Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Debate between Alex Burghart and Iain Duncan Smith

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.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Alex Burghart and Iain Duncan Smith

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

China Spying Case

Debate between Alex Burghart and Iain Duncan Smith

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.

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

I just want to clear up one small point. When the CPS originally decided to prosecute back in 2024, it was convinced on the basis of the then-required evidence that was in front of it that in this case, China was responsible, and therefore it posed a threat. What changed was the Roussev case, which redefined what the CPS needed to be able to say in order to go ahead with any further prosecution. It was made clear that all that needed to be done was to make the clear point that China was a persistent, continuous threat to the UK’s strategic interests. The reason why the CPS needed to make that statement had nothing to do with what had happened before; it was all about what resulted from the Roussev case. That was the key.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between Alex Burghart and Iain Duncan Smith

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.

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

One thing puzzles me slightly about the position taken by the Government, which is a bit like that on the Chagos islands: we already owned them, but we entered a negotiation to give them away and rent them back. In this instance, Europe threatens us that we cannot talk about other matters until we sign up to this defence deal, but we already have a defence deal and we already co-operate: we have built weapons with France, Sweden and various other countries. Rather than what they would lose, what is it that we gain?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.