Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

One day more, Ms Ghani.

Today we are debating parts 6 to 9 of the Bill. Part 6 sets up on a pilot basis the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The commission will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means to retrieve information about troubles-related deaths. Part 7 covers the restoration of a limited number of troubles-related inquests. Part 8 covers further provisions, including the lifting of the prohibition set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 on investigations by the police of other troubles-related offences, including sexual offences, ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place. It also covers the provisions regarding interim custody orders.

I will turn first to inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests. However, when the legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on 1 May 2024, we committed in opposition to restoring some of them, as we knew the hurt and anxiety it caused many families in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As we said at that time, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims, who felt that 1 May marked a door being shut in their faces, in particular for those who had been involved in inquests.

The truth is that many families have received answers through inquests, and only through inquests. I rather agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) when he said yesterday that he had been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death.

That is why the Bill strikes a balance on how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off midway on 1 May 2024. We believe that those families deserve to have that process continue, as we have said from the outset. For inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they would be best handled by the legacy commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the commission for cases involving sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the commission to take such material into account in producing reports. This is covered directly in clause 84.

There are understandable concerns about how we ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure that they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence, and to ensure that the operational context in which they served is fully recognised. Let me repeat: these also apply to inquests, not just to the legacy commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential.

Let me turn to the matter of when this process comes to an end, which is something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) tabled amendment 50, which sought to remove clause 85. I agree with him, so I have added my name to the amendment—it is now a Government amendment. This means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the commission comes to an end. In practice, it means that we will simply vote for clause 85 not to stand part of the Bill, when we get to that moment. I believe that this will provide a clear end to troubles-related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and for his gratitude when I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests—full stop, punto final.

As several Members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work, as was demonstrated by the legacy Act. As Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has repeatedly made clear to me, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South—and the public, co-operation from the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the commission’s ability to find answers for families. That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework, and it is why we are committed to implementing it.

Let us be clear about what that means. Records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers about how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. However, we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information that is vital to this process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

That matter is particularly pertinent when it comes to consideration of the Omagh bombing. Given the material that we are discussing today, what indication has the Secretary of State had from the Irish Government that they will withdraw their inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights? It seems to me that they are very reluctant to act at all.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. By the time we finish considering the Bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with its inter-state case at all. I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in the Dillon judgment, but the legislation that we are advancing today is fully human rights-compliant, and that there is therefore no argument for them maintaining their inter-state case.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State says that he very much hopes that the Dublin Government would move at the conclusion of today’s consideration. Has he had that conversation with them, and have they given him the assurance that that is what they intend to do?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, to the first part. As I have just said, I have said this very robustly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee on several occasions. They have kept their own counsel for the moment, but it seems to me inconceivable that, by the time the Bill gets to the House of Lords, there could be an argument for them maintaining the inter-state case, and I therefore hope that they will withdraw it. I am being as clear as I can with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it is good to have power sharing in Northern Ireland and that I should not be running Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I think it is important that the Secretary of State has reiterated the point that the commission will have the ability to take information from the Irish Government. However, without revisiting yesterday’s debates, does that not put into stark relief the fact that while information has been available for the last 28 years, it was revealed only last week? There will be many other instances of information that could beneficially have been considered and led to a change. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned that the history that we repeat time and again with the Irish Government, where they are not forthcoming with the full information and they withhold information, should be a cause for concern for this House and how we deal with the legacy of the past?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. The question then is simply how one addresses that and ensures that one gets the future co-operation that has been promised and committed to by the Irish Government. I am more hopeful than he is, I guess—he may say that is because he has more scars on his back than I have in this regard. I think that between the two of us, with his scepticism and my hope, we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes.

On the Omagh bombing, it is inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the same conversations today as we had yesterday, as Members understandably referred then to issues that we are voting on today. However, I would just say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire that with my understanding of the terms of reference of the Omagh inquiry, we slightly disagree on this matter. I think it will be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. More importantly, however, as I said yesterday, it is really important that the fullest possible co-operation is shown, and, where the chief counsel has already said that they are not happy with that co-operation, it is incumbent on the Irish Government to step up to the plate.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, although this is all on one sentence, and it is the right hon. Gentleman’s second go.

[Dr Murrison]

I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate the importance of this point, as it does touch on the events of late 1998. There will be people out there watching the process of the Bill and wondering why they are, in effect, excluded from it. With the Bill as drafted, the suspicion may very well be that that is to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, as the material that has been referred to would then come into scope if we were to extend this, perfectly reasonably, to the end of 1998, rather than confining it to the events prior to April 1998. If I may say so, the Secretary of State gave no compelling reason yesterday why the amendments that have been tabled to that effect would not be accepted by the Government.

[Chris Bryant]

You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, all right.

[Jim Allister]

Good grace. [Laughter.] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date.

Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution. In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep.

I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.

The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.

However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language. To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite what others in the Chamber may think, it is vital that both the British and Irish Governments work together? Indeed, if we do not have that arrangement in place and there are issues around the disclosure or onward passing of facts, those will never be flushed out?

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done in this field. It is really important that people understand how significant the potential of close co-operation in this field is in getting answers for people, and in particular those whose concerns may be about what happened in the south and came up into the north. One of the issues I have raised directly—a couple of hon. Members have raised this with me—is about gelignite, which came before Semtex, and how it seems that in Northern Ireland we were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe, but there was one quarry in the Republic that managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite. Those are the issues that we really do need to progress, because if we are going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, the clue will be not just in what happened in Northern Ireland but in what happened across the piece. That is why it is so important.

Because I am a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I therefore think that co-operation is the best way to proceed. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is on manoeuvres.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On that point, clause 72(5) says that the independent commission on information retrieval

“must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland”.

Who will make the assessment of whether something that the ICIR is looking at could risk the national security of the Republic of Ireland?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a good question, to which I do not have the answer. With any luck, I will be inspired by the time the hon. Member gets to his feet and catches your eye, Ms Ghani, and I will come back to him.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I have a horrible fear that this has set off my old sparring partner.

[David Davis]

To add to that point, when the Secretary of State looks at that, will he also look at elements written into the Irish constitution, particularly with respect to the operation of the Garda and its duty to protect the reputation of the Irish state? That will also cripple any attempt to expose information.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member makes a very good point. The Irish constitution has sometimes made it far more difficult for the Irish Government to be able to co-operate, and that is why they have had to legislate in some of these areas in a way that we would not have to in the United Kingdom. That is why the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South is so important and why the legislation they are advancing answers many of these precise issues in direct terms. These issues, which we do need to address, are not lost on Ministers in Dublin.

We have always been committed to repealing those parts of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023—that were incompatible with our human rights obligations and which we felt were morally wrong as they risked providing equal immunity to terrorists and denying UK citizens their historic right to seek civil redress. In the interests of providing swift and early clarity, we had proposed to do that via the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was with us yesterday—among others argued that putting those measures in the Bill would allow greater scrutiny without undue delay. Consequently, Government new clause 52 alongside amendments 244, 245, 268 and others move the operative provisions of the remedial order into the Bill. That brings the whole package together, ensuring that there is a clear transition between the legacy Act and the troubles Bill.

On Second Reading and in our engagement on the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the so-called on-the-runs letters to which a couple of hon. Members referred yesterday. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) have tabled amendments on the matter that aim to put the status of those letters beyond doubt. I know that I referred to this yesterday, but, because this matter is before us today, I do want to return to it.

Those letters did not provide any individual with immunity from prosecution, and they are not legally binding guarantees against future prosecution. That has been confirmed by the 2014 Hallett review and by numerous Ministers under successive Administrations, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron. It has also been reiterated by the current chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher. However, I recognise the ongoing concern in relation to such letters, so I tabled new clause 51 to make it clear that they cannot be used to prevent or frustrate a prosecution.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I want to put my thanks on the record again. But at the crux of this discussion is how it must go out from the House that terrorism was always wrong, and that people in Northern Ireland and across the UK need to understand now that these letters never had been, never will and shall not be used to frustrate or deny any potential prosecutions that may come forward. Too many people in Northern Ireland have felt that too many had been cosying up with terrorists in the past. I hope that people will take comfort from knowing that these letters never will and never had that effect.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with every single word that the hon. Lady said. It absolutely needs to go out from the House that terrorism was and remains wrong in every single regard. Those who resorted to violence did so for reasons of their own, but not reasons that we could possibly countenance, and which we do not countenance in the legislation that we are advancing today.

As I have said, 90% of the 3,500 or more who were killed in the troubles were killed by paramilitaries. I would go further: a lot of families whom I have spoken to in Northern Ireland felt that on-the-run letters were part of a sort of amnesty that was granted to some people and not to others, or was granted to everyone, and that that meant they would never get answers to what happened to their loved ones. That was always wrong. I understand why people made difficult decisions when it came to the Good Friday agreement, but as one hon. Member said yesterday, we do not get peace without justice. I think the line in the Bible is that justice and peace shall kiss one another. That is what we have to achieve.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

With regards to the OTR letters, the Secretary of State will know that I spoke yesterday on that very issue. The fact that there is clarity today that you are progressing the amendment is welcome. However, on-the-run letters did have effect, as the Hyde Park bomber got away with his misdemeanours because of them. They did have effect. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I asked yesterday, whether the letters will have effect on the ongoing new prosecution of John Downey who, by the way, is hiding in the Republic of Ireland undercover? Will that have effect on the current prosecution he is facing?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.

[Chris Bryant]

And it is not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings being undergone either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. I will not comment on the specific incidents. I have made my views clear about why there should not be any amnesty for people involved. There was legislation introduced that meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand the kind of arrangement that that was. There were people and political parties who did not support the Good Friday agreement, and maybe these are some of the issues that were always troublesome for them. For me, it is important that at this stage we recognise that we need to get as many answers as possible for people, and that there cannot be that kind of immunity, amnesty—whatever we may call it.

The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now.

The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction. Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work.

Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control.

Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through. Anyway, finally—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Amen.

[Chris Bryant]

Very good.

Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government do not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This Government believe wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions on prosecutions taken by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are always taken independently, in the light of the individual facts and circumstances. However, there is a public interest in how such cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me do these two proposals, I will come back to him.

Yesterday we debated the amendments that will improve transparency around the approach to prosecutions within the legacy commission. We are also introducing two significant amendments to the prosecution of troubles-related offences. First, in new clause 49, we will require the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales to work together on joint guidance on applying the relevant code for prosecutors in respect of troubles-related offences in each jurisdiction. Although the vast majority of troubles-related offences occurred in Northern Ireland, such offences were committed across the UK and there is a shared interest and obligation in addressing the legacy of the past. The guidance will also be able to cover issues such as dealing with the complexity of historical evidence and the public-interest considerations in such cases. I have a “secondly” to come, but I feel the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has been quite patient.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is “finally” from me, in respect of interventions. The Secretary of State should be cautious when trying to push back against the notion that there are vexatious prosecutions. There are; there have been. We have seen prosecutions in Northern Ireland where the evidential test was not met the first time. It was revised and the evidential test was still not met, but it was suggested that the prosecution should proceed. At no stage during an abuse of process application or a no bail application, or at any other time during the case, did the evidence amount to anything close to meeting the prosecutorial test of likelihood of prosecution—we will leave aside that of public interest. The cases collapsed and the judge concluded that at the very start, the whole process was frail and the evidence did not amount to satisfying the test. Whenever we say—and we should not have fear to say this—that there are vexatious prosecutions, there are very good examples as to why that is said.

[Chris Bryant]

I hate to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House, Ms Ghani, but I do not think that will be his final contribution today, so it is not really his “finally”.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I have heard from a lot of people, and which I understand, about the very significant frustrations that have been felt, in particular by people in the veterans community. However, I think he meant to say that the prosecutorial decision is obviously about the likelihood of a successful prosecution, or in other words, a conviction. Sometimes the prosecuting authorities are wrong because a jury or a court decides that there is not a case to answer, and so on. I hear what he says, but I think he was only urging me to exercise caution in using the phrase, so I will do so.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you.

[Chris Bryant]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman says thank you. Secondly—[Interruption.] I will do my “secondly”, if he does not mind, because otherwise the logic of my speech will fall apart. [Interruption.] Ms Ghani, you are not meant to look at me as if the logic of my speech has already fallen apart.

Secondly, to provide greater assurance, confidence and consistency in decisions to prosecute, we are introducing a requirement for the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to provide consent for prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences. To be clear, when making such decisions the Attorney General must act quasi-judicially and independently of the Government. There is precedent for that approach. Some have questioned it, but it was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and since most troubles-related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland but some were in Great Britain, that will provide a single and therefore consistent last determinant. Let me be clear: that in no way obviates the role of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland or the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales—in fact, we are strengthening their role—but I think it gives the right balance.

I trust that the Government amendments address the concerns raised by various Members in respect of the decisions to prosecute, including those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who tabled an amendment to insert additional steps in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I am now coming to my final “finally”, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would like to intervene.

[Jim Allister]

I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am always in favour of consistency, and I am sure that that is how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their guidance.

Finally, I look forward to listening to the further contributions of hon. Members today as we continue to consider amendments and that clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. I really hope that we are able to get the Bill right today. It is about achieving a balance, and I hope that that is what our amendments will do.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working

“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]

I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.

All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.

Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.

[Chris Bryant]

Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.

[Alex Burghart]

As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.

[Chris Bryant]

I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.

[Alex Burghart]

it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—

[Chris Bryant]

No.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.

“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.

Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was

“eroding the will to fight”.

In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have found the conduct of the debate, today and yesterday, deeply encouraging. It has been thoughtful and meaningful, and the passionate speeches that we have heard have informed my insight and understanding in respect of Northern Ireland veterans and of all the other issues. Indeed, my hope for democracy, candour and a progressive Parliament has generally been restored, following other debates that I have had the privilege of sitting in on.

As you will know, Ms Ghani, I spoke to the Committee yesterday about some of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those changes: he has listened. The change on equivalence matters to me, as do protections against people being investigated again and again for some of the same events. However, I still think that we have got the architecture of the Bill wrong from the start. What happens to outstanding inquests is of concern, and balancing truth and reconciliation with justice is almost impossible. Let me explain why.

We have 38 inquests that have stopped. They will restart under the Bill; some will go back to the coronial system, while others will go to the legacy commission. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell me whether the inquests that sat with the Solicitor General can go straight to the commission, or whether will they need to be opened, as inquests, before they move to the commission following a recommendation.

[Chris Bryant]

When the Solicitor General carries out his sift of those processes, they will go straight to the legacy commission.

[Al Carns]

That is encouraging to know, but although these are deaths from the same conflict being considered decades later, we are deliberately providing two different routes for dealing with them. For more than 12 months I have recommended that we create a single centralised body to deal with the troubles-related issues. I know that there are some who would be uncomfortable with that, particularly those who represent families who have waited a very long time for an inquest, and I understand why that is. I am not suggesting for a moment that those families should lose the work that has already been done; the evidence gathered should go with the case. Nor am I seeking to prevent prosecutions. If the commission finds evidence that someone committed a criminal offence, whether that person wore a uniform or belonged to a terrorist organisation, that evidence should go to the prosecuting authorities. I am trying to get us to one process in which we can have some confidence.

There is a reason why I feel strongly about this. We need to be very careful about the history that we are creating through the legacy process, and also to think about why it is impossible to balance truth and reconciliation with justice. The state kept a great many records during the troubles; of course it did. Operations were recorded and reports were written, and the people involved can often be identified. There is an enormous amount of material about what the British state did and did not do. The IRA and other terrorist groups did not keep operational records. There is no equivalent archive sitting somewhere with records of who gave an order, who carried it out, and what happened afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you for calling me, Ms Ghani. It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He has been steadfast and faithful not only to the principles that he upholds and expounds, but to the bonds with his comrades and the legislation’s consequences for them. He has acted in a selfless way, and I guess that is the mark of the man. There are many in politics who would not have taken the position that he did, so it is a pleasure to follow him, and I thank him for his contribution.

I feel I need to do this given his speech, but I must mention the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He started off almost apologetically this afternoon, and last week, after the carry-over motion, he took sanctuary in Londonderry with me and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He feared he had done something inexplicable: he had united the House against him. I did not agree with that assessment, but I believe he is approaching these issues with a level of diligence that we appreciate, and I thank him for that.

Yesterday, I spoke more broadly about the Bill and the amendments then before the Committee. Sometimes I lament that, on issues such as legacy, far too many people hear what they think is being said because of the person saying it, and they do not listen to the contributions being made. There are people in this debate who think, “Well, they would say that anyway, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Brits,” or, “They would say that, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Irish,” or, “They would acquiesce, wouldn’t they—always in the face of terror.” I do not think that does this debate any good. There are people I fundamentally disagree with—we are on different sides of the Chamber and we will be in different Lobbies this evening—but there are things they say and contributions they make in this debate that I agree with.

I do worry that, so often in this debate, there seems to be a tension between victims and innocent victims and soldiers, or should we say “state combatants”? Some would describe them as that, but I think it is disrespectful. We pit individuals against one another. Why does somebody like me talk about veterans and the need for veterans’ protection? It is because those individuals volunteered to stand up for the things that we value in this country.

I listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who is not in his place at the moment. He said that when the Army was deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not deployed for one side or another. That is not quite right. It was deployed on the one side that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland were on: those who believe in the rule of law and in upholding the decency of democracy. It was deployed to stand up for our values. When I say “our values” I mean Protestant, Catholic, dissenter, none—those who believe in the values that hold our society together. The Army was deployed on the side against those who wanted to destroy our nation, destroy our livelihoods and take our lives.

That is why the Army was deployed and that is why we owe it to the veterans—as a Parliament, as a legislative Chamber—to provide protections. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge regard though we clashed many times on these issues, will know that I asked him not to talk about protections for veterans if they did not amount to measures that protected those very same veterans. Talk of safeguards and talk of measures that may be brought forward which could provide some level of comfort, but let us not describe them as protections if they do not protect.

What we hear and see before us today, and throughout the course of these debates, are the following measures: fairness, dignity and respect. They are offered as a protection to veterans. There should be fairness, dignity and respect for anybody in these processes. Of course, they do not apply to veterans; they apply to everyone. On witness participation, witnesses should not be compelled to participate unless there is “new and compelling evidence”. It is offered as a protection for veterans, but it is something that applies in principle to everyone. I do not challenge that, but I do not pretend it is something it is not. On older veterans, this legislation and the amendments before us would guarantee that they are treated with respect and with care, and that an assessment is made if needed. That is their participation. It does not just apply to older veterans. It is presented, wrongly and mischievously, as a protection for veterans, but, rightly, it is an application of a principle that applies to all.

Then we have the provisions around the Attorney General and the consent required in Government new clause 50. Veterans asked for this. Veterans asked for the Attorney General, who also serves as the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to be incorporated into this process. That it has been offered, satisfies the requests of veterans. They asked for it because they do not trust—I heard it earlier mentioned—the politics of Northern Ireland in prosecutions. Our prosecution service in Northern Ireland is independent of politics—it is independent of politics in Northern Ireland—but the consent required of the Attorney General is given because it has been requested by veterans, and veterans assume that it will add some level of protection. But it will not.

Whenever that has been challenged, and whenever the Secretary of State has been challenged about why he is doing it—challenged by victims, challenged by loved ones and challenged by others—he gives an answer that he gave again last night. It is in Hansard. He says:

“yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 867.]

What started as a request from veterans has been welcomed by some veterans’ groups who think it will add some level of protection or cover from the infected process they see in Northern Ireland, but it will not. We know very clearly: one, applies to everyone; two, quasi-judicial process; and three, just replicating exactly the same principles of the prosecutors who are making the decision in Northern Ireland in the first place. So the question is this: why do it at all? What benefit is there at all if they are replicating the same process which is approached independently, is quasi-judicial and applies legal application? What does it add to the process at all?

I said it this morning to a wider audience in Northern Ireland and I will say it again this evening: the problem with this proposition is that it started as a request. That request was acquiesced to and people were led to believe that it was a level of protection. When challenged by victims who say, “How can you be stepping in to protect? How can you provide a mechanism that is going to protect a certain cohort?” the answer is, “Well, actually, it doesn’t apply to them alone; it applies to everyone and actually, it is just exactly the same application of principle that you will see in Northern Ireland. It is quasi-judicial anyway and of course it could be judicially reviewed.”

The reason I raise these points is because I think it is fundamentally important that people speak accurately—accurately, Ms Ghani.

[Chris Bryant]

Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Attorney General move, or not?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am happy to sit down and take a further intervention. I asked this: what is the point if it replicates exactly the same process and applies exactly the same principle as adheres to Northern Ireland prosecutions? Why make it a provision in this legislation? Why bring forward the amendment? It was acquiescence to a request from veterans—that is where it started—and then it came from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has been presented as a protection for some, yet it applies to everyone equally and is a replication of a process that already exists. My question—it is not a question for me as to whether I support it—for the Secretary of State is why it has been introduced at all.

[Chris Bryant]

I have already explained it at some length, both yesterday and earlier today. I think the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I said it. This is not to take anything away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. They are going to be co-operating on producing guidelines on how these decisions are to be arrived at, but there will be some instances that relate to troubles-related deaths in England. There will be some—relatively small compared to the number of Northern Ireland—and it makes sense that there is consistency across the whole United Kingdom. It is a process that has been used elsewhere and that is why we are advocating it. I ask again, does he support the amendment or not?

[Gavin Robinson]

Every time the Secretary of State speaks, he confuses issues and muddies the waters. Does the process apply to every case, or just to those in England?

[Chris Bryant]

This is slightly odd now, but of course it applies to all cases. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I ask again, does he support the measure or not? He has privately argued for it to me in the past.

[Gavin Robinson]

First, I put forward the request from veterans’ organisations, as well the Minister knows. Secondly, if the Secretary of State is incapable of arguing, or unwilling to argue, for the added benefit of the proposition as presented today, that will be of interest to many listening in the House. Do not pretend that protections are being offered when they are not. Do not pretend that they do something different from what they are intended to do. For the Secretary of State to say what he has just said says an awful lot more about him than me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, behave.

[Gavin Robinson]

It does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

The Good Friday agreement and the peace that we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We in this House are united by the debt that we owe to the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Many of them trace their story back to my patch, the home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, one of the IRA’s first attacks on mainland Britain, targeting the headquarters of the 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost. Their families, and all those who lost loved ones during the troubles, are in my thoughts today.

These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. That is why I have sat in this Chamber for all proceedings on the Bill over a year in this place, except for those on last week’s carry-over motion. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January, calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans; why I have spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations; and why I facilitated direct discussions between veterans’ groups, the Northern Ireland Secretary and No. 10, working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba).

I thank all members of our armed forces community who have engaged with me during this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association and its Aldershot branch, the Royal British Legion, and those watching our debate in the Gallery today. I have been determined to ensure that their voices are heard in this legislation. Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served; we have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in the new legacy arrangements; and we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were focused only on taking lives.

I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People; they have listened, engaged and acted. I wish only that we could have started from here. The Bill is much improved on the version that first came before this House, but I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will abstain on the vote on Third Reading.

There are some in the House who would do away with the Bill altogether. I would not, as we would then lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families—including hundreds of armed forces families—deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veteran’s charter, but I respectfully disagree with them. There must be accountability, but those who have dedicated their life to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their life fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that the legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve, and it is clear to me that there is still more work to be done.

We have heard in this debate about soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could still face yet another process. If this Bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause. As someone who is proud to represent a seat in which there are 5,000 serving personnel, I want those who serve today and in the future to know that we will always have their back.

[Chris Bryant]

First, I want to put on the record from the Dispatch Box the gratitude of the whole Northern Ireland team to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is sitting behind her, for the work that they have done. Some of the changes that we have made to the Bill at this stage would not have been possible without her contribution. She said that the process has not ended; I believe that, too. I undertake that the whole ministerial team and I will work with her and others, as well as with the Parachute Regimental Association and other associations, to get the Bill to the right place by the time it is enacted.

[Alex Baker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it.

I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration.

Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.

--- Later in debate ---

I worked on this subject many years ago before I was an MP, as a barrister. I was involved in working on behalf of the MOD, defending our soldiers against vexatious and malicious claims brought by people in Iraq against our brave soldiers who were engaged in military action out there. Litigation and class actions—resulting in zero convictions, mind you—were initiated by Shiner, and Starmer and, I am afraid, Hermer were involved. That disgraceful trio should hang their heads in shame for the part they played in bringing legal actions, unfairly and unjustifiably, against our brave British troops.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the serious points that the right hon. Lady made earlier on was about the operational context in which people served. Does she welcome new clause 32 that we have tabled?

[Suella Braverman]

It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.

As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton]

I rise having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90. The test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for Government; it is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence? Does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny, however much time has passed? I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met that test.

Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it and, where new evidence emerges, to seek further answers.

We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort, despite the attempted rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism. In June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down, the constituency which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station. His name reminds us that terrorist violence has victims and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth.

That principle applies to every family regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and a confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is serious about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims before it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny and refuse to let any Government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.

Having looked at the clauses, I see that some have been improved. I recognise the provision for on-the-run letters—that is good, and I applaud the Government for trying to get that right. However, there are other areas where I still have concerns. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is not in his place, made a powerful speech, and I was very taken by his comment about the Irish Government and their Bill going through the process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill does not guarantee that victims, families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish Government. We are being sold a pup on getting all the information we need from the Irish Government. Labour Members can sigh, but in my experience, we do not ever get very much information from the Irish Government. I stand by that.

Many months ago, I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. That information, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier. The PSNI told me that it could not investigate that because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the legacy commission, but the legacy commission would not accept the case from me because, as an MP, I could not refer cases to it.

The only avenue for me to get this case looked at, because of legacy, was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgment of where this case is going or not going. That makes me suspicious that this very serious issue about legacy that I am raising as an MP is not being addressed, yet we are expecting this Bill to answer all the questions. I do not think the Irish Government will give us everything we want on this issue.

[Chris Bryant]

I will make sure that the hon. Member gets an answer to his letter by the end of the week.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Secretary of State for that, but I have deep concerns. It is not that I do not want truth or reconciliation. There have just been too many false dawns for me and my colleagues representing constituencies right across Northern Ireland, and I do not have a huge amount of faith in this process. For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I thank her for her eloquence and advocacy. She communicated with such power, conviction and sense, and I thank her for what she has said. I thank all hon. Members, right hon. Members and gallant Members for the incredible contributions that have been made over the last two days. People have come to this vexed and troubling issue with a great deal of commitment and determination to get to the right outcome for a better future and a better understanding of the past, and I thank the hon. Lady for that.

I was not born in Northern Ireland, and I do not live there, but my grandparents were from Belfast. They were a Protestant and a Catholic who left for the perfect, peaceful idyll that is the west of Scotland. My maternal great-grandparents were from Carrickmacross in County Monaghan, and all my wife’s family are from Tyrone. That part of the world supplied the working-class labour that brought about the burgeoning iron and steel industry. Our connections and associations with the island of Ireland are deep, and there is a passion for people to see a positive outcome and resolution and to include the many working-class men who found themselves on the streets in Northern Ireland in their tender years. I thank again the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

I welcome this Bill as an important improvement on the previous Government’s deeply flawed legacy Act. Repealing the conditional amnesty scheme and restoring civil proceedings are significant steps towards delivering truth, justice and accountability. I recognise the vital importance of treating former service personnel fairly, including by acknowledging the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which many served. I had the pleasure of being one of the founding members of the Royal British Legion’s Solicitors Group, which is pro bono. I have worked with service personnel at close quarters, and I am overwhelmed and overawed by their commitment and dedication to their duty.

It has been said in recent hours in this debate that nobody is questioning the performance of our service personnel who found themselves in that situation, and that it is not veterans against civilians. I met two senior retired Army officers last month—Lieutenant Colonel the Reverend Nicholas Mercer and Brigadier John Donnelly CBE—thanks to Amnesty International and the Centre for Military Justice. Both of them challenged the suggestion that British forces have faced a flood of vexatious litigation under the European convention on human rights, and I worry about the scaremongering that has been perpetrated in that regard. As Nicholas Mercer has argued, the application of the Human Rights Act is vital, because it means that the guilty can be held accountable and the innocent exonerated. That is an important principle. Human rights protections are not the enemy of fair treatment for veterans; they are part of what makes that fairness possible.

However, I must express my concerns. The Government have chosen to publish such a voluminous package of amendments with barely seven days’ notice and have given us just two days to consider them, and that is a concern. I am also concerned about some of the tonality, which has explicitly presented the Bill as providing additional legal protections and safeguards for veterans. Whatever the Government’s intentions, some of these measures may be viewed very differently by victims’ families, particularly those who spent decades seeking answers about the actions of the state and the circumstances in which their loved ones died. What is presented to veterans as reassurance may be experienced by those families as another barrier to justice.

That matters enormously. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to not only improve the legal framework for dealing with the past, but rebuild confidence among communities whose trust in the institutions of the state has been profoundly damaged by their experience of the troubles. He said yesterday—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the principle of the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation when the Public Office (Accountability) Bill passes. I hope he will intervene on me, because I am seeking some clarification. Surely the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation, not simply the principle.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is quite right that the Hillsborough Bill, as most people think of it, is still going through its processes in the House of Lords. As I have said to him privately, and will say again from the Dispatch Box, we want to mesh the duty of candour with this Bill once the Hillsborough Bill has completed its processes in the Lords. It would be premature for us to do it now before the Bill has finished its processes in the Lords, but yesterday, I committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—he is sitting next to my hon. Friend—that as soon as we have done that, I will work with him to make sure we get this right, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend as well. It is not just the principle; it is the concept. It is the duty of candour.

[Andy McDonald]

I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That is immensely helpful, but I revert to my point that in seeking to reassure one constituency, there is a risk of undermining the confidence of others—not only in the Government’s approach to reconciliation, but in their ability to secure truth, accountability and access to justice.

Most seriously, I fear that some of these proposals risk cutting across the detailed institutional safeguards established through the Good Friday agreement and the reforms that followed it. The first is Government new clause 50 and the Attorney General’s consent to prosecutions. That new clause would require the Attorney General’s consent before proceedings could be instituted for the most serious troubles-related offences. What is the compelling justification for introducing this additional political safeguard into the prosecution process? That question has been raised by other Members, and I join them in asking it. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it risks undermining a central reform arising from the Good Friday agreement. The 2000 criminal justice review specifically sought to protect prosecutorial independence by removing the Attorney General’s power to direct prosecutors in individual cases or on policy matters.

That reform was particularly important because of the history of political interference and concerns about the prosecution of members of the security forces during the conflict. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies evidential and public interest tests when deciding whether to prosecute. Why should a further decision now rest with a Government-appointed law officer who is potentially exposed to representations from ministerial colleagues? The de Silva report into the murder of Pat Finucane documented political pressure on the then Attorney General over the prosecution of state agent Brian Nelson. That history demonstrates precisely why those institutional safeguards were introduced.

Government new clause 50 also appears to impose no requirement on the Attorney General to explain a refusal of consent, while the availability of judicial review may be limited. How can families have confidence in a process where an independent prosecutor might conclude that a serious offence should be prosecuted, only for a Government law officer to prevent that prosecution without adequate explanation or scrutiny?

The Good Friday agreement was not simply a political declaration of peace and reconciliation. Its implementation required detailed reforms to institutions, including the criminal justice system, designed to establish independence and to instil public confidence. We have to tread with the greatest care not to undermine the Good Friday agreement in any way. We should be extremely cautious about disturbing those safeguards, particularly when it would risk reviving precisely the concerns that they were intended to address. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider new clause 50. Fairness for veterans must not mean creating a new mechanism through which serious criminality could escape prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann]

A number of Members have mentioned the Stormont House agreement in connection with the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval. My party opposed the agreement because of the provisions that brought about an amnesty by default for all but murderers; at that point, it became a flawed expedition. Let me return to my earlier question to the Secretary of State. Clause 72(5) states:

“The ICIR must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”

It also states, in paragraph (c), that the ICIR must not do anything that

“would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on any actual or prospective legal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”

In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State said that he would try to find the answer to my question by the time I made my speech, so I will ask him again: who makes the assessment that something will be prejudicial to the national security of Ireland, or to a prospective legal proceeding in Ireland? That is not in the remit of this Government or this place; nor will it, or should it, be in the remit of the ICIR. As yet, we do not know who the body corporate will be, and who will be part of it. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has found the answer to my question, but if he has not, he may wish to write to me.

[Chris Bryant]

I have been inspired. Let me say first that national security is obviously a matter for the respective Governments, but in the UK, it is solely a matter for the UK. The provision in the Bill replicates the drafting of the ICIR treaty, which was signed by the UK Conservative Government and the Irish Government back in 2015. It also replicates the drafting of Ireland’s “General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”, which states:

“In performing its functions the ICIR shall not do anything that could reasonably be expected to…prejudice the national security interests of the State”—

the Irish state—

“or the United Kingdom”.

In other words, we look after our security, and they look after theirs.

[Robin Swann]

I fully appreciate that, but that is not what the Bill says. It says that the ICIR will make the decision. I have asked the Secretary of State who makes the assessment on behalf of the Irish Government of what constitutes national security. This is not solely about the United Kingdom. However, I will engage with the Secretary of State to seek clarification on that point.

The Secretary of State quoted what has been said previously; that does not explain to me what the Bill actually contains. He talks of the Irish Government and their role. I welcomed his comment in the past that the UK Government would work in lockstep with the Irish Government, but he is aware of the distrust that many of us feel about what the Irish Government will bring forward, and when they will do it. What plans does he have, in case they do not bring it forward? He has said that parts of the Bill will be enacted in lockstep with the Irish Government’s legislation, but what happens if they do not produce and enact it? Will he start to repeal parts of the Bill, or will the parts that have already been enacted still stand? I think I know the answer to that, but I am explaining our concern about the Irish Government acting in lockstep with the United Kingdom.

I see where the Government are going on this; that comes from the experience of having been involved in negotiations with the Irish Government—Stormont House, the fresh start, Haass-O’Sullivan and all those other things. At one stage, we were sitting in a room with Charlie Flanagan and Danny Kennedy, discussing what would come forward from the Irish Government about Kingsmill. The Kingsmill families were promised the release of Irish Government documentation, and what did they actually finish up with? A folder of newspaper clippings. That is where the inherent concern that many in Northern Ireland still have about what the Irish Government will release comes from—if, indeed, they release anything about the substantive cross-border incidents that we still want to raise concerns about. When the Secretary of State works with the Irish Government on this legislation, I hope he finds them more productive than any previous Government have been.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned what, in previous iterations of the Bill, was put forward as protections for veterans. We were told at one stage that those protections did not need to be in the legislation, because the Government said that there would be protections. I welcome the fact that those protections are now part of the legislation, but they are not solely for veterans, and I think it is important to clarify that.

When I met the Secretary of State to ask him about protections for our veterans, he said it was not his office but the Ministry of Defence—the corporate body—that would be the first port of call. However, what body acts on behalf of former RUC police officers? He has said—I know this is in the Bill—that there is a power to put that duty on a body, but no such body is specified for them. We are therefore looking at a dual process for these protections. I am thinking of the joint UDR and RUC operations—the joint vehicle checkpoints—that often took place. Whereas the UDR may get support via the Ministry of Defence, there is no body to support a former RUC officer who was standing at the same point, on the same duty, under the same threat, defending the same right of democracy in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State expedite the decision on what that body will be? What worries me is that this will fall on the voluntary organisations that are currently stepping up—the likes of the South East Fermanagh Foundation and, as mentioned previously, the Royal British Legion—to which veterans are already going for support.

The explanatory statement for new clause 51, which has been mentioned, states that the clause will prevent

“the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content of an ‘on the run’ letter.”

This provision still relates to the content of the letters. The issue is not that they cannot be relied on any longer; it is wrong that those letters exist. It would have been better if the Government had tabled an amendment that nullified those on-the-run letters, rather than simply saying that they will prevent the stopping of prosecutions for reasons relating to their content.

The remit of the Attorney General has been mentioned; a number of opponents have spoken about why the Attorney General should not have that role. We agree. What was proposed in the first iteration of the legislation was a panel of judges, rather than a political appointee. The provision involving the Attorney General is a replication of what is in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I again seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State that this Government are not by default looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland as an overseas operation. Parts of this legislation are starting to treat us very differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, when it comes to the atrocities.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for tabling new clause 12, which is about reconciliation. He has been a champion of reconciliation. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now doing a serious piece of work on what that would actually look like. The Bill expands the scope of who could and should be involved not just in the work of the Committee, but in the work of the Government to bring forward what reconciliation in Northern Ireland truly looks like.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister—sorry, the Secretary of State.

[Chris Bryant]

And Minister, indeed. Thank you, Ms Nokes. It is good to see you in the Chair, as always.

First, can I just refer to the points where I think we are all agreed? There has, remarkably, been quite a lot of agreement, both yesterday and today, on a series of things. First, on the issue of on-the-run letters, I note the point made earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and his gratitude for finally putting the provision in legislation. That matter was raised by several hon. Members.

I am grateful to those who agree that it is important that we will not start any new inquests once the legacy commission has completed its work. The legacy commission will have five years in which people can still make applications to it and five years to complete its work, but at the end of that period it surely must be right that we do not then start any more inquests. There has to come a time at which this process comes to an end.

I am also grateful to everybody who has recognised that we want to work in lockstep with the Irish Government—not running ahead of them, not running behind them, but working in lockstep with them—because it is only when we get full co-operation between the two Governments that we will be able to deliver the kind of answers that lots of hon. Members have been referring to. [Interruption.] I understand that there is scepticism around the Committee. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is chuntering from the Front Bench again, is full of scepticism on nearly everything related to this Government. In fact, I sometimes think, when I see him sitting there, that he could probably have a row with himself if he was stuck inside a cardboard box all on his own. On these occasions, though, there are quite a few things on which we agree, and that is where I am trying to start my remarks.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He is right: these debates yesterday and today have proceeded much more amicably and respectfully than people had perhaps anticipated. I think that is probably because they have been informed by many different perspectives, including from those who have been around for many years in this House, those who have served, those who have never served before, those who have direct experience of living in Northern Ireland and those who have many constituents who have served in Northern Ireland. There have been many different perspectives, and many different political perspectives. That is important but, of course, in the words of her late Majesty, “some recollections may vary”. Today I have heard various accounts, from different perspectives, of almost identical occasions. That has informed our debate rather than undermined it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State misses the point. All that information sharing, which is permitted and is in the gift of those authorities, is about answering the question before the inquiry: whether UK state authorities could have prevented the atrocity. That does not deal with the other side of the coin, which is whether the Irish authorities had information that could have prevented the atrocity. That can be dealt with in one of two ways: a parallel inquiry in the south—that is before the courts again today, because they refused to give it—or, at least, the fail-safe mechanism of the legacy commission being able to consider the case. The Secretary of State is right that this issue was for yesterday, but he raises it because he recognises the cross-border nature of the legacy commission’s ability to take information from the Irish Government.

[Chris Bryant]

We are relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I have said. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) argued that our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There is actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and it would be inappropriate to put the matter into the legacy commission. It is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work, as with the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and that into the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 32, which I think he intends to press to a vote in a few short moments, and I want to speak to that briefly. I think it falls at the first hurdle because, as he said in his speech, it would be inappropriate for us to have measures that apply only to one category of people. We do not believe that it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focused on getting information for families, does so in a way that does not needlessly duplicate aspects of investigations that have already obtained valuable information. That does not serve anyone—not victims, not witnesses and not the legacy commission, which will want to ensure that its resources are used as efficiently as possible. The collection of protections that the Government have put forward were designed following consultation with veterans—that is true—and were not included in the legacy Act. All these measures have been introduced to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. For those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment 32.

Turning to amendment 51 by my beknighted friend the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), on which I think he also intends to have a separate Division, I understand the anxiety and concerns there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on how we should proceed. As he will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment—it is something we committed to before the general election and as part of our manifesto—to restore those inquests that were in progress but were halted by the legacy Act, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On one of the reasons for that, I can quote Andy Seaman, the brother of Private Tony Harrison, who was murdered by the IRA in 1991. He said:

“My brother’s case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition”

—that is, the Conservative party—

“cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims’ families—including military victims—when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite”.

Respect for veterans and accountability are not opposing principles. They are both part of the same principle: the rule of law. We are not opening a new inquest into Loughgall; we are restoring the inquest that was under way as a result of being directed by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), to comply with our human rights obligations. He said in September 2015:

“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”

There are two other issues which I think Members intend for us to vote on. The first is new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State. I understand the thrust of what he is trying to say, though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment into the armed forces is up now for the first time in about a decade. It is up 7% in general and the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. I do not think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces. I am absolutely certain that he would not expect us to be specific about the numbers in special forces. More importantly, his amendment is cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. The idea of setting up a new person to investigate recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he has put it in his amendment, is inappropriate, which is why we are not intending to support his amendment.

[Alex Burghart]

I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within special forces? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.

[Chris Bryant]

Because it is not germane to the matter that we are considering today—

[Alex Burghart]

It is entirely germane.

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman and simply say to him that I think it is inappropriate to try to make some false equation between the legislation we are considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If he is going to continue making those kinds of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.

[Alex Burghart]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.

[Chris Bryant]

I know the shadow Secretary of State is getting himself worked up about this argument. I do not think he really believes the argument that he is advancing. [Interruption.] I read it rather differently.

The truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as have both the Ministers who are here beside me—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I have spoken to a large number of those who have served, and they are very keen to make sure we have a Bill that is balanced and fair. That is precisely what we are going to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said, it does us no favours when we exaggerate and seek to undermine recruitment into the armed forces, in particular into the special forces.

[Al Carns]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The Secretary of State is not obliged to give way.

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak.

[Al Carns]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The reality is that, across the conventional force, we have seen an uptick in recruitment and a reduction in people leaving due to retention issues. It is the first time in 10 to 14 years that we have seen an increase—it is a huge success. We have to be careful of conflating two things that are going on within a more specialist community. One is a Northern Ireland Bill, which, whether we like it or not, does not resonate with the rank and file of the individuals in our community, and one is other inquests and inquiries that in some cases do. We need to keep a very close eye on that in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure the Secretary of State will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure we are monitoring it and putting remedial action in place, should that be the case.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: it is important not to conflate things that do not necessarily belong together. Being able to fillet through the different aspects of what affects recruitment is what really ends up delivering results, and that is absolutely the role of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister for Veterans and People is sitting on the Front Bench, and that is one of the things he has in mind.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, has tabled new clause 12, which I think he intends to push to a vote. It would impose a new duty to promote reconciliation on the Secretary of State and require the Secretary of State to

“publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland”.

I have tabled quite a few of these kinds of amendments in the past, and I never expected or really wanted the Secretary of State to take them on. I suspect that this is a probing amendment. Clause 11(1) of the Bill already explicitly requires the legacy commission and its individual members to exercise their functions in a way that is consistent with

“the principle that reconciliation should be promoted”,

and that is precisely what we intend to do.

Two other issues have been of particular concern. One is the word “essential”. The Bill states that there should be no duplication of a process that has already been undergone elsewhere, either in an inquest or in the legacy commission. That is a really important part of what we are doing. The previous legislation introduced by the Conservatives used a lower bar—namely, the word “necessary”. We think “essential” is a higher bar. I hear the comments that Members have made about their not being convinced by that, and this is one of the issues I am sure we will want to return to in the House of Lords.

The other issue is compelling new evidence. One of the key asks that was put to me on a regular basis was ensuring that, before anybody could be interviewed as a witness or brought before the legacy commission, there had to be compelling new evidence. I completely agree, which is precisely why that is one of the measures we have included in the Bill. I think we have put it in the right place in the Bill, rather than right at the beginning.

The final point on which there is quite a bit of disagreement is the role of the Attorney General. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both said that they disagree with that role, and other Members are pulling me in different directions because they are not entirely convinced about it. I want to make it clear that the Attorney General is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. We are not seeking to undermine in any sense the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, and it would be completely inappropriate for the Attorney General to bear in mind at all any political considerations when making a prosecutorial decision. The only thing they are able to bear in mind is the traditional prosecutorial issue of whether there is a more than 50% chance of a successful prosecution and a conviction, and whether prosecution is in the public interest. I think that the measures will provide a greater sense of reassurance that there will be consistency across the piece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I want to start by expressing my very sincere thanks to the team who have been working on the Bill for some considerable time: Daniel Thrower, Charlotte Brennan, Sharon Carter, Niall Haughey, Philip Shaw, Will Durkin and the whole legacy team in the Northern Ireland Office. My thanks also to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is sitting by my side; the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); and, of course, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who brought in this Bill in the first place. I pay tribute to every single one of them.

We normally associate “legacy” with our inheritance from our parents or our ancestors. In some cases, it means wealth or property, or perhaps a family tradition that has been handed down through the generations—something that one family does differently from another. For most, our common legacy is a positive thing; it could be a sense of our shared history, or our national pride in the things that we do phenomenally well: our national health service, perhaps, or our storytellers, authors, playwrights and musicians, our bravery in two world wars, or our armed forces.

But the legacy in Northern Ireland is different. In many ways, it is a legacy of division, antagonism, sectarianism, and violence. It is a legacy of extraordinary trauma. In Greek, “trauma” originally meant a wound, but it means so much more. It is an open wound, in many cases. It is the wound felt by a woman who lost her brother, an RUC officer, years ago, and has nightmares all the time about how he died; by the man who goes to Marks & Spencer every day and sees the man who he knows killed his father, who served in the armed forces; by the man who gave up his college music course to join the Army when his brother was blown up, and still worries that he has never lived up to his brother, because he never found out precisely what happened to him when he was killed; by the young woman who worries that she cannot even remember her daddy, who was killed when she was so young that she cannot even remember his face, and she feels guilty about it; by the teenager who sees photos of his grandaddy, who was murdered by the IRA before he was born, every single time the troubles are reported on the news; or by the family who still have not located the body of the family member they know was killed.

Patrick Keefe, in “Say Nothing”, wrote this:

“Perhaps the cruellest feature of forced disappearance as an instrument of war is that it denies the bereaved any such closure, relegating them to a permanent limbo of uncertainty.”

I felt that so strongly recently, when I had the deeply sobering experience of visiting an active dig by the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains at Derryclone in County Antrim, where the commission’s dedicated investigators are to this day searching for the remains of Seamus Maguire. Seamus was just 26 years old when he was disappeared in Lurgan in 1973. My thoughts are, of course, with the Maguire family, as well as with the families of Columba McVeigh, Joseph Lynskey and Robert Nairac, who await the return of their loved ones. That is a phenomenal trauma that still lives in many families’ lives. When their loved ones had been disappeared, they still got letters from people pretending to be them—a particular form of cruelty.

When people say to me that people in Northern Ireland need to move on, my answer is no. No one has moved on more than the victims and survivors of the troubles. They are not living in the past; they are living with the past. If the trauma is not resolved and people do not get answers, it will pass on to the next generation.

I know that lots of people do not support every clause of this Bill—some do not support any clause it—but I relay the words of the Royal British Legion this week:

“Veterans and those Armed Forces families who lost loved ones in the conflict deserve answers. It is in the interests of the whole of Armed Forces community affected by the Troubles that steady progress is made to ensure this legislation’s provisions are effective.”

Although much of the debate yesterday and today has been about veterans, this is primarily about families. As Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, said:

“As parliamentarians you have the opportunity to provide legislation that puts victims and survivors at the heart of the new Bill and also provides mechanisms that will give confidence to victims and survivors who have waited too long. Their voices must shape and determine what happens next.”

I want to explain briefly why this really matters to me. Back in 1986, I was one of the first British people to be in Argentina after the dictatorship came to an end. Many of my friends had been tortured. I knew that they had been tortured—they spoke about it. One night, I went to a bar with a friend of mine. He went to the loo, and he stayed there for a very long time. I wondered what was happening, so I went to find him. He was lying on the floor in the cubicle in floods of tears, because, he said, the man standing next to us at the bar was the man who had tortured him systematically for two months, several years earlier. I said to him, “How can you possibly know? You always told me that you were blindfolded throughout.” He said, “Well, when somebody pushes your head down into shitty, icy cold water until you nearly drown five times a day, and when they apply electrodes to your genitals three times a day, you get to know them by the way they breathe, by the way they walk into the room, by the tenor of their voice. And I know that man is the man who tortured me.” That story is from a long time ago and from a different country, but I have met people in Northern Ireland who have faced exactly the same. Those people have never had an answer. They have never had a moment when what happened to them and their loved ones has even been recognised in the public domain.

This Bill is not about one group or another. It is not about special favours for one group or another. It is about honesty, candour, the pursuit of justice and, most importantly, truth, because in the end, only truth can really set us free.