Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate. I begin by warmly acknowledging the men and women who served during Operation Banner.

Everyone knows—even the Tories, in their more candid moments—that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a profound mistake, granting immunity to terrorists, creating a shameful moral equivalence between paramilitaries hellbent on breaking the law and our brave veterans who risked, and in many cases lost, their lives upholding the very rule of law that the legacy Act undermined. In the Dillon case, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear: core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Yes, the new Government abandoned the appeal on that point in the Supreme Court, but with no faith in the position, they were right to do so.

That is why the remedial order mattered. It was a necessary step to bring the UK back within its legal obligations, and to restore a measure of trust for those who have waited decades for truth and accountability. The Conservatives, however, treated the order as a political opportunity, rather than as a moment for sober reflection. To use the plight of our veterans to rage against the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 and to play destructive party politics is something that has not gone unnoticed among the many veterans organisations with whom I have been working—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Alex Burghart]

I just want to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

[Mr Kohler]

I will now move on to consider the Government’s response to the more salient recommendations made by the Select Committee. Turning first to the treatment of sexual offences, the Government acknowledge that the previous Act created a de facto bar on investigating sexual offences not linked to death or serious injury, but their proposed split model raises concerns. Clause 32 limits investigations to what is deemed necessary for ECHR compliance, which will result in the commission handling some cases while others fall to the police to investigate, creating potential confusion.

On the disclosure of reports, the commission is required to examine all circumstances while also considering specific family questions, but it is unclear how those duties will be balanced or the commission’s findings reported. When I visited the WAVE Trauma Centre, concerns were expressed that, by answering sometimes deeply personal questions, published reports could reveal issues and concerns that victims would not want made public. The chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, has assured me that the commission will act with sensitivity in such circumstances, but victims’ families want something more tangible than that.

That leads directly to the role and powers of the commission. The proposal to grant powers through established statutory procedures rather than enshrining them in the Bill risks opacity and reduced accountability. While a “small number of cases” where current powers fall short are acknowledged, it is far from clear how or if those gaps will be addressed. Alongside the topic of powers sits the question of resources. While the Government’s commitment to a £250 million total funding envelope for legacy mechanisms is welcome, there is widespread agreement that that is not enough. The PSNI chief constable, Jon Boutcher, has given compelling testimony that he has insufficient funding to address his legacy responsibilities. The Government suggest that PSNI funding is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Executive. However, the costs of legacy, arising as they did under what occurred during direct rule, must surely be borne by the British state, not out of funds provided by the Province’s normal funding formula.

The thorniest issue is, of course, the safeguards afforded to veterans. The Secretary of State has been at pains to stress the centrality of his six protections, but as he acknowledges, in their current form they

“do not go far enough”.

I know he has been in discussion with many veterans’ groups, and I have heard from many of them their gratitude for the time and consideration that he has given them. A date for the Bill Committee has still not been published, which I assume means that discussions within the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence are still ongoing. While I have no desire to unduly rush the Secretary of State on this issue, I respectfully remind him that the many veterans’ groups to which he has been talking are anxious to know what extra safeguards will be included in the promised Government amendments to the Bill.

Closely connected to victims’ safeguards is the question of disclosure and national security. A major concern is the Government’s refusal to introduce a merits-based appeal against ministerial denials of disclosure, and the reliance instead on judicial review, which considers procedural correctness rather than the merits of a decision. While the Government cite the primacy of the Executive, that principle does not sit comfortably within a legacy process that is aimed at restoring public trust and transparency. I have consequently tabled an amendment to the Bill that would require any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would ensure proper scrutiny and accountability to Parliament.

Our goal is reconciliation. Whenever I ask about reconciliation, I am directed to part 4 of the legacy Act, which is not going to be repealed. Part 4 focuses on oral history and memorialisation. Those have an important role to play, but it is striking how little attention appears to be given to restorative justice in any meaningful sense, because reconciliation cannot be addressed through reports and archives alone. My primary concern is that justice is still being mediated through the narrow lens of lawyers, with criminal or civil actions given too great a prominence in the process. I have personally participated in the restorative justice process, and I know that it begins with the questions that many victims of the troubles are asking: “Why me?” or “Why my loved ones?”

Restorative justice creates a space for answers, acknowledgment, and some form of resolution. The current Bill offers no meaningful avenue for restorative justice, which is why I have tabled amendments to incorporate that formally into the process, ensuring that victims and veterans have a voluntary, structured mechanism with which to engage and seek meaningful reconciliation. Without that, reconciliation risks being misconceived and incomplete.

At its core, this process will command confidence only if victims feel heard, veterans are treated fairly, and the system delivers answers that are credible and transparent. Broad commitments alone are not enough. The Government must address the gaps highlighted by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Without doing so, the process risks failing those who it is intended to serve, undermining trust and leaving decades of questions unanswered.

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

I thank the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for its work. The Committee is always incredibly thoughtful and diligent in the prosecution of its duties, and the report has been very interesting. I will try to resist the opportunity to re-litigate the whole troubles Bill and the argument around the legacy Act in the next 10 minutes, rather than focus on the report. However, it is important that hon. Members remember how the legacy Act came to be, and how the previous Labour Government treated the whole issue of the peace process.

The idea of immunity was good enough for the Labour Government in 1998—indeed, it was fundamental to the legislation that fell within the peace process. I think of the two-year limit on sentences that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) referred to, but also of the legislation regarding bodies that had been buried, and about the destruction of weapons where forensic evidence was destroyed. Those were all forms of immunity, and it is why—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—an appeal to the Supreme Court could easily have been successful. Very experienced legal advice shows that that would have been the case, so it was wrong of the Government to drop it.

The Government have decided that they are opposed to immunity, but they were not opposed to immunity in 1998. They were not opposed to immunity in 2005, when Peter Hain brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity only to former terrorists. Only under enormous pressure from the House, which decided that it would have to introduce immunity for soldiers as well, was that measure dropped under pressure from Sinn Féin. The Labour party has a very selective memory on those issues.

[Fleur Anderson]

In 1998 immunity was in the Good Friday agreement, and the whole population got to vote on that, and on whether or not they agreed with that immunity—it was very controversial. There was no vote on whether the population agreed with immunity in the legacy Act. In fact, all the democratically elected parties lined up to oppose that immunity.

[Alex Burghart]

It applied to only one side, and over time that one-sidedness became apparent to lots of people, including veterans. That is why it was important. In 2005, there was no democratic mandate for what the Labour Government tried to do to give immunity to terrorists. What we are trying to do, and what we tried to do in our legacy Act, is rebalance the argument, and in so doing bring about the sort of process that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East spoke so powerfully about. The adversarial system will not bring about proper truth and reconciliation, and it will not encourage people to come forward with new information. Instead, it will reopen old wounds and allow for the continuation of the troubles by other means. For that very important reason of principle, we cannot support the legislation.

To return to the report issued by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I will quickly pick up on four areas. On the consideration of the ICRIR, I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan, who has been an excellent head. Every time that I have heard people question the ICRIR’s independence, I have felt the need to come to Sir Declan’s defence. Anyone who has met him and seen his work will know that he is thoroughly independent, and woe betide any politician who tried to lean on him.

The argument that the ICRIR has struggled to build the trust and authority needed to operate effectively is already outdated. As of 30 November 2025, 231 requesting individuals had approached the commission, 245 cases were recorded, and 110 investigations had been opened into a total of 188 deaths and five cases of serious harm. Those numbers were growing every month. Indeed, the more time that the ICRIR was given, the more public trust it gained and the more its work was flourishing. Now, just as it is getting going, it is going to be cut off at the knees. I was pleased that the report mentioned the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal finding in 2024, which said,

“we find that these arrangements do not of themselves offend the principle of independence given the fact that ICRIR is ultimately made up and staffed by independent investigators and decision makers including the commissioners.”

I would much rather that the ICRIR was being given time.

It is clear that there are no explicit or particular protections for veterans in the Government’s legislation, and I was pleased that the Committee said that the Government were overselling that claim—indeed they are. No armed forces bodies believe that these protections are sufficient. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said, many veterans’ groups are concerned that the Government are moving away from the policies established by the Conservative party in power.

On the subject of Ireland, there were very powerful contributions from the hon. Members for South Antrim and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We all want this element of the Government’s arrangements to work, but we must remain sceptical, not least because of the Republic’s long-standing failure to produce the goods in this area. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee outlined on page 85 of its report, equivalent legislation structures are not expected. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) used a wonderful phrase, stating that there is a lack of “practical outworkings” in this area, and indeed there is. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, it was a dreadful missed opportunity that the framework did not include a commitment from the Republic to start its own Omagh inquiry. That was the most wicked attack of the whole troubles, and it is shameful that there are only investigations into what the British state could have done to prevent it, rather than investigations into the people who committed that dreadful atrocity.

I was pleased that the Committee referred to costs, as did several other hon. Members. The PSNI estimates that it will need an extra £1 billion over the next 10 years to cope with the new caseload. The legacy commission is seriously underfunded for the additional caseload that it will acquire as it transitions from being the ICRIR. Without that money, there will be a huge backlog in the caseload of the legacy commission, and there will also be a reduction in frontline policing in Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. We strongly disagree with what the Government are doing, but if they are going to do it, they must make the money available to ensure that public services and institutions in Northern Ireland function properly. Finally, I ask the Secretary of State one quick question: when will we see the Bill again?