Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support the Opposition Front Bench in their concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out. First, the Bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones. It essentially means that they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing or even asked to give evidence. Secondly, Labour’s protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the Irish Government have denied that they exist at all. It remains unclear how they will work in practice to protect veterans, and the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris has said that no additional protections will be given to veterans, so there is a conflict between the two parties to the agreement.

Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the protections for veterans in the new legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked the Secretary of State that question at the Dispatch Box, and he never answered it. I would be grateful if at some point he, or the Minister when he gets up, would say whether the protections extend to both sides.

The main point that I want to make, having served in Northern Ireland, is how quickly people forget what a peculiar and terrible event it was—so peculiar to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom with British citizens all around them, having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom. It seemed almost outrageous, but that was what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and those were very tough to follow at times because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around any corner. You never knew when you went to a house whether someone would be sniping or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and on the alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background in which that happened.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member makes an important distinction about the manner in which we deployed our soldiers. What he has described is a policing action, and there are very different requirements for delivering scrutiny. Is he not incredulous that other Members of his party are conflating that with the concern that we would put those requirements on future veterans, who would be fighting a conflict where we hope they would be acting forwards in a way that is entirely different from what he described?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will not follow the hon. Member down that road, because I have limited time and there is something I want to reflect on, but the reality is that many people and veterans believe that this will be a problem for future recruits.

I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the legislation passed by the previous Government because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded in the final analysis by one particular case. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine. I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we would ever find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland. We have had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured and that he was executed, but we never get to know. His parents died not knowing and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Is it true that he was cut up? That somehow spread, and nobody wants to own up to it.

It struck me that for as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for it, we would never know or get closure. I was persuaded on those grounds that it was time to shift from the way we were behaving—the way we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. As Soldier F even now tells us, it is unlikely that we will achieve what everyone here keeps talking about as justice. What we will achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of it. It struck me that the only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, have those cases explained and get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened and why. Therefore, they would at least have closure through having knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.

I wish we knew where Robert Nairac lies, if he lies anywhere at all. I wish his family knew. Many other soldiers and civilians are in those circumstances too. The terrorism and brutality of the IRA was appalling, yet we are still arguing about it even today.

Let me take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit’s funeral. I remember when he watched the person who set the bomb and blew up the Grand in Brighton walk free. I remember him saying to me afterwards, “It was the worst moment in my life—I went through all of this and I had injuries. This man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland, but my wife will never be free, because she is immobilised for the rest of her life, and I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds in the bombing.” For his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, as horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made.

Let me simply say that the attacks on the previous legislation forget that it was about trying to get truth and reconciliation, and about learning from other countries such as South Africa. As difficult and problematic as this issue is, there are major faults in this legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and that he will accept many of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This is an important and necessary Bill. It is needed to repair the legally and morally flawed legacy Act passed by the previous Government, which created confusion in an already complex and sensitive area of law, history and military doctrine, and made impossible promises offering a route to immunity for terrorists who killed British citizens on British soil. What is worse is that those who created that mess now seek to mislead our veterans by portraying this Bill as some form of injustice. It is despicable.

As a veteran, I thank all those who served during Operation Banner and I understand the genuine concern in the veteran community that these issues have reopened. I hope that we hear some humility from those on the Conservative Benches who have caused this situation. This Government have had no option but to clean up the consequences of the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is difficult and sensitive work but necessary if we are to address veterans’ concerns properly and restore credibility. That view is shared by the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, who have recognised their constructive engagement with the Ministers. I welcome that spirit of honesty and collaboration.

In that same vein, I am proud to represent the position of the Royal British Legion as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. The RBL has said:

“The Government’s commitment to introducing safeguards for veterans is necessary. The legislation must protect veterans from repeated investigations, while ensuring bereaved Armed Forces families can continue to pursue answers to their longstanding questions.”

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bailey]

If you had been here during the debate, yes, I would give way, but no, you can sit down and listen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to use the word “you” in those circumstances.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Those two principles—being protected from repeated investigation and giving families proper answers—must sit at the heart of the Bill. We know the previous Government’s Act shut down investigations into the deaths of our armed forces personnel and denied answers to hundreds of families. Further, its conditional immunity scheme was ruled unlawful by the Northern Ireland High Court, leaving us with the need for a new and credible approach.

In that spirit, the Royal British Legion has proposed several improvements. First, the provision of giving evidence remotely, anonymously and with welfare protections could be strengthened with clear guidance on how decisions will be made. Secondly, it should not be left to veterans to explain the context of the events that took place in the troubles. Rather, a senior member of the Ministry of Defence should be a representative to provide factual context and describe the dangerous situation in which our veterans found themselves. Thirdly, the Bill rightly recognises the impact of repeated investigation, and it is important to set out clear criteria for the Legacy Commission so that duplication happens rarely and only when justified. Finally, the victims and survivors advisory group rightly includes references to armed forces victims. However, the Bill should state explicitly that veterans or the families of those we lost will have guaranteed representation.

I thank the Ministers for their engagement so far. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to actively engage with the Royal British Legion ahead of the Committee stage? This legislation is not just about history; it is about truth, justice and reconciliation across these islands, and it is about ensuring that our armed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I think the fact that the hon. Gentleman used the word “intractable” gives us a clue about how challenging it actually is. When a country decides, for better or for worse, to withdraw from a treaty to which it has been a signatory for more than 50 years, issues are bound to arise.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill undermines not only the UK’s adherence to the Windsor framework, but the security architecture that the Belfast agreement underpins? The Belfast agreement is not just a peace settlement, but a cornerstone of our national security strategy. By jeopardising our reputation as a trustworthy international partner, the Bill would weaken our ability to collaborate with allies on global security challenges. Does he not agree that by maintaining the integrity of the agreement, we are safeguarding our national security and international standing?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences when we go down a particular path.

Issues are bound to arise that either no one thought about or thought would have significance outside of an abstract environment but subsequently became significant, or that were parked so that we could come back to them at a later date. The reality, as we found throughout the whole post-referendum period—oven-ready this and oven-ready that—is that lots of things that were parked are coming back to bite. The problem with that, as I said, is the law of unseen and ignored consequences—those things are waiting around the corner, and turn up like an uninvited and unwelcome guest in our house.

Please bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the potential unintended consequences of coming out of a treaty. Imagine what would happen if we decided to abrogate the North Atlantic treaty—which, of course, no one would dream of doing. We know there would certainly be huge consequences to such an action. I suspect Members understand there would be pretty immediate and most probably predictable consequences to that. However, it is sometimes the unpredictability of taking actions that comes back to haunt us.

The same could be said for other treaties, which may appear to be of little significance and consequence in the short term, but which might take on a whole new persona down the line. I am not sure that many people would initially grasp the consequences of, say, breaching the Antarctic treaty, but there would be consequences in due course. If we abrogate a treaty, or part of a treaty, it is unlikely that we can then somehow revisit it, change domestic law and expect other countries to accept that.

I will finish on this point, because it is important. There are other treaties that we have to look to—I could go into detail on them, but I will not. What about— [Interruption.] Well, if Members insist. How about the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? What would happen if we decided to tweak that a little bit through domestic law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly valid point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has had a sneak preview of the points that I will raise later on. I will take up that matter with my staff.

It is important to recognise that those views are considered. I am sure that those views have been informed by many events, circumstances and long-held political opinions, and by culturally held views, which, in turn, have been informed by many personal and political experiences—some constructive and positive, and others negative and traumatic. In justice to the debate, I am sure that Members have attempted to bring if not a fresh perspective to it, then at least a perspective that takes into account the views of others from across the Chamber.

In this debate, the word “irrelevant” may itself become irrelevant, because we must face up to the fact that many of the points being made are not irrelevant, given the wide-ranging impact that any change to the law would have on internal and external relationships, both in a formal legal sense and informally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said.

On trust, the Bill asks the House to abrogate our treaty obligations under the withdrawal agreement. That is worrying. Having given this some thought, I decided to look at the treaty landscape and the issue of necessity, which has been raised. That then sets off the justified claim about the potential for abrogation, so it is a good place to start. The ecosystem around treaties goes to the heart of the efficacy of partnerships, relationships and—dare I use the word—trust between those who sign a treaty.

This issue really goes to the heart of the question of trust, belief or faith in what we say as a nation. I look to our finest playwright to set the scene—in fact, I go to scene four from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, part 3:

“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”.

The concept of oaths and promises was explored by William Kerrigan in his book, “Shakespeare’s Promises”. It is important to quote this, because it goes to the heart of the matter. He writes:

“It is impossible to imagine any kind of moral life without obligations, and impossible to imagine obligations without types of promises. We are always up against them. Before we ever reflect on what a promise is, we have made them and are expected to make more of them. We are born into nations that enter into treaties and agreements. Promises are with us like gravity. Man is a promising animal.”

[Mr Bailey]

I take my hon. Friend back to his point about abrogating treaties, which is the modus operandi of the next United States President. Such behaviour creates instability in our international order, yet those supporting the Bill ask that we disestablish an agreement that provides stability, and that seeks to address intractable issues, and asks that we fix those problems through relationships with such persons.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a fair point. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we agree to the Bill, are we in breach of faith and trust? I think so. I do not say that lightly, or to be offensive or provocative.