Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Alex Sobel and Jim Shannon

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues.

As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order.

We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.

We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation.

Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented

“a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”.

However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded:

“The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.”

As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them.

The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made.

We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key.

To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case.

The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs.

I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee.

As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined.

The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members.

Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.

[Jim Shannon]

It is indeed a pleasure to speak in the debate. I will focus on the victims and justice—justice has never been delivered, actually—and those who are no longer here but gave their lives for Queen, King and country. The Secretary of State will know that I have mentioned my cousin and Daniel McCormick. That was 55 years ago, and I have given an example of what that means: the legal mechanisms of this land have seen no justice.

I think of the Ballydugan four—the four UDR men—three of whom I knew personally. I think of John Birch, who was a twin. I am old enough to remember the day he was born. I also think of Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop; I knew him well. The day I saw him, I said, “He’s going to be a soldier,” and he was. He joined the Territorial Army, which I was in for a number of years, and him and I did a guard duty together up at Magilligan camp. I remember well the time we had together. He is dead, murdered by the IRA.

I think of Steven Smart, a Newtownards man—his family is well known in Newtownards. He was also murdered in the Ballydugan bomb in April 1990. I did not know John Bradley. Those are examples of men who served in uniform and gave their lives for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think of the Kingsmill massacre, where again civilians were murdered because they were Protestants. Where is the justice for them in this process and the Bill before us tonight?

I think of the La Mon fire in my constituency, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I had our party conference a while ago. I well remember the night of that fire bomb. I was in Comber with my friend when the news came over the air. Again, those people were killed by the IRA team from Belfast and nobody was ever made accountable. When it comes to justice for victims, I do not see that coming through whatsoever.

Private Robert William Hill, a 22-year-old part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment—a young man who I never knew but whose family are constituents of mine who live in Ballynahinch—was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 1 July 1996 by an under-car booby trap bomb outside his girlfriend’s home. The ferocity of the bomb was such that the personal weapon he carried was blown to pieces; we can understand what happened to him. Again, his family have no justice. There is a victim who served in uniform and delivered for this great country—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and his family have never had justice.

I think of Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever killed—outside my Aunt Isobel’s gate down in Clady. As the IRA team reversed down the road, that was probably the time when the reality came to many. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun out of the back window of a car. He was in uniform, serving this country. No justice. Again, just where does this end?

Joint committee on Human Rights

Debate between Alex Sobel and Jim Shannon

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel]

I absolutely agree. We continually heard evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally, about the excellent work that the AISI does. I am pleased that the AI Minister, who is here in the Chamber, has played another leading role in developing AISI as the world’s leading AI safety institute.

However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two things. The first, as the report found, is about human utilisation of AI tools through, for instance, deepfakes, which affect people’s human rights, or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but that need Government action.

Then, secondly, there are the frontier models. We need a very different level of regulation and legislation for those than we have for individual assistive tools. I am not really worried about ChatGPT 2.0. It is not going to create an existential crisis but, without regulation, future models that are being developed can and will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Committee Chair and the rest of the Committee for their report and all of the work that they have done. I cannot pretend to understand all about AI. I am probably the oldest of the old school when it comes to those things. I agree with what the Committee has said about how human rights should be first and AI second. I thank the Committee for its clear focus on that.

I also welcome the recommendation that there should be a new AI Bill. That is the right way to do it, because as we look forward, and move forward, we want to ensure that those things happen. Will the regional Assemblies across the United Kingdom, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also those in Scotland and Wales, be notified and advised of the technology and what the Committee has said? It is really important that individual human rights are protected. Indeed, I believe that they are sacrosanct. Human rights should be first. They should take precedent every time over the technology that is coming through AI.

[Alex Sobel]

First, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but it will probably never be able to replace the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the Adjournment debate. We can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development.

I am glad that we now seem to have cross-party support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for a new AI Bill with human rights at the centre. What he says about human rights is absolutely correct. I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our Committee’s remit is for the UK, but this is an international issue. I am sure that the Minister has heard all that we have said.

War in Ukraine

Debate between Alex Sobel and Jim Shannon

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene incredibly well. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, all the speeches have been incredible, and the ones that follow will be equally good. We are here for a purpose, and it has been good to hear Members’ comments.

We are almost four years into the war in Ukraine, and we continue to hear of the devastation impacting people there. I want to focus today on one issue: the atrocities and war crimes carried out by Russian soldiers, and accountability for them. I told the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex yesterday that that would be the subject matter of my speech. I want this to be a reminder of the vicious attacks that the people of Ukraine have been subjected to. This Government, in conjunction with the US, must do more to seek peace and support those most in need. I do not doubt whatsoever the commitment of our Government, our Prime Minister and the Labour party—that is never in doubt. This House is united in support of Ukraine.

Thinking back to the early months of the war in 2022, I remember the efforts of all our constituents, who filled bags and bags of clothes, blankets, hats, scarves, wash items and so on to be sent to Ukraine. I remember well the collective efforts of all the churches, who organised lorries-worth of donations to support the people of Ukraine after the attacks inflicted by Russia—those who lost their homes, workplaces and livelihoods, and the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Poland for some sort of safety. I had an opportunity to meet some of them, and the desperation, loneliness and desolation of those who were displaced was something I have remembered many, many times. The pictures and videos that were released of the attacks were heartbreaking. I for one will not forget those; I do not think anyone will.

I remember hearing about one of the attacks early on in the conflict. The Russian army column going towards Kyiv was held up on the road by Ukrainians using shoulder-held next-generation light anti-tank weapons—NLAWs—that are made by Thales in Northern Ireland. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), knows Thales well, because he has been there many times. So that early in the war, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had already committed to helping Ukraine. The extra money given by the Government to the defence sector has created 200 more jobs in Northern Ireland, including at Thales.

To return to the subject of crimes that have taken place during the conflict, I remember the story that when the Russians advanced, they came upon a forest house. They shot the husband, who was trying to ensure that nothing would happen to his wife, and then they violated her, while the wee boy sat and watched it all.

[Alex Sobel]

The hon. Member is giving a typically impassioned speech about the horrific nature of the aggression against Ukrainian children by Russia. We have heard about that happening in many different ways. Last week, MPs attended a screening of “We Are Home”, about Ukrainian children who have been displaced within Ukraine and who have had to leave their homes because of the Russians. We all know about the Russians abducting Ukrainian children. Does he agree that we need to see the strongest possible action on returning those children from Russia and on the prosecution of the perpetrators in the international courts?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I agree with that. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had been able to be here today because she has spoken valiantly in this House about bringing back the 30,000 children who have been kidnapped and undergone Russification. The Russians are trying to make them Russian and make them fight for Russia against Ukraine—it is obscene and it really bothers me greatly.

I have no idea about the name of the family I mentioned, but the reason that I remember that case is because I think about that wee boy, whose mother was being violated, and her screams—

Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Alex Sobel and Jim Shannon

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.