the House. And I'm very proud to, to to be able to participate. I'm not going to I'm
20:31
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Reform UK)
-
-
participate. I'm not going to I'm not going to reach that standard. But I do want to acknowledge, particularly the contributions made by colleagues from Northern Ireland. Having visited a number of times recently, I can attest they do politics pretty well there. There's a there's a standard of of speech making which reflects the seriousness of politics there. And I think we've all we've all benefited from that this evening. Now, Madam Chair, I want to. Having said that, I my my my observation on the bill as a whole and on the amendments that have been brought forward by the government, is that it essentially still fails on a core moral principle, which I will come to.































































































































































































































But the amendments that have been adduced as improving the Bill and addressing the concerns that have been made hitherto, I'm afraid, do not offer new protections. Many of them are already in force and could be applied, particularly the, the, the, the anonymity opportunity and remote hearings, but mostly the amendments. The new clauses are simply moral statements, important moral statements. But stating what should be obvious, and I particularly refer to New clause 32, which states that there is no equivalence between between terrorist action and legal action. I mean, for such a thing requiring to be said as an extraordinary thing that that that the relevant person in an inquest or proceedings must have regard to the fact that force may be lawfully used to prevent unlawful violence.













































































































































































































What a thing that requiring to be said or that lawful action is not equivalent to terrorism. Why should this be required to be stated in law, if it were not for the fact that the Bill might otherwise be thought to suggest just such a thing, that the law as it stands, and that this Bill otherwise might be held to, to imply that equivalence. And at the heart of this, and at the heart of the whole Bill, and why why it remains inadequate, is the essential imbalance in the legal procedures that people the legacy of Northern Ireland applies.































































































































































































And I want to just pay tribute, particularly to a group of veterans that I met recently, some special forces, some others led by Robert Parr, Doctor Robert Parr, who's a an academic at Oxford now, but formerly a Royal Marine and Special Forces. And he's written a very powerful paper, which makes the simple point that the legal system that we have at the moment that is not addressed by this bill, in fact, is consolidated by this bill. I quote privileges the claims of former paramilitaries over those of the men and women who served the crown. And of course, that is not intentional.





















































































































































































Of course, the intention is to provide equity and parity. The problem is structural. The fact is that only a 10th of the deaths that happened during the troubles were caused by the security services, but it is men and women in uniform who must bear almost the whole institutional burden of the law as it stands. And that won't change under this bill. What happened is that the IRA in particular, and other paramilitary organisations, they got letters of comfort, they got early release, they got pardons, they got their weapons decommissioned without any forensic testing being done. Meanwhile, the British Army, they kept their records.







































































































































































They indeed, they operated under the chain of command. They had accountability built into the work that they did. In fact, all the elements that made their decisions as safe as possible as a military operating under the laws of a democracy. It's those elements that are now used against them, and that is the structural imbalance we face. And this is apparent, Madam Chair, it was apparent right at the beginning, right at the beginning, when the Good Friday Agreement was being implemented. A letter that's been released recently from from John Reid, the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time, in 2001, writing to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and he made it clear that the arrangement that was being proposed by which an amnesty would be offered to terrorists, but not to British veterans, was asymmetric and unjust, but that for reasons of political necessity, that's how it had to be.

















































































































































And as Doctor Powers pointed out, the asymmetric exclusion of the security forces was therefore not the product of principled legal reasoning or an honest assessment of comparative culpability. It was the price of Republican acquiescence in a political settlement. It was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

price of Republican acquiescence In a political settlement. And just consider the insult that this just consider the insult that this represents to our soldiers, who, by the way, and I want to pay tribute in honour of the point that the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made earlier. Our soldiers beat the IRA to a standstill. They fought them to the negotiating table, and them to the negotiating table, and then they had to take this final indignity that it was their not the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indignity that it was their not the IRA who would face the threat of the law. The threat of prosecution had to give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Just when he's paying tribute to to the armed forces at that time. Would he agree with me that part of the reason we enjoy the peace that we do today was because of the work many of our special forces done in penetrating those very paramilitaries, to the point that we only found out later about people like Stakeknife and others. And that was the reason they were forced to the peace table rather than than them voluntarily coming to seek peace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's absolutely right. And the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne earlier about who won. Well, insofar as it about who won. Well, insofar as it was a military conflict, we know who won. The British Army won, particularly with the help of particularly with the help of special forces. And that was the indignity that they had to suffer indignity that they had to suffer in consequence. They accepted as the price of peace, the indignity and the injustice of themselves being exposed to the threat, the principle of liability, the threat of prosecution while the IRA were indemnified.













































































































And that was a bitter enough pill. But the actual practice of it, not the threat, but the reality of prosecutions, repeat prosecutions on the scale that we have seen. That is what is unacceptable. That was not what was expected at the time. That is not what was accepted at the time. But of course, back in those days they reckoned without the ECHR. They reckoned without the consequences of the Human Rights Act and of the lawfare that the convention has, has brought into reality in our time. And in this in this century, in particularly article two of the ECHR, which applies retrospective by retrospectively to the investigations based on the on the inadequacy of investigations under standards that did not apply back in those days.





























































































And this Madam Chair is the essential injustice of the law as it stands, and of this bill that a fundamental violation of the principle of legal certainty. And I'm quoting Doctor Power again, the requirement that individuals are able to foresee the legal consequences of their actions at the time of those actions. That is itself a foundational element of the rule of law to which the ECHR is ostensibly itself committed. So, Madam Chair, just in passing one other indignity and injustice I want to advert to which has been consolidated, I'm afraid, by this by this Bill.















































































The Irish state agents of which elements of which were arguably responsible for enabling and colluding and covering up the actions of terrorists during the troubles. No accountability from them has ever been forthcoming, and none is expected in future, despite the warm words of the Secretary of State. And yet, thanks to this Bill, the Irish government will play a crucial role in our own justice system. This is wrong. So, Madam Chair, what is happening is that the government is trying to reconcile, and I honour them for doing this. They're trying to reconcile common sense and decency and the obvious appeal for justice on behalf of of veterans.



































































They're trying to reconcile that with the human rights framework that we have. And I'm afraid to say it simply can't be done. So let me end with a few thoughts about the future and the system that we need. And we must start by, by reverting to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and to the principles that Tony Blair oversaw back then. He chose peace over justice, and he was right to do that. That was the right principle. And now, in our time, we need to choose truth over individual justice for people who can never actually realistically hope to attain individual justice.























































And that is the way to heal a community. And the evidence of this from around the world, from transitional justice programs, particularly in South Africa, demonstrates that that is the way to achieve healing in a community. And the hon. Member, the Member for North Northumberland, put it very, very well when he talked about the need for positive peace, national peace, national peace and reconciliation. And Mrs. Jones, who? The lady with the lady we've referred to throughout this debate, she is not going to get justice through the law, but she could get the truth if we genuinely open the archives and genuinely encourage truthfulness, including the archives in Dublin.









































But we need going forward, we need to stop all future prosecutions of the sort that have persecuted our veterans. And we need a bill that draws a line under the Northern Irish troubles. Also, the Haddon-cave inquiry, a new process for war crimes under English law and a new legal basis for military conduct without European law. And I want to pay tribute to the Member for Goole and Pocklington and the private member's bill that he has introduced. I think that is going in the right direction, but we can go even further. It particularly emphasises, and this is the core point, that ultimately the chain of command is responsible for the actions of soldiers on the ground, and it ultimately Ministers who are responsible for the use of force, not the not the poor bloke who did who had to take a take a decision in a split second.

























At the risk of life, something more is needed, I suggest even than the hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington suggest which. Which I think we need to go further and we need to pull out of the ECHR altogether. And there are many reasons for believing it. And my party makes these points repeatedly. It protects terrorists. It stops the deportation of illegal immigrants. But the most important reason for it, Madam Chair, is that this is the most reasonable. This is the most important reason. It enables the prosecution of our soldiers. And on that ground, we must.















We must. I'm happy to give way before I sit down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's absolutely integral to the Good Friday Agreement. Yes. Well, we're. Very familiar with that argument,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very familiar with that argument, Madam Chair, and I think this isn't the time to have that debate. But I am confident and there's been there am confident and there's been there has been there has been a lot of learned advice to this end that it is totally possible to withdraw from the ECHR while maintaining our from the ECHR while maintaining our obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair. And it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate today and on. On balance, the debate has been wide ranging, honest, balanced and
20:43
Katrina Murray Portrait Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
-
-
recognises the complexity of this matter. And I real recognising that matter. And I real recognising that I do not want to repeat lots of what has already been said, but I want to also recognise and thank the Member for South Shropshire for his very honest and very personal account reminding us that everybody, regardless of background or the regardless of background or the roles that we have played, we act as human beings and the circumstances that we have lived in and have had and come to this debate from is, is the point where actually at times when we're scared, we react, we can react differently and nobody should be held to account for being scared.



















































































































































































What I want to say is we've talked a lot about the the wave and the victims groups. There are many of the survivors, family support groups that have given evidence that have lobbied, whether it's within the last couple of weeks or it's been in the course of the last the last year that we have been we have been debating this. So it's it's been in the history before that people that come from very different perspectives, people with very different backgrounds. But what has been very common amongst all of all of those people who have given their time, that have talked about their experiences, that have talked about their trauma, their families trauma, why they're trying not to, to pass it on to the next generation, but the next.

































































































































































But the grandchildren, the great grandchildren can't help but live, but, but experience what their families have have lived through, because that's the basis of everything that we come, that we, that we bring, we bring with us. I want to thank them for every time that they have. They have addressed us every time that they have addressed, that they have spoken to those who came before us. And I hope to God that they never actually have to come back to this place after this bill is there to try and do it again. I hope that we can actually make that.





















































































































































We can make that difference, because they do that drawing on their own trauma. They drawing on their own cynicism that they don't believe anything will ever change. But with that tiniest, teeny tiny bit of hope that actually it will, the hypothetical Mrs. Jones that we have talked about doesn't have expectations haven't gone sky high that we have to manage to actually drag them back from the bottom and from, from the depths that, you know, something we might actually get this right is probably the best that we can deserve. And what is absolutely striking about the victims, survivors, family groups that you meet is the fact that regardless of their background, they support each other.



































































































































They they recognise that this is not regarded to one. This is not one community against the other. This is often within communities. This is with it. And it's class based. It's working class. These that. It's. It is. They were often attacked by people from their own community that you might run into the person that you believe killed your family. When you went down to Tesco to do your shopping or to, or to go to or to go to, to go and do all of that or that actually, your connection might just be the fact that there is the island of Ireland will always be part of that.



















































































































Of the thing that will always be part of you, that you might, you probably, you've possibly never, ever been to. But that's but it's part of your family history. I want to turn attention to the amendment to 86 in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Gower I. She's given the the reasons for tabling the amendments. I want to talk about some of the practicalities of that. I started my first job in the NHS in the 1980s in the medical records library. I know how difficult it could be to find records, to make sure that they were traced to the right place, so that you could always use them and to and to do that, they had been done exactly the same way for 20 odd years.

































































































At that point, in the following 30 years, how we stored records, how we kept records, how we maintained all of those processes through building after building from move to move changed. There is an absolute practicality now of making sure that we still have those records, that people are able to get that level of information that the the process is and what and the, the commission body, the commissioners, the, the investigators can get that information and can get quality information. Canova showed that to be able to work with the highest level of information and the information that families found to be helpful was the important was, was the important factor.

















































































Because when there is a when there is an absence of information, that's when. That's when paranoia and assumptions get made. To be able to have that trust and in investigators. To have somebody who can go, I've heard this. Is this true? Can you verify that? That is probably one of the most important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aspects of this, because sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And the benefits of Canova and Canova approach have come through Canova approach have come through loud and clear. Good work on the Select Committee. And to do that Select Committee. And to do that briefly, and I just want to say and briefly, and I just want to say and to address amendment four in the name of the hon. Gentleman for South Antrim. Sexual crimes, rape, sexual assault of a well-documented instrument of war and conflict. There has not been a war or conflict where it has not been used, as we have said and has been highlighted already.























































This this is it has shows no bounds between whether it's a members within their own community or other communities, whether the members of security services. It is not on. It is a tactic that is shrouded and its inherent base of. It is to be shrouded in silence and shame. It is intended to silence and to shame, and we cannot let it go without recognition. I urge the Secretary of State to look kindly on how we address this important issue as. As this as this bill progresses through the. The other place, we need to try and make a solution for it.







































I I'm not quite convinced that the amendment in its form is the way that it currently do. I just like a commitment that we actually managed to find a way of doing it, because to look at what would be the traditional approach to, to, to dealing with sexual crimes will not work in the circumstances that have been, that have, that have been described as both member for South Antrim and the right hon. Member for Belfast East have also have discussed. We're not serving women well in sex crimes anyway, certainly not in this case. But certainly I will be supporting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the bill. Thank you. And before. I call, the next member, members will have seen this. Quite a number of members who want to speak in this debate. So please think of this debate. So please think of each other. Jim Allister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. There have been there have been There have been there have been many very valuable contributions in this debate, and I don't think any more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire, who really brought a dose of reality to this House as to what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I want to thank him, and indeed, all the hon. Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service and indeed our entire armed forces who saved so many lives. In my part of the United Kingdom.







A a deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police in that regard. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated and are a. Thanks for the peacekeeping
20:52
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
work that they did, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism. This bill, in considering it, it's relevant to considering it, it's relevant to consider the genesis of it. Of course it is infected, I would say, course it is infected, I would say, by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the the framework agreement with the Dublin government, a, a which then has given rise to this process. And that was a framework where no doubt we the government anticipates good faith, reciprocation from the Dublin government.









































































































































































Well, they've done that before and been disappointed. We've already heard reference in this debate to the Memorandum of understanding that was lauded as having been reached in respect of the OMA inquiry. Indeed, the past Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leeds South said at the time it was a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families. And yet this day last week, we saw just how empty that promised co-operation was when there emerged the fact hidden to that point not handed over by the Dublin government until that point that the very night before OMA, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb which was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland.



















































































































































So forgive me, but I come to the subject of. Of cooperation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering this was the territory that spawned sanctioned armed. Give sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts. And yet, in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused. Think about that. And this is the government that we are told is going to cooperate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The government may have confidence in that.





























































































































I and my constituents have none for very good reason, because of where we have what we have experienced in the past. I want to come back, Madam Chair, to a couple of the specific amendments. I did do I had an intervention with the Secretary of State on UQs 32. Now, there's much to be approving of in UQs 32. It's headed principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces. It's the one that records the fact that you must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.















































































































 It goes on to say that in assessing a person's conduct for the purposes of investigation, proceedings or inquests, a relevant person must have regard to all the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including the soldier's training and experience, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or instructions that have been given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence, whether it appeared that the immediate use of force was required to prevent the harm, and the extent to which they acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.































































































Good. But the question still remains if that is right for Legacy Commission, director of Investigations and inquiries. If that is right for inquisitorial proceedings. But the judicial panel member, and if that is right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that if you're going to prosecute a serviceman, you don't, by law, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral, the moral equivalence issue. You don't have to regard to his training and experience, the duties, the orders, the instructions. None of that.













































































Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the Legacy Commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution? And we do know that in this bill there is a requirement for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions, because in new clause 49. It says that guidance about prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the guidance in particular, must set out evidential matters and public interest factors likely to be relevant to a decision.

























































Why are the matters I've just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in clause 32? Why are they not written into 49? Because if we're serious about protecting our veterans, then we don't just have to protect them. In respect of the commission and respect of inquests. We have to equally, and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions, not. The Secretary of State said earlier to me, oh, but that would be getting into the criminal law. Sorry. This bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy the authorities in this House have deemed new.





































Clause 21, as within the authority of this bill. If new clause 21 falls within the ambit of this bill, then what I'm talking about here, equally would fall within the ambit of the bill. So I do say to the Secretary of State he does need to address that floor and make that equality set between those investigated by the Commission and those investigated by the coroner and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing that circle in terms of those protections, and I can think of no good reason if they're fit, if they if they fit in one circumstance, why they wouldn't fit in another.



















So I do say to the Secretary of State, let's do that in this bill, and let's complete that circle of protection rather than creating that void which exists at the minute. Mindful of your exhortation to be brief, and I think I have, I will, I will probably there are other points I wanted to make, but I'll leave it there for now. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kevin Bonavia thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue we're Deputy Speaker. The issue we're talking about today goes back talking about today goes back decades, and we in this place have still got unfinished business to still got unfinished business to deal with. And today is an attempt, not a perfect one, by any means to not a perfect one, by any means to try and do our duty. And remind
21:01
Kevin Bonavia Portrait Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)
-
-
ourselves of our duty of care to the people of all this country, including Northern Ireland, and in including Northern Ireland, and in Great Britain and elsewhere that have been so badly affected, have been so badly affected, traumatised lives, lost over what is euphemistically called the is euphemistically called the troubles. Now, I've heard today troubles. Now, I've heard today some very harrowing accounts from members who have experienced themselves, that they've heard from others. And we, as members of this place, have a duty to try and speak up for those who can't speak up for themselves, those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles.



































































































































































Those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth or the justice of what happened to their loved ones. So today, we are once again trying to write some of those wrongs in the past. But let us be clear we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is make sure or try our best to make, to ensure that people who have suffered in all the different ways can, if not get closure, because we've heard that again today, but at least find out more about what happened to those they they lost.















































































































































And in this debate, it's been said a number of times, we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our government to try and keep the peace, because that's what it was to start with, to try and keep the peace, not to fight and win a war because nobody won out of those troubles. At the end of those troubles, apparently, that began in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement. But the violence went on, did it not? The violence went on. And since then we've had successive governments try and bring about some form of justice, some form of bringing back the truth of the people who suffered in that.



























































































































And time and time again, that has not happened. And I wish to God that, you know, as a newly elected member of Parliament only two years ago, I didn't have to deal with this. And I know that actually I have to have to deal with this. We all have to deal with this. I can't speak for all the victims. We've heard many much about that today. What I do want to focus on is what a group of my constituents who've come to me and asked for answers and for reassurance. And that is a group of my local veterans who serve and operate under Operation Banner in Northern Ireland.











































































































And they were not trustful. No, they weren't, because what they saw, they saw an attempt to take away their protection as they saw it, under the so-called the Old Legacy Act, and that we in this place, we're going to leave them exposed. And so I said, OK, let's sit down, let's meet, let's talk, let's find out about this. And when we sat down, it was a very tense environment, I can tell you that. And I thought, well, I better not talk now. I better just listen. And I listened to one bite to them one by one.































































































Go through what? Listen to what happened to them when they were serving for Her Majesty in Northern Ireland. And each that had their own experiences. Quite traumatic. A couple were in tears. And they said. Or one said to me, Will this ever end? I still live this trauma and I don't see why you or this government got to protect me. And I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to this government. And we went through what those concerns and we summed up in two points. They weren't saying, as has been said before, that we shouldn't talk about the past, that we should just brush it underneath and just repress it.













































































No, what they wanted to know was if and when anyone asked them, what were you doing there, that they weren't going to be just judged guilty from the start, that they would be protected? One question for me was they were scared of that letter coming out from a commission, a lawyer, whoever, and they said, Will the MoD not protect me? I took that question on board and another said, well, what happens if I do have to get give evidence, get involved in proceedings, whatever. I don't understand, will the government be there to give me that kind of support that I need?



























































And I took those points away. And I know since that time, the government has been listening to many, many individuals and groups and members in this place. And I'm so pleased to see that there is progress on that. I'm really pleased, in particular, that we won't be having that cold calling to veterans, and they still need that support, and I've said I will give them that. And after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again, and I will listen to them again and say, does that give you that reassurance? And if it doesn't, and if it doesn't, I'm also pleased, and I will say this, that it doesn't end here.











































We cannot ever draw a line. We must remember that, that we will listen again. I'm pleased that provision is also there. We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served, and all the people that we represent who expect us to do the right thing, not talk about traitors or betrayals, but we are trying to do the best we can because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. So we have a chance again to make it a bit better. And I think that some of the amendments that are being put forward do that, and I will support the government's amendments later.































But it doesn't stop here. I want to say that to everyone listening. If you're a victim, veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening. We have a duty of care

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to you all. Thank you. Carla Lockhart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will. Always stand on the side of innocent victims and with those who put on the uniform to protect them. But sadly, veterans, whether this bill passes or not, continue to bill passes or not, continue to live in a state of uncertainty and are continually faced with the threat of future lawfare and vexatious investigations. We need only to recall the outrageous prosecution of soldier F, and despite the slur and inaccurate comments from members in this place just last week, I want to remind this House that soldier F was acquitted. He was found not guilty.











 Of murder. Yet how much of his life was taken up in his elderly years defending himself against a prosecution in which the evidence fell well short. Veterans every single day live with this fear. And while some of the amendments may superficially be superficially attractive, the Secretary of State must explain how they will actually protect those who serve. We cannot
21:09
Carla Lockhart Portrait Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
accept revisions which are, in substance, legally ineffective. Local has been mentioned throughout Local has been mentioned throughout the course of the debate, and the Secretary of State's clarity is Secretary of State's clarity is stark and is not lost on veterans. The East Tyrone IRA killing wing was blood thirsty. They went to that PlayStation. PlayStation armed to the teeth with guns and a bomb. They weren't scouts going to the police station. They went there to kill and they went and they met real soldiers who stopped them and saved hundreds of lives. As a result, we cannot allow their murderous intent to be forgotten.



























































































































































































































 While those soldiers face further proceedings almost 40 years later, they. There has already been an inquest which concluded in 1995. There is no need for a further inquest, and the Secretary of State is not taking the opportunity to protect those who save countless lives because this bill will allow for that 2015 proceedings to resume. I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Halton Price, Price and Howden, which I and other colleagues have signed to prevent this resumption. These soldiers were sent by this country to confront the IRA, and they did so courageously and bravely.











































































































































































































This government now needs to explain what protection it is actually going to give them. On further protections for veterans. We are told now that they will get a warning before being contacted, and can give evidence via video link under new clause 45. The warning procedures does not even apply where someone is being contacted because they are suspected of an offence. That is exactly what many veterans fear. Even for witnesses, contact can proceed after 14 days, whether or not the warning has reached them and giving evidence remotely remains subject to whether that is considered practical. Does the Secretary of State think that veterans stop worrying because they can answer questions from their living room?

























































































































































































His his family, the veterans family will still be living with the same fear about what comes next. Basic courtesy and broadband connection are not meaningful protections for our veterans. Turning to amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down, which I have signed. It would prevent appointments to the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group of people who are or have been members of political parties with links to, or which support paramilitary or terrorist organisations, past or present. Why should innocent victims be expected to accept people with those political associations on a group established to represent their interests?









































































































































































They should not, and I will be supporting, along with many colleagues, that amendment. I want to turn to the otters in regard to the otter letters. The Secretary of State will know that I tabled a new clause nine, supported by colleagues, to make clear that the On the runs administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution. I am pleased to take note. Secretary of State, that doesn't often happen that the government has now brought forward new clause 51 to prevent criminal proceedings being stopped or decisions to prosecute being quashed on the grounds, on grounds founded on the content of those abhorrent letters.

























































































































































Leaving aside that this rotten scheme should never have been secretly contrived by the Labour government in the first place, it is welcome that the government is now legislating to have their legal effect extinguished. However, I do have one concern and the House will be aware of the ongoing prosecution of John Downie, who previously escaped justice for bombing England via reliance on the otter letter he had received. He is currently being prosecuted for other terrorist offences and this prosecution has commenced. Therefore, New Clause 51 must ensure that its provisions also encompass proceedings which have already commenced but not concluded, and perhaps the Secretary of State will take the opportunity tonight to confirm that expressly.





































































































































Will he also confirm that no transitional saving provision will preserve reliance on those cases? We cannot see another prosecution stopped because of an otter letter issued under the Labour government's current scheme. There's also serious shortcomings in the scope of this bill, its definition on the troubles and on the 10th of April 1998, that leaves out the Omagh bombing the single deadliest atrocity of the troubles. And I urge members and you will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, give his commentary around this important issue and I would urge members to support amendment 23 tonight, on the 15th of August 1998, the real IRA murdered 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins.

















































































































31 lives were taken. It is simply wrong that an atrocity of that magnitude falls outside the scope of legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles. The government should accept the amendment, and I ask sincerely, what is the problem? The Omagh bombing inquiry is continuing, and the evidence heard last week raises stark questions for the Irish authorities. The authority. This government is placing so much trust in and pandering to the inquiry. Heard about a warning call received at Vanier Camp in County Donegal before the bombing. The caller urged that the Irish police and security forces in Northern Ireland be informed and patrols deployed.

































































































The message ended with the words Omar. Omar. Omar. And that should be the words that we tonight ensure that we don't continue to retraumatize the victims of the Omagh atrocity by not agreeing to amendment 23. And that brings me to the significant partnership with the Irish government woven throughout this entire process. Why is this government so willing to take Irish assurances at face value? We have been here before, correct? Chief superintendent Harry Brain and superintendent Bob Buchanan were murdered by the IRA after leaving a meeting at Dundalk Garda Station. The Smithwick tribunal found clearly that there had been collusion in their murders.















































































Yet those families are still waiting on answers. Then there's Ian Sproule, murdered by the IRA outside his home near Castlederg in 1991, aged just 23. His family solicitors have raised the IRA's possession of Irish police. Documents containing this photograph and personal details. His family have long suspected collusion and have fought for a proper investigation. Yet his family still are waiting for answers. The House will also be aware of the difficulties facing the ICRIR in obtaining information from the Irish authorities. In July, this government acknowledged that the lack of information sharing arrangements was impacting a number of commissions investigations.































































That means families who ask for investigations were being held back by the absence of Irish co-operation. Yet the Irish government has had the bare faced cheek to bring an international case against the United Kingdom. Why such serious questions remain about its own record. 40 years of hiding, terrorists colluding and cover ups. And this House is asked in some way to put their trust in them. Government amendment 251 requires a statement on the actions taken by both governments under their joint framework. Before the principle operation provisions come into force. We need more than a statement. We need the information, the files and the evidence.















































The Irish government cannot demand accountability here and avoid it at home. The same scrutiny must apply on both sides of the border. I will always endeavour to stand with innocent victims and with those who serve this country against terrorism. Those families have waited long enough for answers. Our veterans have lived long enough. With the threat of further proceedings hanging over them. The Secretary of State needs to deal with the concerns that remain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give further assurances from the despatch box tonight. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Madam Chair. I'm gonna start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair. I'm gonna start by saying that I've listened to many of the contributions in this debate of the contributions in this debate and the contributions tonight. Give credit to the House. This has been credit to the House. This has been a really well informed debate that I think is the sort of debate that we should be having on these we should be having on these complex and difficult issues. As chair, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I'd like to draw attention to the recommendations and findings of the JCHR report on our legislative scrutiny of this very important bill.























The JCHR report and the Troubles Bill was published on the 7th of September. Our report formed part of our regular scrutiny bills that raises human rights issues. Our legal team look very closely at this bill. I particularly like to thank Alyssa Currie, Deputy Counsel, Human Rights, International Constitutional Law, for tireless work on both the bill and the accompanying remedial order. We took oral evidence on 28th January and 22nd of April on the bill, and I'm grateful to the Northern Ireland for engagement, including the former Ministers who are not in their place. My my right honourable neighbour, the Member for Leeds South and the Member for Wirral West, and to the current team who has sat on the front bench, including Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.







In particular, we're pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly, and I just want to remind. I want to use the opportunity to remind the Treasury bench of the expectation that all departments will provide these memoranda in detail, and a Bill is introduced, as set out in the
21:21
Alex Sobel Portrait Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
-
Cabinet Office's Guide to Making Legislation. Our overall conclusion was. The Bill represented a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance. However, there were still areas However, there were still areas where felt it could be strengthened and I'll come on to. These are also concluded. The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity and as many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them. The government has already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent, and we're very glad to see this sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through government.



















































































































New clause 50. If that is accepted by the House, we feel it will give all parties more confidence as the independence decisions to prosecute troubles related crime. We also report on the Northern Ireland Media Law on the 28th February and 9th of December last year, and we are very pleased to see the government has now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and its contents, instead being incorporated into the Bill now before the House. If the amendments the government have tabled are made, there are several other changes not yet made, which we recommended.







































































































I'll focus on two, and the third was raised by my fellow committee member from Bracknell earlier. First, the appointment of judicial panel members, judicial panel members Jpm's will be vital. The function of the Legacy Commission. They'll have to produce a final report on the findings of the investigation to part three of the Bill. Preside over inquisitorial proceedings and depart for the bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted, decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings. Decide whether to award funding for legal representation for the next of kin, and produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings, as well as deciding whether to make referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings.

























































































Clearly, this makes their role key and to ensure legitimacy and trust the success of the bill in achieving its aims, they must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key to that. There's already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes these independent appointments have at present, under part two, the appointment process used for Jpm's will be the same as that for public inquiry chairs, rather than the important model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State.















































































 The committee did not receive a satisfactory reason as to why this was the case. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will have power to appoint and also the power to reappoint these jpm's. That is even more concerning. Committee, because it could risk a perception rising that jpm's have an incentive to try to please Secretary of State with their findings in order to ensure they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPM should be able to do their job without fear or favour, and so we recommend, for the sake of the success of this process and public trust, the Troubles Bill should be amended so that Niac, rather than Secretary of State responsible for appointing Jpm's.

































































And I turn to my second key point. This is about close family members. The state of being close family members of deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the bill. These provisions set in parts three and four of the bill. They include having the right to request an investigation for death and also be kept informed of the investigation. Two key points for family seeking justice, which they made when they came before the committee. As I said, chair, while the effects of this definition are all in parts three and four, the actual definition is in part nine.























































So I hope you'll permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. Close family members defined by clause 93 of the bill as someone falling within one of the following categories the deceased spouse, civil partner or cohabitee, deceased child or stepchild, deceased parent or step parent or the sibling, half sibling or step sibling. This definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles or grandchildren. We found this narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the E, in which article two makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined as well as the current definition as well.











































The current definition overlooks the reality that, due to the passage of time in family members who are currently searching for justice for their relatives, particularly grandchildren, this is clearly unfair and unwelcome, a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends the government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch all final category, being that the being the next of kin. This will ensure that family members whose grandchildren, niece and nephews can be considered close family members. So in conclusion, the Committee welcomes this important bill and believes it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the very painful legacy of troubles, the Sarah Russell state has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations.



























However, we think the bill can be even stronger, and I urge the government consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of close family members, and as my fellow committee member, the hon. Member of Broughton raised earlier this intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover Legacy Commission inquisitorial proceedings. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon Madam Deputy Speaker. There's indeed a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I speak in this debate, and I wondered if I can the focus upon the victims and the. And justice and justice never delivered, actually. And those who who know who no longer here, but who give their lives for Queen, King and their lives for Queen, King and country, and the Minister will know, have mentioned my cousin and David and Daniel McCormick 55 years ago. and Daniel McCormick 55 years ago. No justice. Again, an example of of what what that means, the legal mechanisms of this land and see no justice.









I think of the four Ballydugan Ballydugan four four UDR man, three of whom I knew personally. I think of Michael Birch, a twin. I'm old enough to remember the day he was born and. And young Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher's shop. I knew him well, I, I knew that they had seen him. I said, he's going to be a soldier. And he was. And he and he joined the the the Territorial Army, which I was in for a number of
21:27
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
years. And him and I did a guard duty together up at the McGilligan camp. I remember it well. I remember that at that time that we had together they had murdered by the IRA. Then I think of Stephen the IRA. Then I think of Stephen Smart, Newtownards man again, his family well known Newtownards murdered in the in the Ballydugan bomb in April 1990. John Bradley I didn't know. But again, these are didn't know. But again, these are examples of men who served in uniform, who gave their lives for this country. That's great. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I think of of of the Kingsville massacre, again, civilians murdered because they were Protestants.















































































































































And and I say, where is justice in this process? And before this bill we have tonight, I, I think of the lemon fire in my constituency and the hon. Friend and what we had our party conference up there while ago, but I can well remember the night that the firebomb. I was in Cumbria with my friend on the news, come over, over the air again. They were killed by the IRA team from Belfast. And and and nobody ever made accountable. So when it comes to justice, justice for victims, I don't see that justice coming through whatsoever.

































































































































A young man who I never knew, but his family are constituents of mine who live in Ballynahinch. Private Robert William Hill, a 22 year old part time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment who was murdered by the provisional IRA on the 1st of July 1996 by an under car booby trap bomb outside the home of his girlfriend. I remember the ferocity of that bomb was such that the personal weapon that he carried, it was blown apart into pieces. And you can understand what what happened to him again? His family. No justice. A victim who served in uniform and who delivered for this great country, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and his family have never had justice.

















































































































I think of Winston Donald, the first man ever killed. I said, my Aunt Isabel's get down in the IRA team reversed down the road. I think that was a probably reality for for at that time came the money. They shot him with a, a Thompson submachine gun in the back end of the car in uniform, serving this country. No justice. Again, this word is a saying. And I think of young Stuart Montgomery, a young police officer, as dad was in Montgomery as a councillor in our party, a representative comer. And I remember Billy telling me one day, because I knew Billy very well, he says, Jim, every morning before when I wake up, I think of young Stuart.



































































































I want to go to bed at night. I think of Stuart killed by the IRA and Pomeroy no justice. So I ask myself this question, and it's a theme of my. I worry about victim and justice never delivered. And where does it end? There's no equivalence of their murder with the actions and. And recently what they've done, they were protecting life. And this is not enshrined in the bill when the bill fails. So I'm very, very keen to get an assurance from yourself and from government in relation to to victims, those who served in uniform and those who gave their lives, and those who seek justice today.





















































































At the same time, I think of those who skipped across the border, and I think of the person who killed Winston Donnell. Skip and the bullets cross the bridge and across the border. I think of the three the three man IRA team who killed my cousin and his and his and his companion and friend, Daniel McCormick. They fled. They fled across the border as well. The two that December morning, 10th of December 1971, went down the lane called the Frost in the air, and they stopped to pick up a third man. The third man had set the two of them up, and.







































































And. And the three then escaped across the border. Justice for victims. For those in uniform. Where do I see it? In this bill and I, I so when it comes to to accountability, I think I very much want to see the Republic of Ireland sharing the information with the with the authorities here. The Secretary of State Northern, tells us that a framework has been agreed, I, I. See, I, I stand to be convinced of that in relation to to those what the Republic of Ireland has done in giving sanctuary to those across the border in relation to the Omagh bomb.



























































What mechanism is in place to ensure that Ireland stops hiding the perpetrators hands over all information that they hold and without all access to historic documentation from the Irish intelligence sector and An Garda Siochana, there is no reason that the Republic should be involved at all as they have no role in governance in Northern Ireland. So what are they doing and what. Where is the assurance from the Republic of Ireland in relation to to, to ensuring that those who have carried out crimes and across the border are accountable and that a government has moved amendments to ensure that their lawful actions of our armed forces are not legally equated with terrorism, and to prevent the unacceptable, distressing cold calling of our elderly veterans.











































Our veterans deserve protection from vexatious, repeated investigations. And yet, even now, there is a victim. Even though this time there's a veteran currently going through his fourth round of judicial investigation, what is the point of this if it is not to stop the abuse of the process? So. So let's fix the foundations of the commission as well. The Legacy Commission, the structured design of this commission has been posed by others who spoke on it. But how come I can just be assured that this body will truly hold perpetrators to account. And I'm very conscious that there's one more to speak in, and I want to give time in relation for that to happen.





























I mentioned earlier on about the innocence, and I did mention an intervention about Raymond McCord, but I want to have again on record. Written records from Raymond was murdered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the UVF and the Shankill Road in Belfast. Again, no accountability. He's fought a campaign since the 9th of November, was murdered in 1997. And he seeks justice. So there's many others like him across the province and like him across the province and across Northern. Foyle 17 refers to formidable, sweeping investigative powers to the Commissioner's office, powers to the Commissioner's office, and officers have made my comment very clear on that. Madam Deputy Speaker, and to ensure that it is at the. These parties will not be disproportionately weaponized against the state, which kept records by Republican and loyalist terrorists to Capitol records.













Walk away scot free. I leave those comments and I conclude that Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'm very keen to ensure that those who served in uniform, those who I knew personally, those who perhaps I didn't know those families who grieve today and. And as the MP for Strangford on behalf of the. The Ballydougan for. For instance, on behalf of others like Montgomery and others across the province, I want to see justice. Justice for them and this process.

The Secretary of State is yet to convince me that it's coming. Thank you.
21:34
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
John McDonnell. >> John McDonnell. >> I tabled a dozen amendments. >> There wasn't time to go through any of those now. So let me just in any of those now. So let me just in the last few minutes that I've got, explain what those amendments were all about very, very briefly. I don't think there's anyone else in don't think there's anyone else in the chamber who was here in 97 when the Good Friday Agreement discussions were taking place since 98, and it was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. And people had to go out and to convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process itself.















































































































And Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners. It was a huge breakthrough, and it was prisoners on all sides of the sectarian. But one of the one of the constituencies that we had to convince part of the Irish support in this country. But one of the constituencies were the families of the victims, and that wasn't on all sides. It was to try and get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. And I don't believe you can have peace without justice, to be frank. And what I'm worried about in this, and I desperately want to support this legislation, but I'm really struggling.



































































































What I'm worried about is the message from the victims that we're getting. And I don't know if people have seen the message, the letter from the relatives for justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that because we've got veterans amongst us themselves, but we need to take heed of the victims themselves. And let me just quote very briefly from the letter. This is 200 families, he says. We've listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of the recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict.























































































We've read government statements and press releases for the debates in Parliament and recent media interventions made on the on the legacy, our legacy. And they say it is as if we don't exist and the only real victims are the veterans. What I'm worried about is that if we lose the confidence of the the victims families itself, I think we lose the confidence in the overall process itself and the architecture that we designed at that point in time was to give them confidence. And one of the key elements of that was the independence of the the system legal system itself.











































































And I in 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations which we installed in part of the agreement. I'll just quote it very briefly. There should be no power for the attorney to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters. It said the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be exercised independently of any other person. The problem that we have now is that we're undermining that architecture, because actually what we're giving is power to the attorney general to determine cases and actually, even if necessary, to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward.



























































Power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information, power over appointments to the judicial members panel. And the concern that I have about that is, apart from the power being given, overriding that. And I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave with regard to the exercise of that power. But that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the terms of national security. We're no longer talking about the threat of national security, actual national security. We're actually talking about the risk of national security. And what that puts into people's minds is the concern that the breadth of that interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of the decision making itself.









































And what worries me is that we've even undermined our own the legislation that I believe we supported, which is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein the decision making, whether it was issuing warrants under national security, at least it said the grounds for that to be determined. The test was is it necessary and is it proportionate? That test is not built into this legislation. So what worries me. We've we've the debate has been dominated by that of veterans themselves. And the reality is there, as someone said, 300,000 veterans served between 2010 and 2024. There's been 25 prosecutions.



























Six of them were veterans. Only one prosecution. Let's get this in context. And yet victims are standing to one side thinking we're not even being heard or listened to. And the independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. I think we're on the dangerous edge here, and I'm hoping that we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend as we move into the into this House of Lords debate itself that can restore confidence not just in the victims and their families, but actually assure confidence from some of us who were here at the time when we went through that very difficult and precarious period to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secure the peace. I call Secretary of State Christopher Chris Bryant. Thank you very much, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings, by the Leader of the House. First of all, can I say, I think this has been a good debate. think this has been a good debate. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the fact that she'd always been wanting better debates in this place, and I think today in this place, and I think today has been a good debate. We've managed to have 31 hon. Members have taken part, and as the hon. Member for South Wiltshire said Member for South Wiltshire said earlier, and we all come from different perspectives, and I think we've managed to hear a lot of different perspectives in this debate, perhaps more perspective than there have been able to be heard in previous debates.

It's
21:40
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
also been good to have former Ministers who've been directly involved in some of this legislation previously, as well legislation previously, as well involved. There are a few key points that I'd make that have struck me very forcibly, but the first is that I think my hon. Friend who just spoke is absolutely right. Peace without justice isn't right. Peace without justice isn't peace. And and the thin veneer of peace. And and the thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems that there are in society. I also think that balance is is absolutely vital in previous debates, perhaps there's been a focus on one particular part of the UK community rather than everybody.



























































































































































































































































































And I know that Joe McVeigh, the victims commissioner, is still with us. And it was very interesting hearing to some of the people that he's worked with, not only here but on previous occasions as well. And the other point that several members have made is that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. And actually, there's a very large number of veterans, families who want answers themselves because they've never been able to get them. I want to refer directly to the amendment from the hon. Friend, the honourable. Well, friend, go on. Why not? The Member for South Antrim.















































































































































































































































































Look, I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission if they're linked to a death or a serious injury, like any other troubles offence, there is absolutely no bar and we wouldn't have allowed legislation that was going to have such a bar. Indeed, when there was previous legislation was brought forward that did was going to have such a bar. We, of course opposed that. And and if if the if those issues were not to be investigated by and the Commission, then they can be investigated by the PSNI. And. And I think hon.





































































































































































































































































Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose where is the right place that they feel most confidence in. I'm not going to give way if he doesn't mind, because I do need to make a bit of progress. But the other point I'd make to him is I. I'm not sure that we've quite got this right yet, so I'm very happy to work with him on making sure that we do get it right. I don't think his amendment works simply because in the clause he, as he knows the section, clause 272 says where where conduct forming part of the troubles caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm.

























































































































































































































































The person may request an investigation under this part of the conduct. I think that already includes precisely the people that the incidents, the that he's talking about. But if we've not got that right, and if that we've not been able to provide enough assurance, then I'm very happy to work with him and with others. I'm quite happy to gather people from all across the house to make sure that we get that right in the House of Lords. That is a firm undertaking from me and from the whole of the ministerial team. We will get that right when it gets to the House of Lords.















































































































































































































































Mr. Mrs. Cummings, the hon. Member for North Antrim, asked the question about why doesn't the equivalence issue and the operational context apply to prosecutors? Well, he will know because he's a very clever man, that many of the aspects of this clause are already well established tenets of criminal law, and which we are putting beyond doubt for the specific role of the commission and coroners. So that is why I don't I think it's already in existence. My hon. Friend for for Gower, my great friend. My hon. Friend who chairs the Select Committee asks about in her amendment two, eight six on.



































































































































































































































On behalf of the Committee about the the pressures that there are on the PSNI now. I'm. I am very aware of this and my predecessor made commitments about trying to get to the right place because I don't want to overload the PSNI with things that. When they already have very difficult workload, I will work with her and the team to try and get to the right place. I have to say, I don't want to completely surrender this point yet, but I'm very happy to to work with her just in the hon. Member. Right, hon. Member for Belfast East raised the issue of the timing of the Omagh bombing inquiry.





















































































































































































































I just want to make it clear that the terms of reference for the Omagh bombing inquiry are very clear. They already referred directly to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on two occasions, and they make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the bombing. And the Irish Government has passed legislation to enable co-operation with the inquiry, and it is cooperating. However, I would say that the inquiry clearly expects more and has made it clear, and has explicitly stated that it will push the Irish for more and will, and continued cooperation.









































































































































































































I absolutely will ensure that that cooperation will be forthcoming. Mrs. Cummins I engaged, along with quite a lot of other members across the House. The members for Aldershot, who I know is not able to be here today, but the Member for South East Southend East and Rochford with my hon. Friend for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. With a large number of veterans who. Are veterans in a variety of different organisations, and the key things that they were asking for were, first of all, a direct reference to there being no equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and others.

























































































































































































Secondly, the operational context, and secondly, the operation I if I don't know what the hon. Member is trying to say. Alex Baker oh, sorry, I thought she wasn't able to be here tonight. So she is here. I'm very grateful. Thank you very much for pointing out. The second point that I wanted was that that we should have a reference to the operational context in which people were serving. Very important. And thirdly, they wanted to make sure that there could be no repeat either in the commission or, for that matter, in inquest. And this is something that quite a lot of hon.















































































































































































Members seem to have not noticed. But we're also saying that inquests that can be not there can be no repeat of processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential. They also wanted us to make sure that there could be no cold calling of veterans. They wanted us to make sure that any approach did not go to the individual, but went to public authorities first, and that all the evidence that public authorities might have should be garnered first. They also wanted us to use the term compelling new evidence or new and compelling evidence. And we've put that precisely in the place where it makes a difference so that no body can be nobody can be called as a witness unless there is compelling new evidence.

































































































































































They wanted us to put in statute that there will be a proper review of all the. If you just let me for a moment a review in statute on all of the of all of the instances and. And they wanted us to say that we would get rid of the supposed protections that the on the run letters afforded amendments that have been tabled by other hon. Members. I think the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wanted me to give way. Yes, I'll be. Very brief. It's good that he's prepared to entertain compelling prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context that he knows as well as I context that he knows as well as I do, and as well as the veterans do in the government's amendment that relates to a witness, but not to relates to a witness, but not to suspects, it still doesn't stop those investigations starting again, does it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does it? It does. Actually, the hon. Gentleman, I don't think, fully understands quite how our amendment operates. But let me return let me move to the point. The amendment that I think he thinks is is his key amendment, which is New clause 21. Now, the reason that we oppose this amendment is for several reasons. Firstly, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. This includes cases in which the government has already been found by the European Court of Human Rights, to have failed to discharge its obligations.





































































































































The. The opposition clearly has learnt absolutely nothing from its own Legacy Act. Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required. This creates more legal process, not less. That is why the government has. We have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the Commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness. And thirdly, perhaps most importantly, the opposition's amendment says that it seeks to introduce a judge, a Supreme Court judge, no less, at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, changing long standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court.



















































































































I note that, having asked everybody who has advocated for this clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court, there is absolute silence from the benches opposite because they know perfectly well it's a completely and utterly unworkable proposal. Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that individual personnel acted in good faith unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful. This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm afraid the amendment is. I won't give way to the honourable.





































































































I'm not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his proposal is completely, utterly incoherent and irresponsible. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I know Mr. Cummings. Several hon. Members have referred to the issue of candour, and I think that this is really important. Candour matters, firstly, because it is a fundamental principle, of course, that all officers of the state should always show complete candour and more importantly, of course, because we, as a house and as a country have to be absolutely honest about our past, both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have always known this and recognised this fully.























































































They apologised for the actions of the British Army in Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy and Springhill. Indeed, I remember sitting in this house when David Cameron made his apology for Bloody Sunday. It was one of the finest moments that I can remember in this chamber. As he said then, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. He was absolutely right. I yield to nobody in my respect for those who have served and have served with honour in our security forces, more than 300,000 served in Operation Banner.







































































And I say to them,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank you for your service. Yes. I say that too. Incidentally, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say that too. Incidentally, to all those in this House who have informed our debates, because they serve themselves, not least the serve themselves, not least the former veterans Minister who spoke earlier. My final point is this, earlier. My final point is this, Mrs. Cummins. Some have said that so many years have passed since the so many years have passed since the troubles, that there is no point to all of this. It is completely irrelevant because how could anybody possibly remember what happened all those years ago? I simply don't buy that argument, nor do I buy the argument that some have made that somehow members of the armed forces family, the wider family, don't deserve answers because somehow or other, their service was their service.





















































I don't buy either of those arguments. Trauma, especially the trauma of losing a close family member in very violent circumstances, has a very, very long tail. Any psychiatrist, any child psychiatrist, anybody who has worked with the families in Northern Ireland will tell you that sometimes the anger, the grief and the feelings of revenge, yes, sometimes the feelings of revenge or desire for revenge surface many, many years after or in new generations. The sins, you might say, of the fathers are often visited on future generations, and for many generations to come. So I want to turn this argument about so many years of past that we can't possibly deal with this completely and utterly on its head, just like the Hillsborough families had to wait for far, far, far too long to get their answers.

































So have thousands of families in Northern Ireland have to wait far, far, far too long. We can put this right. We can only put it right with a balanced set of amendments and a balanced bill. But we must put this right. We can do it tonight, which is why I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments that we have tabled today and support the bill when it comes to it tomorrow evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 143 be made, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause one, as amended, stand part clause one, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 23 to clause two has been selected for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

separate decision. I call Gavin formally. To move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 23 be made as many as are of that no. No division. The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I,
21:55
None Portrait Division
-

I. >> I. >> No Tellers for the ayes. John Cooper Lincoln Jopp Tellers for the Order, Order, order! Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

169. The noes to the left. 327. The ayes to the right. Bill 169

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. Bill 169 the nurse to the left were 327 so the nurse have it. The nurse have the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. Order under the order of the house today. I must now put the question necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment one four, 4 to 1, four seven formally, formally.























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The question is that government amendments one four, 4 to 1 four seven be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause three, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment two five 2 to 2, five, nine formally, formally. The question is that government amendments two five 2 to 2 five nine be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that schedule one, as amended, be the first schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clauses 4 to 7 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 52 to clause eight has been selected for a separate decision. I call Alex

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Easton to move amendment 52 formally. Beg to move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 52 be made as many as are of that 52 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. No Tellers for the ayes John Cooper Lincoln Jopp Tellers for the Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 108. The nose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the left. 327. The ayes to the right were. 108

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 108 the nurse to the left were 327. So the nurse have it. The nurse have the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. I'm not. The question is that clause eight stand part of the bill. As many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say I of the contrary, no. No. I think the nurse have it. The nurse have it. I call the Minister to move the government. Amendment 149 formally. The question is that amendment 149 be made, as many as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 149 be made, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause nine, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister to move amendment 150 formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 150 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause ten, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments 151 and 152 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 151 and 152 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 11, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move the government. Amendment 153 and 154 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 153 and 154 be made, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that clause 12, as amended, stand part of the bill.















































































































































































































































































































































































































































As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that schedule two be the second schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

5 to 1 six zero formally. Chorley. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments one five 5 to 1 six zero be made as many as are of that be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that have it. The question is that clause 13, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are that opinion, say I. I contrary no. I opinion, say I. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one six 1 to 1 six seven.





























































































































































































































































































































































































































Formally. The question is that government amendments one six 1 to 1 six seven be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. Jonathan Hinder I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 14, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment to six eight and 261 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 260 and 261 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I.















































































































































































































































































































































































































I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that schedule three is amended. Be the third schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one six, eight and one six, nine formally. The question is that government amendments one, six, eight and 169 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.



































































































































































































































































































































































































The question is that clause 15, as amended, and clause 16 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that schedule four be the fourth schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 170 formally. The question is that government amendment 170 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.























































































































































































































































































































































































of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 17, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments two six, 2 to 2, six, six formally, formally. The question is that government amendments two six 2 to 2 six six be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.











































































































































































































































































































































































The ayes have it. The question is that schedule five, as amended, be the fifth schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The clause is that the question is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one seven 1 to 1 seven seven formally, formally. The question is that government amendments one seven 1 to 1 seven seven be made as many as are of that.





























































































































































































































































































































































When you say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 19, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one seven, eight and 179 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 178 and 179 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

















































































































































































































































































































































The question is that clause 20, as amended, and clause 21 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one 8 to 1 eight two formally, properly. The question is that government amendments 180 to 1 eight two be made, as many as are of that opinion, say I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 22 is amended and clause 23 stand part of amended and clause 23 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say I. I Jonathan Hinder I think the ayes have it, the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to Formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that Government amendment 183 be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 24, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 184 and 185. Formally, formally. The question is Formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 184 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that government amendments 184 and 185 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I. Andrew Ranger I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 25, as amended, stand part of the bill. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as are of that opinion, say I. I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendment 186 to an 89 be made as amendment 186 to an 89 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 26, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as I have that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Amendment for clause 27 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Robin Swann to move amendment for formally.

































































































































































































































































































The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment four be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I. Know. Tell us the eyes. John

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know. Tell us the eyes. John Cooper and John tell us for the nerves. Michael Wheeler and the Order. Order. Order! Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 175. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 319. The ayes to the right were 175 the nurse to the left were 319. So the nurse to the left were 319. So the nurse have the nurse have it the nurse have the nurse have it unlocked. The question is that clauses 27 to 34 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 190 and 191 formally. The question is that government amendments will 90 and 191 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I.



















































































































































































































































Contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 35, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. have the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 192 formally, formally. The question is that government amendment 192 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 36, as amended, stand part of the bill.









































































































































































































































As many as are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move amendment 193 formally. The question is that government amendment 193 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Are. The question is that clause 37, as amended, stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 194 formally.



























































































































































































































The question is that government amendment 194 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 38, as amended, and clauses 39 to 42 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments one, nine five and 196 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 195 and 196 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.













































































































































































































contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 47 to clause 43 has been selected for a separate decision. I call the Shadow Minister to move amendment 47 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Calling on. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 47 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. Contrary. No, No vision. The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. Agree. No, no. Tellers for the ayes. John Cooper. Lincoln. John. Tell us for the nurse, Michael Wheeler. Order! Order! Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 166. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 166. The noes to the left. 328.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 328. The ayes to the right were 166. The nurse to the left for 328. So The nurse to the left for 328. So the nurse have a nurse have it unlocked. The question is that clause 43 is amended and clauses 44 to 48 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. have the contrary. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 197 formally, formally. The question is that Government amendment 197 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I.



































































































































































Contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 49, as amended, and clause 50 stand part of the bill. As many as are that opinion, say I. I contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment one nine 8 to 202 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments one nine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

8 to 202 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 51, as amended, and clauses 52 and 53 stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

52 and 53 stand part of the bill. I, I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 203 formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government, government, amendment 203 be made government, amendment 203 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 54, as amended, stand part of the bill. As amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 204 formally. The question is that Government amendment 204 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order. The question is that clause 55, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are that opinion, say I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 205 to 209 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 205 to 209 be made.

























































































































As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 56, as as amended, stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 210 to 221 formally, formally. The question is that government amendment 210 to 221 be made as many as are laughingly say I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.













































































































The question is that clause seven, as amended, and clause 58 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. I call the Minister to formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that government amendment 222 be made as many as amendment 222 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. For the contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 59, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 223 formally. Formally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendment 223 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. I are of that opinion, say I, I. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 60, as amended, and clause 61, stand part of the bill. As many 61, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 220 224 formally, formally. The question is that government amendment 224 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I.















































































I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 62, as amended, and clauses 63 to 66 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. Entrepreneur, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 225 and 226 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 225 and 226 be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 67, as amended, and clauses 68 and 69 stand part of the bill.































































As many as are of that opinion, say I. Contrary no. I think the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 227 formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that Government amendment 227 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order. The question is that clause 70, as amended, stand that clause 70, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. The contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments 228 to 231 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments. 228 to 231

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I. The country. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 71, as question is that clause 71, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government new the Minister to move government new clauses 32 to 48. Formally. The question is that new clauses 32 to 48 be added to the Bill.



































As many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause 21 has been selected for a separate decision. I call the Shadow The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are that, say I. I the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes, John Cooper Lincoln Jock. Tell us for the nurse, Michael Order! Order! Order! The ayes to the right 167. The noes The ayes to the right 167. The noes to the left. 327. The ayes to the right were 167. The nurse to the left were 327.















So the nurse have it. left were 327. So the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlock. Order, order. That concludes proceedings order. That concludes proceedings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report. I beg you to report that the Committee has made progress and ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to sit again. Committee to sit again. What day? Tomorrow?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tomorrow? Committee to sit again tomorrow. Excellent. Motion number three on trade unions and labor relations. Consolidation. Minister to move the
23:17
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

Consolidation. Minister to move the question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. contrary. No, no. The division is deferred until next until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday. Motion number four on. Energy Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. On the contrary, opinion, say I, I. On the contrary, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number five on Northern Ireland. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, No. The division is. The division is deferred until Wednesday. We now come to the motion number six on business, innovation, Science and Trade Committee. Jessica Morden. Not moved, not moved. We now come to motion seven on Education Committee. Jessica Morden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. We now come to motion eight on Joint Committee on the National Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, not move. We now come to motion nine on the Scottish come to motion nine on the Scottish Affairs Committee. Jessica Morden. Not moved. We now come to motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. We now come to motion Morden. Not moved. We now come to motion 11 Women

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to motion 11 Women Morden. Not moved. We now come to motion 12 on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Work and Pensions Committee. Jessica Morden. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. I'll give the House a few
23:19
23:20
Torcuil Crichton Portrait Torcuil Crichton MP (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Labour)
-
-
believe it's our first time at the despatch box as Under Secretary for Scotland. Now, some might argue that to. 11:20 p.m. On a Monday night is just the right time to make your debut at the Despatch Box, and perhaps the right time to. To make the kind of speech I am. But let me assure you that we on these benches are very proud of her, and I'm sure members across the House will appreciate our talents and our skills as they relate to the Scotland Office and other parts of government policy and other parts of the world where our dedication and leadership have shown before.









































































































































































































































































































































































































 Yes, that's where the praise stops. Because the ask am I about to make May well beyond her briefing and the Scotland Office Budget, but I hope the Minister will be no less ambitious than I am as my fellow members for Glasgow North and West, and all points in between are. We have stayed on tonight to show their support, not just for the Minister, but for an idea that would define not just a building or a city, but a country, and leave a legacy for this reforming government that she and I serve in. Now, I need hardly for many detail the catastrophe that has befallen Glasgow School of Arts, Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, and the pall that has cast over Scotland's largest city for more than a decade now.























































































































































































































































































































































































I'll just quickly summarize the cruel, brutally cruel circumstances which left us with yeah, we will, I will, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important adjournment debate. Does important adjournment debate. Does he agree with me that it is shameful that the Glasgow School of Art has been left in this state, leaving a cultural void in Glasgow's architectural heritage, and the innovative solutions should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be explored to right this wrong. I do, and I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I Member for that intervention. I will detail and explore some of these options in the time to come. And she's right. It is shameful that we have this shrouded ghost on on Garnet Hill, casting a shadow over the city. The. Just to summarize again the. The fire which brought down the Glasgow School of Art. The Mackintosh building broke out in 2014 as art students were finalising for their end of year degree show, and that fire was devastating and heart rending.



































































































































































































































































































































































I was in a meeting of another cultural board as the news broke and people cried in that meeting as the smoke rose above Garnethill and then around 70% of the building was saved. Although the library was lost and the famous hen run, that glazed passageway so beloved by generations of art students. But despite the blow, Glasgow School of Art and its patrons across the globe, the rose to the occasion and committed themselves to the faithful restoration of the building. And that was painstaking and specialized, and was moving on apace when a second and much more devastating fire swept through the building in 2018, engulfing not just the Mackintosh building, but also the neighbouring ABC music venue on Hill Street.

















































































































































































































































































































































And that fire, that 2018 blaze, was so fierce and so all consuming that the cause of it may never be known. Its consequences certainly are, though Glaswegians are reminded of its destruction every single day, and the charred husk of of the Mac building stoops withered and crippling of the city skyline. I was up there on Friday between events at the Royal National MoD in Glasgow, and congratulations to the organisers and the city for hosting a brilliant week in the city of Gaels and the contract. Contrast between the kind of vibrant, youthful buzz of a revived and living culture that the MoD

**** Possible New Speaker ****

represents, and the tragic shadow hanging over the Mac couldn't be stronger. My old friend. Give way, I shall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way, I shall. Does my hon. Friend agree that any future plans for the Mac need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any future plans for the Mac need to be based on learning lessons from its recent tragic past? The hon. Member for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for that intervention, and I do agree, and I think that our great lessons on the need for greater transparency in need for greater transparency in what lessons can be learned in the recent management of the estate and the building, because the Glasgow School of Art have themselves, Madam Deputy Speaker, committed to restoring the building and in July of this year, eight years after the second fire and following an extended and painful arbitration with the insurers, the GSA published a report which outlines that the cost of restoring the Mac is estimated to be £265 million at today's prices, and that is simply an insurmountable sum for Glasgow School of Art alone.













































































































































































































































































































It's over five times its annual turnover. And that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is why I'm making this speech this evening. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. But I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward, because Glasgow School of Art is a national institution and Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a national figure across the United Kingdom. And that's why when I was in the Scotland office, I argued in the Scotland office, I argued that the UK government should intervene after the first fire, which they did a. And I had the opportunity to see some of the renovations, which took place after 2014, which were so tragically lost in the fire of 2018.





























































































































































































































































































So I absolutely agree with him that on the basis of the national significance of the Glasgow School of Art, that the UK government does have a role to play in its renovation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I'm glad to have not just this experience, but also not just this experience, but also of the cross-party support and appreciate what he did and what previous governments did after. previous governments did after. After the first fire. And there are hundreds of competing pressures on on politics and on our political capital, on our financial capital. But the member is right. It's a building of national importance. It was also a very beautiful building,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we do miss it. And. I think you're very grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think you're very grateful indeed, my hon. Friend, for giving way would also agree that indeed, it's a building that is of it's a building that is of international importance. When we look at the significance of Charles Rennie Mackintosh for the history of design, marrying, of course, always function with form, and that is nowhere more clear than in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me? I completely thank the hon. Member for that. I do completely agree with her about the style and form of the Mac, because, as I said, it was a beautiful building and we do miss it. And I don't mean that in a sentimental sense, because it wasn't just a building of bricks and mortar. It was, as she said, more than the sum of its of its parts. Since its construction at the turn of the 20th century, the Mac has become a symbol of God's of Glasgow's flair. It's been an incubator for Scotland's creative spirit, and it's been a building of significance, as hon.

























































































































































































































































Members have said, not just for the city, but for Scotland and for the country as well. It's a story that runs through the Scottish nation, and through so many of the lives of so many famous artists, writers and performers who have been inspired by their time there, and others like me, who were simply spellbound by by its beauty. And if the Minister is looking for evidence of how the Mac runs through our lives, she will recall that tonight at Dover House, as she made her own speech for the Poppy Scotland Appeal, which we all support.















































































































































































































































She was heralded by a painting by Adrian Wiszniewski on one side and Ken Currie on the other. The Glasgow Boys. The most recent wave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of portrait of artists to come out of the art school. Well. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I thank my hon. Friend for intervention. He's being very generous. He Mentioned the. The Glasgow boys and also among the notable graduates of Glasgow School of Art is a late David Harding, the first is a late David Harding, the first town artist for Glenrothes, and this is an example of the significance of the school right significance of the school right across Scotland and internationally. As others said, why its reconstruction should be a priority

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for all levels of. Who have got the interests of classical of our heart. Thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He's absolutely right. intervention. He's absolutely right. Its influence runs everywhere, not just in Dover House, in the lobby tonight, the hon. Member for Foyle, who is not in this place, I mentioned how his brother had been mentioned how his brother had been to Glasgow School of Art. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent so much time at the Dispatch Box today. His mother the Dispatch Box today. His mother was at Glasgow School of Art and so were many friends of my own.























































































































































































































I was only ever a graduate of the art school dance. I never actually went to art school, but many friends and colleagues and and constituents did. Madam Deputy Speaker, we shape our buildings and then they shape us. The phrase of another Prime Minister, which should be embossed on the walls of this chamber, because, as we know, it was rebuilt from the ruins of World War Two and functions now, much as it did before that visit from the Luftwaffe in 1941. So the buildings, they do more than occupy space. They define us and who we are.









































































































































































































And few understood this more profoundly than Charles Rennie Mackintosh. As my hon. Friend pointed out, his design for the building created an environment in which art, everyday practicality and beauty of design, simplicity of design came together

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as one. I will indeed. Very grateful. To him for giving way. He's making an impassioned speech and making an impassioned speech and I'm very grateful for him doing that. Mackintosh himself, started as an apprentice architect. He's as an apprentice architect. He's just 16, and I wonder if you would agree that as we as we restore the building, which must be done, building, which must be done, there's an important opportunity to allow the next generation of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Glaswegians and others to be a part of that project, to secure their own future. With that innovation. And I couldn't agree more, because we must remember that the art school itself began as a design school, almost an engineering school for the shipyards and and the work, the industrial base of Scotland. And, and there is a plan to, to, to make the art school anchored by a restored Mackintosh building, the anchor of cultural and economic development again, and I'll come to that, come to that soon. But but what the hon. Member says is true that that the Glasgow School of Art and the market will become a symbol of Glasgow and the Glasgow has a symbiotic relationship with the art school.













































































































































































And that's why it's it's tragic to see it in in the condition it is now, because the Mac has. My right hon. Member opposite pointed out, is not simply a national treasure for Scotland. It's a culture and creative asset for the whole of the UK, an emblem of what Scotland has contributed to the global story of design and success over the past century. But it shouldn't just be left to Glasgow School of Art, or to Scotland, or to the alumni of the art school to to take this on. We are all collectively, I would argue, custodians of the Mackintosh and it should fall on us as a nation to restore this building to its glory.































































































































































And that's why I say this government should be willing and ready to engage with Glasgow School of Art in that project. And let us be clear, this is something that that can be done. We only need to look across the channel to the example of Notre Dame, which was burnt down following a fire in 2019, and the French government stepped in with the full muscle of the state to implement a reconstruction that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for taking the intervention, but would he agree with me also that the Scottish, the SNP government, they Scottish, the SNP government, they need to play a role in this, and so far they've been silent on this subject.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject. Thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I would I would intervention and I would I would kind of slightly temper my language and invite. Yes, the Scottish Government and the UK government Government and the UK government and other interested parties to come together to lift to put their hands under the mat and lift it, lift it out of the ashes. And there is a case for doing that, because I believe a fully restored Mac, in line with the Glasgow School of Art ambitions to to deliver a re-energised culture reporter for for Glasgow can be just as much an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic driver for the city and for the country as Notre Dame is is difference. The honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable. Member. I will. I will indeed here. I thank the hon. Member who's been very generous with his time been very generous with his time this evening. As he knows, I went to school next door to the art school, and it's always held a very school, and it's always held a very special place in my own life. But special place in my own life. But does he agree with me that the significance of the art school and its position in Glasgow is extremely important, and that we might actually be able to track some of the decline of City Hall Street to the fact that the Mac, which could be seen from City Hall Street, has been in the situation it's been in for such a long time, and that the regeneration of the Mac would go some way to helping the development and the economy of Glasgow as a whole.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for intervention. I agree with that. You know that it would indeed. And part of the Glasgow School of Arts ambitions are that the Mac and that building could anchor the regeneration of the whole of Garnethill and that on that part of Garnethill and that on that part of the city. But right now all we have are the bones of the building, are the bones of the building, shrouded in scaffold. For for so long after the Glasgow School of Art grappled with the insurance arbitration. Now, I understand that there may be some progress on that, that the street may be reclaimed to some extent, and we will see the mausoleum of the building visible but protected, but preventing the building from collapsing appears to be close to the limit of what the Glasgow School of Art can deliver on its own through the insurance claim.



































































































And I take the point from my hon. Member opposite that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK government, could have a role to play in putting their hands underneath the Mac and supporting its restoration. There is a plan for restoration, there is passion and professionalism in. In the design team commissioned to look at the restoration and. There is an economic analysis produced by the Glasgow School of Art to rebuild the Mackintosh. And that's compelling and attractive because heritage led placemaking is often one of the most effective tools for thriving urban regeneration. It's a tried and tested formula, and this approach would see the reinstated Mac building contribute to the economy and regeneration of Glasgow's, the hon.



















































































Member points out. But it cannot be done by the Glasgow School of Art alone or by the UK government alone, or by the Scottish Government alone. We must do it together. And because I was in Glasgow on Friday and attending the MoD on Friday, I. I missed the Prime Minister's speech in neighboring Motherwell in which he offered a new direction. The promise of a new deal between Scotland's two governments. But on the way back south I did listen to the speech. I played it back and it struck me as very nuanced and sophisticated offer of cooperation.







































































 And I hope beyond the rhetoric that that is recognized as such in Bute House in Holyrood. And I know the SNP First Minister had some speech making of his own to do on the weekend. I didn't play his speech back, I must admit, but if I were him I would listen closely again to the Prime Minister's message and to my own. And if he is looking for progress, he should realise that the Mac and for Glasgow he could be in for a big win for himself and for both governments. Nothing could symbolise a new era of doing politics differently in Scotland than the two governments coming together with other interested parties to raise the Mac out of the ashes, to do nothing less than restore it to its former glory.























































And I will finally give way to my family. It's been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very generous with his time and like so many other members have said, I have a personal connection to the Mac. My best friend went to University of Glasgow. He went to the Max, now a successful photographer. I would just say when he mentioned the Prime Minister, I he mentioned the Prime Minister, I just wonder if you would agree that one of the aims of everything we're doing should be culture in every doing should be culture in every postcode, and whether you are from North Northumberland or South West Devon or wherever you're from, that this should be our in here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this should be our in here. Thank thank the Member for that intervention. He simply proves my point that the Mac and its influence echoes in every postcode in every part of Britain and beyond. Now, in terms of solutions, some have called for the art school of the Mac building to to to be part of an independent body for the child friendly market for society, for example, it's called. Just to finish this point, sir, the Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society has called for an independent body to oversee the restoration of the building and for its ownership to be transferred away from Glasgow School of Art.

































Now, personally, I am agnostic about the means, devout about the delivery. I believe that restoring the Mac simply must be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done and I'll give you two. Thank you. From what my hon. Friend is saying, I think he does Friend is saying, I think he does agree with me that although we must look at all the options for delivering the restoration, we must delivering the restoration, we must remain focused on actually achieving the end point, which is the restoration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the restoration. Restoring the Mac. This should be everyone's priority and I think all proposals are worth exploring. Madam Deputy Speaker around the table, with all interested parties and the Minister who answers from the despatch box, has experience and the reputation for conflict resolution. She is ideally placed to persuade both governments to seriously consider how they can achieve this joint aim. The faithful restoration of the Mac as a living, breathing school and studio, sparking the inspiration for another generation and another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

century in Scotland. Thank you. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating my May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Na na na Na for securing this debate and for his kind words. I'm very pleased to respond on behalf of the government. Indeed, it is really remarkable, the strong showing of Scottish MPs that we have tonight, given the time of night that it is, and I think that reflects the strength of feeling that there is in this chamber.

I do wish that a colleague from the SNP had been able to join
23:39
Melanie Ward Portrait Melanie Ward MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, Labour)
-
-
us as well. My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to Glasgow School of Art and to the generations of students, artists, designers and architects who have studied there and gone on to make their mark both at home and around their mark both at home and around the world. My hon. Friend's speech was characteristic of his odyssey in this place, in its warmth, passion and strength of advocacy for causes that matter to our part for causes that matter to our part of the world. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, known as the Mac, is much more than a historic building.























































































































































































It is a core part of the Glasgow School of Art, which is, as we have heard, a world renowned institution, a source of pride for Glasgow and Scotland and an important part of the UK's creative and cultural life, as we have heard so clearly, including from my friend, the right hon. Member for Oxford East and my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland. Having grown up in Helensburgh, the site of the Hillhouse, I learned to admire the art of Charles Rennie Mackintosh from an early age. Indeed, one of the great joys of my job as Minister for Scotland, and even in the first three months has been seeing so many examples of Scotland's extraordinary arts and culture scene, from the Women's Wear Cat Trail in Kirkcaldy, in my own constituency, to the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe to the Pier Arts Centre in Orkney.









































































































































































I also remember visiting the Mac as a student and marvelling at it. I want to share my heartfelt appreciation to everyone who has worked tirelessly to protect and restore the Mac's architectural heritage. Following the devastating fires of 2014 and 2018, the school's commitment to faithful restoration of the building is inspiring, and the expertise and determination of those involved deserves our recognition. I know how deeply the fires and the damage to the Mac affected people right across Scotland. The loss resonated far beyond Glasgow, striking at the heart of the UK's cultural heritage. The impact was felt most acutely by the local community and nearby businesses, whose lives and livelihoods were disrupted.

























































































































































My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, in whose constituency the building stands, rightly talked about the need for us to learn lessons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife spoke about his constituency's connection to the Mac, and I know that there are in mine and many others to Glasgow School of Art as well. Of course, these issues have been debated a number of times in the Scottish Parliament, as we would expect. And today we consider not only the future of a remarkable historic building, but also the future of an institution that continues to contribute to our cultural identity and international standing.













































































































































Madam Deputy Speaker, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I recently met with Glasgow School of Arts Leadership. They informed us that their work to assess the building's future has reached an important stage. In July this year, the school published an updated assessment of the options for the Mackintosh building following the settlement of its long running insurance claim. The school envision envisions the reinstatement of the Mackintosh building as part of a heritage led economic regeneration project, building on the existing creative and cultural assets within Glasgow. This would strengthen the creative ecosystem and further position the city as one of the UK's leading creative centres.































































































































The school has confirmed its intention to pursue an enabling project funded through the insurance settlement, with work expected to begin in 2027. Its governors have also made clear that the school cannot undertake a faithful reinstatement of the building on its own, and that partnership will be essential if that ambition is to be realised. Developments underline both the scale of the challenge and the importance of considering what role Scotland's two governments and our partners might play. Current work sets out a temporary solution, which could be weatherproof and lay the groundwork for a complete restoration at a point when further funding and partnerships are secured, the question of government support must, of course, be considered carefully.















































































































As we know, public money has to be used responsibly, and any proposal must be assessed against clear evidence of need. Affordability, deliverability and public benefit. And we must be clear about the financial realities. As my hon. Friend said, the cost of a full, faithful reconstruction paired with wider district regeneration is estimated to reach around £265 million, but we should recognise the potential long term value of protecting a building of such exceptional significance and the opportunities that its future could create for Glasgow and Scotland. And the chair of the Select Committee gave an example of this.

































































































Following the 2014 fire, the UK government committed £10 million in funding to support Glasgow School of Art. This was provided to the Scottish Government for the Mackintosh Appeal, and an additional £5 million was then provided in 20 1516 as the right hon. Member for Clydesdale, Dumfriesshire and Tweeddale, sorry, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said of course culture and heritage are devolved matters and the Scottish Government has responsibility for this policy and funding in Scotland. We respect that settlement and the principles of devolution. As the Prime Minister made so clear in Motherwell last week. While I was encouraged to hear that Glasgow School of Art was included in the Scottish Government's programme for government, I understand that the school is waiting to meet with the Cabinet Secretary for education, Culture and Gaelic following its publication.

















































































We hope that the commitments made will be matched with tangible action and concrete plans. We will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow School of Art and other relevant heritage organisations, and the UK government continues to deliver transformational investment across the wider Glasgow area, including over £870 million of funding injected into the region through the Glasgow City Region deal, alongside pride in place funding and more than £60 million of new local growth funding. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles rightly referred to the Prime Minister's message to the Scottish Government last week and the need for us to work together, and the Glasgow City region is an excellent example of this, benefiting from £500 million from each of the UK and Scottish governments with our joint financial backing, this empowers local leaders from the Glasgow City region to make spending decisions based on opportunities for local economic growth and prosperity.



























































As Glasgow School of Art leadership seeks to build a case for investment that links culture to economic benefit for the people of the region, the city region is an important partner to hear this. I particularly encourage the school and those advocating on its behalf to maintain discussions with the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has previously supported them with almost £5 million, its Heritage Places initiative is supporting Glasgow more widely, and its National Heritage Memorial Fund is important to. These funds, of course, cannot meet the full cost of restoration, but they may be able to support key phases of it and how it benefits wider communities.













































We must also ensure that the benefits of culture and creativity are not confined to those who already have the greatest opportunities. I am reminded of the enormous contribution of Jenny Lee, who grew up in Cowdenbeath, in my constituency and was the first ever Minister for the arts. She argued for the centrality of arts and culture in daily life, alongside the functional necessities, or, as some in the labour tradition of my side of the House have put it, bread and roses. This department is. This debate is an important opportunity to recognise Glasgow School of Arts. Contribution to our national life and to consider how best to secure a brighter future for the Mac.































I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues before the House and to all who have contributed, including, additionally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and the hon. Member for North Northumberland. I will ensure that the points raised in this debate, including my hon. Friend's case for new support and other proposals to which he has referred, are conveyed to relevant ministerial colleagues. I cannot make a new commitment to new funding today, but I can reaffirm our willingness to listen, to engage with all partners as he suggested, and to explore practical and realistic ways forward, including new suggestions which may come along too.



















I hope that the Scottish Government will act and that they will hear our willingness to act with them. The Mac inspired generations of artists and designers, helped define Glasgow's artistic identity and earn a place on the world stage. We owe it to those who built that legacy, to the communities who cherish it, and to the generations yet to come, to give serious consideration as to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how it can continue. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn, as many as are of that opinion, say I. The ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page