Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.

As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that

“peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”.

The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.

We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case.

The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.

On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005.

That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

In essence, what my hon. Friend is talking about here with the agreements about the destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a sense, one way. There is no way on earth that the same process would have been allowed for soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. All evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction. When the Government talk about equivalence, they are wrong. It has never been about equivalence; it has been about one-way traffic.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.

When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.

We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.

[David Davis]

The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.

[David Smith]

We can talk about political parties and we can talk about the general population, but does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there is nearly universal opposition among victims of terrorism to the conditional immunity in the legacy Act?

[Alex Burghart]

No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened. Which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario in which people can be prosecuted on either side, and therefore have an incentive, if they are guilty, to conceal the truth, or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation introduced by our Government, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know that they will not be punished if they do so?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited.

That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.

[David Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?

[Alex Burghart]

Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.

[Lincoln Jopp]

As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”

[Alex Burghart]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line.

If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Surely we are regrettably here because of our membership of a foreign court. Without our membership of the ECHR, we would not be in this mess or having this debate, and we could be moving on towards truth and reconciliation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

That is exactly one of the reasons why the next Conservative Government will leave the European convention on human rights.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not require the Government to take any action as a consequence of the decisions that were made in the courts; it is entirely a matter for this House. The Government have made a choice. They had a choice to pursue the change through primary legislation or through this remedial order. They made a choice, notwithstanding the fact that they have a Bill coming down the line. Frankly, I think that was a ridiculous decision by my Committee, but there it is. [Laughter.]

[Alex Burghart]

I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options.

The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait. On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say. In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.

[Alex Burghart]

Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart]

I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—

[Mr Francois]

And learned!

[Alex Burghart]

Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend.

The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires.

Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Oh!

[Alex Burghart]

I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”.

The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I cannot respond directly to the claim that the hon. Gentleman just made, because that would be breaching parliamentary privilege, which I would not want to do, I will simply put on the record that our Committee considered all the relevant evidence when we created not just our second report on this remedial order but our first too. We considered all the evidence in front of us, we made our reports and we stand by both of them.

[Alex Burghart]

I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it.

We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.

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

I think that many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry. Does the hon. Member agree that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both Governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his Government acting unilaterally when they announced theirs?

[Alex Burghart]

I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.

[Jim Shannon]

The reason we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear. It was a murder haven for years. Many people who committed murders, some of which we might hear about later, escaped across the border. How are we going to rebuild bridges without honesty about state collusion that included IRA terrorists and the Irish Government? Quite clearly, their hands are dirty. When it comes to the legislation, I want to see the same accountability for the Republic of Ireland Government, their Ministers and the Garda Síochána officers. My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[David Davis]

Would my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Alex Burghart]

If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer.

The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.

[David Davis]

My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.

[Alex Burghart]

Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I would like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my Select Committee and particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led by those on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State should take a while to look through the recommendations contained in the Committee’s work on the troubles, take them Committee seriously and have productive conversations on how to move this matter forward.

[Alex Burghart]

I take everything the hon. Lady’s Committee does incredibly seriously. There is a good deal of experience on it and she always has interesting witnesses. I was very interested in the remarks made at her Committee the other day by experts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence.

I am afraid, though, that none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down the route of erasing the line we have attempted to draw under the troubles. I say to Labour Members that there is not just a moral risk; there is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts. Simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned 12 or 13 times—which is it? [Interruption.] Oh, 14 times—I lose track. There is every possibility that, just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people—because of representations that were made, I believe, by 60 Labour Back Benchers—so there is the opportunity to stop the Government in their tracks on this incredibly serious issue.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to put on the record. Sadly, there are not many Labour Back Benchers here to hear the debate. I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative. I do believe that if Labour Back Benchers were to mount significant pressure in private, the Government would think again. If they did, they would create the opportunity, once again, for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep peacefully at night.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This Government are erasing that line and in so doing dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. This continuation of the conflict by other means—by legal means—ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational cost. We know that because those who know most about military operations tell us it is so. General Sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall—both of whom have served our country at the very highest levels—write today in the Telegraph:

“Those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely. If lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later, confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer. Enemies and allies notice this as well.”

Let us remember the generals’ words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.

[Hilary Benn]

What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.

If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for very long, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate, which has largely been conducted in a very civil manner and has aired some very interesting positions.

The position of the Conservative party is that we are very much open to supporting political parties in Northern Ireland in reforming their institutions, but we stand by the principles of the 1998 agreement, in that we think that ideally any change must come from Northern Ireland itself.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does the hon. Member agree that the concept of Northern Ireland working is absolutely key and fundamental; that a system of government that collapses plays straight into the hands of those who are not particularly interested in a prosperous, progressive and inclusive Northern Ireland; and therefore that anybody who cares about Northern Ireland should be very interested in engaging in these conversations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It is dangerous that the hon. Lady encourages me to hurry through my speech to get to the point that she has raised but, given that my speech is highly flexible, I will try.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Five minutes flexible.

[Alex Burghart]

Five minutes flexible. We very much hope that, as the institutions in Northern Ireland mature—they are coming up to 28 years old—we will have greater opportunity for a system in which collapse, which is never desirable, is not possible. In any functioning Parliament around the world, it should not be in the hands of one party to bring that process to a close.

I intend to take the remarks of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about the home counties in the spirit in which they were uttered, but Northern Ireland, although it is as much a part of the United Kingdom as the home counties, is not the home counties. The home counties do not have the same recent political history as Northern Ireland, and the 1998 agreement was set up to reflect that. However, one of the things that binds everyone in this room together is that we genuinely all want the best for the people of Northern Ireland. We may have different ideas about how that can be done, but I think that that, as a motivating force, will ultimately enable a position in which stronger institutions are capable of delivering for people, whatever community they come from.

Several Members have raised the point that people in Northern Ireland are frustrated with their public services lagging behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom; we have health waiting lists now far longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and court delays. I should put on record my deep concern about the current barristers’ strike; I worry very much about what backlogs will emerge from that.

Ultimately, we must nurture a world in which there is the tough political negotiation and the ability for compromise that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) described. We can imagine him as Finance Minister, being able to have those tough conversations and get to a conclusion; that is ultimately what we all want. If there are things programmed into the current institutions that are preventing those sorts of conversations from happening now—conversations that happened years ago—we should certainly look at them.

I have not heard it before, so I was intrigued by the suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that the Northern Ireland Office should, essentially, run things and then be interrogated by the Assembly Members in Stormont. I think the existing—and any aspirant—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be utterly terrified of that prospect, but I have no doubt that it would provide a high level of scrutiny, because it would be possible for all political parties to unite against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Probably the most pertinent subject—raised by several Members—at the kernel of this problem is majoritarianism. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley was quite right to say that those who are non-affiliated should be considered in that argument. In recent months we have seen, in the way Belfast city is being run, the threat of majoritarianism. Sometimes, when one community has complete control over a council, it starts to do things that will deliberately antagonise another community. That style of politics is to be resisted and avoided. I hope that the combined good sense of the people in this room will ultimately lead us to a position where we have more effective political institutions in Northern Ireland, which enable the people there to get the services that they so richly deserve. I am sure it is possible. I look forward to working with everyone here over the coming years to see what possibilities exist.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. If he could leave a minute or so for the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) to wind up, that would be very helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Over Christmas, seven former senior SAS officers wrote in The Telegraph:

“In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

A few days later, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, appointed by this Government, said that the Bill treats veterans “worse than terrorists” and is

“eating at the very fabric of the Armed Forces”.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House which former senior officers support the Bill?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with either of the characterisations that the hon. Gentleman just referred to. I am confident that the protections, which we have designed specifically for veterans, will change their experience in relation to the legacy process. However, as I have said to the House, we continue to talk to veterans and veterans organisations. I want to produce a Bill that can offer the reassurance they are looking for: that we have a fair and proportionate system that recognises their service to the country.

[Alex Burghart]

I note that the Secretary of State was unable to give a single example. There is, I am afraid, an ostrich-like complacency in the Government’s approach to this legislation. Senior representatives of our armed forces are telling this House that the legislation is impacting on morale and effectiveness. In November, nine former four-star generals argued that this “morally incoherent” Bill poses a

“direct threat to national security”.

Those generals tell us that highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service, and by definition these men are very, very difficult to replace. No wonder The Times has said that

“a fundamental lack of political and military understanding lies at the heart of this Bill.”

Why do the Government think that they know better than our armed forces?

[Hilary Benn]

The Government had to do something about the previous Government’s failed legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland. If one is seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to deal with the continuing consequences of the troubles, the legislation has to have that support, and the previous Government failed to do that. On the impact on recruitment, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard when the Minister for the Armed Forces answered the urgent question on Monday, inflows continue to improve. Indeed, inflow is up by 13% this year compared with September 2024.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.

It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that

“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”

I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.

As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.

The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]

Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.

The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.

If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal

“has been determined or abandoned”.

It has been abandoned by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on asking it, and on his excellent contribution.

This is a very significant and highly detailed report, which I know hon. Members will want to take some time to digest, but on behalf of the Conservative party, I thank all those who have contributed to it. I also want to remember all those who suffered during that very difficult time. The last Conservative Government apologised for collusion following the de Silva review of the murder of Patrick Finucane, and while it is sobering to read further accounts of collusion between a small number of agents of the British state and paramilitaries, it is important to set this alongside a number of findings in the Kenova report.

First, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is an understanding that legislation has changed dramatically since the time in question, under both the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government. Secondly, it is important to highlight that although the review found that there were a small number of rogue actors, it did not find “any evidence” that collusion occurred

“at a political or strategic level”,

and there was

“no evidence which indicates that the RUC at an organisational level was involved or complicit with the activities of extremists or terrorists.”

It is very important that those findings are not lost.

Thirdly, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East said, the review found that there was no specific intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and it did not manage to find any evidence indicating that British security forces colluded with the UVF in those attacks—again, these are historic findings.

I would be very interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to come back at a later date and tell us more about the Government’s future position on “neither confirm nor deny”. I understand that there is a case going on at the moment, but I believe that once that is done, it will be important for the Government to be clear with the House about how they see that policy going forward.

As has already been mentioned, there have been a number of detailed and necessary reviews of collusion between agents of the British state and paramilitaries, but as yet there have been no such reviews on the Irish side. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government have told him by when they intend to present their own legislation?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.”

I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace.

The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions.

We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further.

In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history.

The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. The Government are claiming that they have no choice but to legislate. They are making that claim for three reasons. The first is that they object to conditional immunity. The second is their belief that the legacy Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the third is the fact that the legacy Act lacked cross-party support.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member recognise that the immunity that was promised never came into action because the British courts rejected it? Does he accept that we are not taking away immunity, because it was never possible in the first place?

[Alex Burghart]

It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

No.

Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information.

We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was.

Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.

[Colum Eastwood]

Let me take this opportunity to refresh the shadow Secretary of State’s memory. Sinn Féin actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams is on record as supporting that piece of legislation—I wonder why. Sinn Féin also supported, at one point, amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Féin, who in turn pressurised the Government, to drop it. That is what happened.

[Alex Burghart]

I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.

No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.

In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Even if the Supreme Court had opined on the matter and judged it to be incompatible, that would not have changed the law. This House is not required to respond in any way to a declaration of incompatibility by a court. This House remains supreme.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend says that it is highly likely that an appeal would have succeeded. In support of that, I cite the fact that the Defence Committee took evidence in great detail from four professors of law in 2017. They were not talking about that specific legislation, but they all agreed that it was possible and legal to combine a statute of limitation, providing that there was a truth recovery process. A range of people gave evidence, from Professor Richard Ekins on the right of centre, shall we say, to Professor Philippe Sands on the left of centre. It was possible, it was legal, and even if that law was struck down, something similar could have been put in its place.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done.

The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.

That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks.

The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things. Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do.

The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in.

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about doing the right thing, but is not doing the right thing getting justice for over 1,000 families, including 200 veteran families, who have waited too long for answers about their loved ones? Putting victims at the heart of this process would be doing the right thing—getting on with legislation that will deliver the justice needed, instead of the delays and dithering that the Conservatives’ legacy Act provided?

[Alex Burghart]

With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alex Burghart]

I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are

“to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.”

I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans.

Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.

Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all.

Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.

Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the wrongs of the Bill so clearly. A number of veterans called my office yesterday in great distress. One of their concerns is what the Bill means for future recruitment to the armed forces, which so far has not really been covered in this debate. They believe that if people sign up willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, their country should stand behind them. Will my hon. Friend set out why the Bill risks so heavily future recruitment to the armed forces, and therefore why that is another reason that this Bill is absolutely wrong?

[Alex Burghart]

I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State?

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.

Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House who is actually in Government in Northern Ireland and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all?

[Alex Burghart]

The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.

Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.

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

Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court?

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

The answer is 20.

[Alex Burghart]

I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.

Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.

In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that

“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”

When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I will not take interventions, as I am very short of time.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said that this legislation will be “reopening wounds”, but I believe they never closed. I have sat with families who simply want to know what happened to their loved one. More than 3,500 people were killed during the troubles. The Good Friday agreement recognised that it was essential to address and acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors, and it is our collective duty to deliver on that remaining Good Friday agreement commitment. If through this process, those relatives can be supported to get answers, then we will have met that duty. There are many things that the last Labour Government achieved of which I am proud. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) noted, the Good Friday agreement rightly sits among their very finest achievements.

I recently had a conversation with a veteran in my constituency who told me how important it is to deal in facts, so let us set some of those out. It is a long-standing principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are independent. Judicial independence has served our country very well for over 300 years. That is why when people read about recent cases, such as the trial of Soldier F, it is not relevant that the decision to prosecute was taken while the Conservative Government were in power, because the decision was independent. Equally, it is not relevant that soldier F was acquitted under a Labour Government, because that decision too is independent.

Since 2012 there have been 25 prosecutions relating to the troubles. Of those, the majority were for republican terrorists. There are nine live prosecutions relating to the troubles, and one ongoing prosecution relates to the conduct of the British Army. Again, the decision to prosecute was taken under the Conservative Government —under, not by, because they are rightly independent decisions.

I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment. Among other things, the amendment suggests that removing conditional immunity will lead to veterans being dragged before the courts. That is not true. The Conservatives’ failed immunity scheme, which would also have applied to IRA terrorists, was never commenced. All it did was offer a false promise that could never be delivered. Because this amendment is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding about the Bill and the way in which our prosecution system works, I urge the House to reject it.

Veterans were raised by a number of hon. Members. The Government’s commitment to honour Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. We must not forget that over 1,000 armed forces families lost loved ones during the troubles, and that over 200 investigations into the deaths of armed forces personnel and veterans were shut down by the last Government’s failed legacy Act. In search for answers, those families, as much as any families, deserve a fair, proportionate and transparent system. They would not want for the terrorists who took the lives of brave soldiers to have any form of immunity.

Members talked about our protections. I reiterate that our Bill puts in place strong and important protections that were not included in the failed Tory legacy Act. I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is himself a veteran of Northern Ireland, for his close work and attention to put in place these important protections. We have published our fact sheet that details where the protections sit throughout the Bill, so I will not rehearse them all now, given the time I have available.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked how we can continue with the remedial order. The Government abandoned their appeal and therefore have the ability to continue with the order. For those, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, who talked about morale, I am proud of the protections in the Bill. I am also proud more broadly that this Government have given an important pay rise to our armed forces, and I believe that morale was harmed by the actions of the last Government.

[Alex Burghart]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Patrick]

I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.

On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.

Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.

A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The trial of Soldier F concluded on 23 October with a not guilty verdict. The Ministry of Defence rightly provided him with legal and pastoral support. I and the Secretary of State for Defence have, of course, noted the judgment, but I do not think it appropriate to be drawn on the particulars of these independent legal proceedings.

The House will recognise that it was also a difficult day for the families of the 13 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday, in circumstances that the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron described as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House remain with them.

We all understand the continuing pain felt by families and communities in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as a result of the troubles. The Government remain committed to establishing a legacy process that can provide answers for families who are still seeking to find out what happened to their loved ones. We will always remember the dangers faced by our brave soldiers, police, and others who served during the time of Operation Banner and who tried to keep people safe, and will always remember, especially at this time of year, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service will never be forgotten, and we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.

It is, however, important to note that the case of Soldier F of course involved no role for either this Government or the last one. The independent proceedings were ongoing before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and they were not halted by that legislation. Decisions by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are always taken independently, in the light of facts and circumstances, and we should all respect that independence. A prosecution can only ever be brought when the evidence presents, in the view of prosecutors, a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and when it is in the public interest to proceed.

I also recognise that all those affected by the troubles, including veterans, want a system that is fair, balanced and proportionate. That is what the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is seeking to put in place, with a new legacy commission and strong protections for veterans that were not included in the last Government’s legacy Act. That act offered a false and undeliverable promise of immunity to our Northern Ireland veterans. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for—not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and

“on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]

He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act.

As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.

Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that

“‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.”

We ask the Secretary of State to think again.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?

[Hilary Benn]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only offer congratulations but continue these discussions about legacy matters in that spirit. When I say I am prepared to listen, I mean it. I would just point out to him that the problem arose because of the Supreme Court judgment, as he is well aware, and that for just over two years, the last Government could not find a solution. The one that was put in place did not work because it was found to be incompatible. I have reflected on the point that was made in representations, and this decision will ensure that there is no gap, as it has been referred to. We have found a mechanism that we believe will achieve what sections 46 and 47 failed to do.

[Alex Burghart]

I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?

[Hilary Benn]

I indicated to the House some months ago that we were determined to find a means of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in 2020 on the subject of the Carltona principle. That is what our proposed legislation will seek to remedy. We think it is a better formulation than sections 46 and 47, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support in passing it.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon.

I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case?

Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function?

Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen?

Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?

Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House?

Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down.

Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He says that the last Government sought to draw a line, but it did not work. In the act of seeking to do that—this is the one question that the now Opposition have never been able to answer—they decided that they would give terrorists immunity from prosecution. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, that is what the last Government did, and I have never heard a justification. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, they did, and it did not work. It did not have support in Northern Ireland. How can Northern Ireland proceed to deal with the legacy of the troubles, when the legislation that the last Government passed had no support in Northern Ireland?

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, nine inquests will be restored and the remaining 24 will go into the sifting process. Those nine inquests will include Loughgall, because the Conservative Attorney General ordered a new inquest into Loughgall 10 years ago—a point never referred to by the Opposition. It was one of the cases that had begun, and it therefore falls within the group that will be restored. The rest will be considered by the Solicitor General in the sifting process. The number of civil cases will depend on those who choose to bring them or resume them.

On the PSNI, I say to the hon. Gentleman that prior to 1 May last year, the force had over 1,000 cases on its books, and that is no longer the case. The legacy commission, which the UK Government are funding, is now responsible for looking at all cases referred to it. That cost is borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. To the extent that cases are no longer inquests but will go to the commission, the cost will be borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

On the issue of interim custody orders, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, the legislation will make it clear that the signing of those orders by junior Ministers was always lawful, but we have also decided, in placing a draft remedial order before the House today, that sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act will now remain in place until the provisions of the Bill take effect. That will deal with the point that some people have made about avoiding a gap, but we all have to recognise that sections 46 and 47 proved to be an ineffective way of dealing with this issue—the hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows that that is the case.

On the protections we have brought in for veterans, we have done so with the motivation of protecting veterans. On the involvement of the Republic of Ireland, I join the hon. Gentleman—a point of unity at the end—in welcoming the commitment of the Irish Government to this partnership. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that a lot of progress is made when the two guarantors of the Good Friday agreement work together, and many people in Northern Ireland would like to get answers from the Garda and the Irish authorities. At the moment, the Irish Government are refusing to co-operate. Why? Because of the last Government’s legacy Act. I look forward to the Irish Government participating in the process in the months and years ahead.

Privilege

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position; to the Clerk of the Journals for briefing me this afternoon; and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for talking me through this issue over the weekend. I will be unusually brief, because I wish to return to the debate in Westminster Hall—a lot of hon. Members who would otherwise be in the Chamber for this debate are currently engaged in another debate on Northern Ireland.

The Conservative party strongly supports the motion as worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh bombing inquiry was set up by my former right hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris in 2023 to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the Real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and, in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. As my right hon. Friend understood when he set up the inquiry, it was critical to have a process that could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information in reaching its conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made clear in his remarks, anything else would make a mockery of the process. On that note, and on a point that the right hon. Member made, it is essential that the Republic co-operates fully with this inquiry. We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

I was reassured to hear the remarks made by the Chair of the Privileges Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I look forward to hearing that Committee’s conclusions, but its members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party wishes to see this information handed over to the inquiry for its consideration.