Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Alex Easton and Claire Hanna

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

[Alex Easton]

I have examined clauses 1 to 72 and the Government’s amendments with care and as best I could in the short period we had, and I regret to say that I still have grave concerns. The central question is whether clear blue water is drawn between those who served to protect the public and those who pursued terrorism. Security forces were responsible for about 10% of troubles-related deaths and terrorist organisations were responsible for about 90%, yet many who served have lived with the prospect of being summonsed to court while some suspected of terrorist offences received so-called letters of comfort, as has been addressed. For veterans and their families, that contrast has created a deep sense of injustice.

I am not asking the House to place anyone above the law—where there is evidence of wrongdoing, that must be examined—but a fair legacy process must recognise the profound difference between someone who wore a uniform to protect life and someone who deliberately set out to take it. Nor should the Republic of Ireland’s role escape scrutiny. Families seeking answers about attacks planned or supported across the border deserve meaningful co-operation and access to relevant information. A legacy process that looks only where it is easiest will not command confidence. Justice must not stop at the border.

We can look at the recent examples that have come out where the Republic of Ireland’s Government failed to give information. We see what has happened with Omagh. We know that in the early part of the troubles the Irish Government supplied weapons to the IRA. We know about Breen and Buchanan, the superintendents murdered on their way home from Dundalk. The Garda Síochána were involved, yet they were never brought to justice and no information was given to our Government.

I welcome the Government’s decision to bar former paramilitaries from the victims and survivors advisory group and to provide a place for a veteran—I hope that it will be more than just one veteran. Those are important changes and they have partly engaged with my amendment 52, but they do not fully address my concerns about appointing someone who belongs, or has belonged, to a political party linked to or supportive of a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. Victims and survivors must be able to trust the independence of those appointed to speak on their behalf. I implore the Government not to divide the House on my amendment. We cannot allow those from any political party to go on to the victims and survivors advisory group if they believe that the troubles were justified, that the murder of a PSNI officer was justified, that the murder of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces was justified, or that a civilian murder was justified for their cause. Murder is never justified, no matter who took part.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Easton]

Let me get on a wee bit; I will maybe let the hon. Member in later.

If such individuals were allowed, even unintentionally, they would make a mockery of the victims and survivors advisory group. They would use it for their own agenda, and nobody would have any confidence in that group. I ask the Secretary of State please to do the right thing and not divide the House on this amendment. It would strengthen the Bill, not weaken it. We must not allow anyone to be on the victims and survivors advisory group who believes that a terrorist campaign was right or give them the opportunity to use that position to rewrite history, because if they are allowed on it, they will do that.

Magna Carta declares:

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

That promise must always apply to every family seeking answers, and to every veteran who has lived for years under the shadow of possible prosecution. Passing a Bill is not in itself progress. The test is whether it delivers a process that is fair, credible and worthy of the trust of those it is meant to serve. I recognise that no legislation can undo the grief of the troubles, but this House has a duty not to compound it. We owe victims the truth, veterans fairness and the public a process that distinguishes service from terrorism without placing anyone beyond the reach of the law.

The Government’s amendments are a step, but they are not enough. For this reason, I cannot support the Bill. I implore the Secretary of State to listen to what I am saying. As a Unionist, throughout my life I have watched politics coming through Westminster and all the different deals that have been done. From the Belfast agreement and the Anglo-Irish agreement right through to the Windsor framework, I have seen every successive Government not listening to me or my predecessor Unionists about our concerns. We feel unloved. We feel that we are never listened to. Secretary of State, you have a chance here to reach out to Unionism and our genuine concerns. Please listen to us, because we have to get this right. If we do not, it is just going to be a complete disaster.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Debate between Alex Easton and Claire Hanna

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Claire Hanna]

Clearly, we are a more pluralist society. I am unashamedly a new Irelander, and that is an important part of my identity. That is a factor in our politics, as is the legitimate position of Unionists, so we cannot wish it away. We cannot say, “I don’t see colour or designation,” but for so many of us it is clearly not the primary identifier. Many of the reforms can take effect even without going into what, as I said, my colleague called the “ugly scaffolding”.

The proposals we are making are keyhole surgery. They are not a lobotomy or amputation; they do not fundamentally undermine the principles of power sharing. I remind hon. Members that of course the agreement is not an ornament to sit on the mantelpiece; it is not a relic. It is a toolkit, and it envisaged change. It has been changed on the Floor of the Assembly, and it allows for that.

We want to put down some modest proposals, some of which I have advanced through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its excellent 2023 report on the existence of an Assembly. We propose the election of a Speaker by a two-thirds majority. Two thirds exists elsewhere in the agreement, for example in the threshold for calling an election, and I do not think anybody could say that the election of a Speaker oppresses or suppresses any community. Mike Nesbitt of the Ulster Unionist party and Patsy McGlone of the SDLP both achieved that threshold during the stalemates. That would allow an Assembly to exist, even if an Executive does not.

On Executive formation, we would call, first, to rename the joint office of the First Minister, reflecting the fact that one of those Ministers cannot order paperclips without the other, and restoring the intent and joint nature of that office. Ideally, we would then move on to the reforms that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) suggested around St Andrews.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

What does the hon. Member think of the Alliance party’s suggestion that there could be three First Ministers? Would that not make things even worse?

[Claire Hanna]

Bluntly, my view is that the agreement is trying to salve, resolve and manage a centuries-old division—a society that has been divided into two tribes. It is not my belief that creating a third tribe is the solution to that, but I understand that it is important that all parties feel that they are represented.

As I have said, on joint First Ministers, there are plenty of possibilities for further reforms. I think both the DUP and Sinn Féin have, at times, said that they would be very relaxed about the creation of an office of joint First Ministers; in fact, at different times they have used the phrase “joint First Minister”. As I say, the SDLP has been looking for consensus.

We would propose appointing the Justice Minister through the d’Hondt formula as well. It is worth saying that if we are talking about people’s votes counting equally, there have been times when the Alliance party, for example, had far fewer Members than the Ulster Unionist party or the SDLP, but was gifted an extra Ministry. Those distortions exist under the current rules. I do not believe in the principle that a Unionist or a nationalist is not fit to be the Justice Minister, and I think that Ministry should return to the d’Hondt formula.

Another modest proposal is a reform of the St Andrews veto within the Executive that allows a single party to prevent items even coming on to the Executive agenda. That could be progressed further with legislation for joined-up government, potentially something like the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 that exists elsewhere in the UK.

Meaningful reform is going to need a process, weight and urgency. If we limp along to the next election, there may not even be an Assembly that comes back after May 2027. Certainly, people’s belief in the primacy of politics and in the ability of the Good Friday agreement to solve their problems is ebbing away with every stagnant day in the Assembly. I have written to the other party leaders asking them to join me in the meeting that the Prime Minister has indicated he will have, and I hope that we can find some consensus.