Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

No, not on this point. I am nearly at the end. I have already been rebuked by the Chairman for going on.

What that soldier said is, I am afraid, consistent with what I saw. I have never appeared in an inquest, but I have appeared in a Diplock court in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Sorry, am I being heckled? I saw the same: the lawyers were interested in rewriting history. The IRA would welcome the restarting of the Loughgall inquest. They would view that as a victory in its own right, because it would allow them yet another attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles.

I will make an aside, which in a way goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), although it is the converse of it. One of the soldiers at Loughgall got the military medal. In my view, many of them should have done, but he got it for putting himself at extra risk to save civilians and to prevent the death of civilians. That tells us what we are dealing with in relation to British soldiers in Northern Ireland.

My last point is that this operation was approved in detail by the general officer commanding, Northern Ireland. I believe that it was approved in detail by the Secretary of State. It was reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all of the information to hand—forensics, witnesses, the lot. We should remember that RUC people would not have been involved directly, but would have given witness statements. Do we want to run that through a circumstance where the evidence is degraded, where people’s memories have gone and where some have died? One of the individuals involved has dementia. Is that what we want to do, or do we want to do it properly, by dispassionate method, using an instrument that is designed for the process and that those on both sides of the House agree will work?

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

I thank all those who have contributed to what has been a relatively constructive debate over the past two days. It is not lost on me that our work in this Chamber, and over the coming days in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is about the legacy of the troubles, paramilitary transition and a 1990s parading dispute, as if we did not have problems and challenges to deal with in the present day. The sad reality is that despite the seismic changes in our part of the world over the decades, the past is not the past; it infects and affects politics, policing and public services every day. That is why we need to get through it. Most of all, it affects victims and survivors who, through all the decades of change, have been told to wait while the rest of society is allowed to move on, and while the murders of their loved ones are justified, explained away or minimised.

The truth is that for three decades, the needs of those with most to hide have been prioritised, rather than the needs of those with most to heal. It is not the victims who have dragged this out; the lesson that has not been learned by some in this House is that we are still at this three decades on precisely because the information that families need has had to be clawed and prised out of the hands of those with most to hide. For those families and for the Social Democratic and Labour party, this legislation is not about being obsessed with the past. It is not about raking over what has gone on. It is fundamentally about the future and our ability to move forward together. That is why we make no apology for supporting this legislation or for trying to make it better.

I will address today’s clauses and schedules, and some of the amendments and arguments that have featured in the debate, including on the passage of time and the trope about vexatious investigations, and some statistics relating to those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) rightly set out in powerful detail the healing power accessed by truth for the Hillsborough families and the meaning that that has had for them. Another fact that bears repeating is that tens of thousands of republican and loyalist prisoners went through the justice system for their terrible crimes—crimes that our party stood firmly against in the face of provocation and sectarian horrors from every direction. Nobody here is calling those people heroes. Imperfect as that justice was, it did take place. Those who wish to describe those people as heroes—none of whom are sitting on these Benches or anywhere else—are bolstered by the failure to show any sort of nuance, and by the blind defence of some of the most brutal killings of the troubles.

We understand the pride that many in this Chamber feel for the British Army. We understand that of the 300,000 men—mostly men—and women who served, the vast majority did go out to try to keep the peace and to serve. We also need to restate that the number who have been investigated is practically in single figures. We acknowledge that many of the soldiers were subjected to horrors. We acknowledge their pain and the interventions of many of their families who are seeking access to truth, the same as any other family, because that is what this is about—not lawfare and revisionism.

I have to ask people to be careful with their language, when they use terms like “IRA lawyers”. Do Members know what has happened to people in the past when they have been named in this Chamber as IRA lawyers? They were shot dead in front of their families. Can we have a little caution in some of the language we are using?

This Bill is about the healing power of information and the right of families to access it. That right was powerfully articulated not only in terms of the Hillsborough families, but in the report published last month into the murder of Rory O’Kelly, a founding member of our party. He was a decent man and a family man who represented the non-violent civil rights protesters. He was brutally murdered while attending a funeral in his hometown by the Provisional IRA, because of his belief in and his professional service to the rule of law. His case in the report, released last month with feedback from his family, gives some sense of the release and the comfort that families can find in investigations, even if, in that case, no prosecution follows. It should be read and understood by those who want to smear those who support this legislation as being republicans involved in IRA cheerleading.

We all know that prosecutions will not follow in most cases, but that certainly does not mean they should be off the table when the evidence leads that way. That brings me to the amendment that would design in a veto role for the Attorney General in London. That could undermine the processes we are legislating for today. Independence of the judiciary is a principle worth protecting in general, and especially in these scenarios. I appreciate that this is hard for many in this Chamber to hear, but the UK Government were not some neutral player. They were an active participant many times in our horrible conflict. How can families truly have confidence in in these processes when a veto belongs to a Government who they feel participated actively in the conflict and, on many occasions, covered up that information?

I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind-bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the co-operation that the Bill represents, up to and including some op-eds implying that it constitutes a move towards EU re-entry—a combination of some of the greatest hits that we hear in this Chamber. The fact is that the Stormont House agreement, signed in 2014, created the potential for the architecture that would make it possible to go through legacy processes and to capture some of the many themes and patterns that Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to highlight, and created possibilities for us to push back against some of the revisionism and counter-narratives that many of us oppose.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Claire Hanna Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether this is a quiz. I do not know the precise answer to that question, but I think my hon. Friend has made his point.

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

One!

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

If we step back and have a think about where we are, a terrorist, a solider or an individual who was engaged in the troubles over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, who remembers having engaged in kinetic activity—having killed someone or conducted something of violence—and who wants to seek solace and to give evidence, will be prosecuted if they do give evidence. It is just worth thinking about that when we talk about justice. A lot of people will want to come forward and clear the deck on the past. If they do, they will be dragged into the courts.

[Claire Hanna]

rose—

[Al Carns]

I cannot give way because I am intervening on someone else. We may just want to have a think about that. If we put ourselves in their position, the system now makes it much more difficult to get to the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton]

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

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

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

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

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Easton]

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

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

Magna Carta declares:

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

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

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

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. It is vital that all those in public office exhibit candour. That is as important for police officers as it is for anybody else, as became painfully apparent throughout the process of trying to get justice for those involved in the Hillsborough disaster. That applies equally to the PSNI as it did to the RUC. The hon. Member is right that these are now primarily matters either for the PSNI directly or for the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I am sure that they will want to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb.

It is not only that nobody had said until today that this was a murder; nobody had decided on what the cause of death was until today. I urge hon. Members to read the report, because it goes in some detail into precisely what happened, and it makes for very distressing reading.

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

I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful statement. I was in sixth year in 1997, and the nightclub that Robert Hamill’s killers were leaving was a haunt of mine and my classmates. I think that is why this murder remains in my memory so viscerally. It was so brutal, so sectarian, and led to so many years of injustice for the family. As happens so often, a proper exploration has uncovered collusion. That has been the case certainly not for all RUC officers, but for far too many. It is painful and difficult for society, but the Minister will know that suppression does not aid the healing and reconciliation that we need.

It is also impossible to ignore the context of that murder, and the 20 other human lives wasted around the time of the Drumcree stand-off in those years. Does the Secretary of State agree that disclosure must be properly addressed in the body that he is currently legislating for, and that it is a bleak, dead-end campaign to reopen wounds as deep as Drumcree?

[Chris Bryant]

I think everybody wants to condemn sectarianism, but the truth is that it is awfully easy to stir it up, in every society in the world. What is striking in the report is not only some of the terms of abuse that were shouted from one side to the other; a couple of witnesses also referred to the fact that when Robert Hamill’s body was being stretchered into an ambulance, people were shouting, “I hope he dies.” We need to remember the bitterness that sectarianism can instil in people’s hearts, especially when people are gathered in large crowds. Anything that we can do to calm sectarianism is a really important part of my job, and that of all those involved in the politics of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member makes a very fair point about disclosure. We will talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in a couple of weeks’ time, and that is one of the issues that we will address.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory. The progress we have seen is because Northern Ireland society has been working to move beyond that. One of the people I met who was there on the night of the violence said that we now have “another other” in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the traditional divisions, but there is now another other: the ethnic minority population of Northern Ireland, who are terrified about what is happening. We do not want to add to the troubles of the past by not being clear how unacceptable it is to see that on the streets of Belfast today.

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

Community cohesion is deeply threatened by the violence and menace that took place on the streets last month, which included deliberate orchestration and paramilitary flags and trappings that now fly as bold as brass from lampposts in my constituency and in many others. We can no longer pretend that loyalist paramilitaries are not a national security threat. Cohesion is also threatened by a sheer lack of delivery and of responsibility-taking by the Northern Ireland Executive. The Secretary of State must see the role that vetoes and structures play in that, and the moment of peril in which we may now be in Stormont. When will he convene the process for democratic reform of the institutions that a majority of people, of parties and of MLAs have asked for?

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716.

It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for the debate. We launched our inquiry in December 2024, and it stretched across 2025, culminating in the publication of our report shortly before Christmas. Alongside receiving almost 80 pieces of written evidence, we held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, we visited Northern Ireland several times to hear at first hand from people directly and indirectly affected by the troubles.

As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising our concerns with a unified voice. As I said during my statement on the Floor of the House when we published this report, I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. It is a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging meaningfully with all communities and demonstrating a strong cross-party consensus on outstanding issues of concern and specific provisions in the Bill that require amendment. Our hope is that the level of detail contained in our report will help to shape and inform the parameters of debate in this House and beyond across a wide range of issues. Although the Government provided a detailed response at the end of January, for which we are grateful, a number of important matters remain outstanding, and this debate offers an opportunity to explore some of those further.

I will start with resourcing. Beginning with the very foundation of the legacy process, my Committee repeatedly heard serious concerns about resourcing, which we set out in detail in the report. Put simply, no amount of reform, good will or political momentum will deliver truth or justice if the necessary funding is not in place for investigative bodies or those responsible for information disclosure. Even the current legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, pointed to concerns about sustainable financing going forward, given the increase in demand for its services—an increase that we hope will only continue under the new legacy commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland also needs to be considered, given the new demands on them to retrieve and categorise their records.

However, the Government’s response does not fully address the concerns we raised. Despite the commission being given new responsibilities through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the Government have not updated the initial funding allocation of £250 million following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. We put that to the Secretary of State when he appeared before my Committee earlier this month, and he acknowledged that further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury about the funding of the commission. Those conversations need to happen now.

Moreover, the Government state that funding for the PSNI is a matter for the Department of Justice and that it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to consider how and where they allocate funding. However, the Chief Constable of the PSNI told us in January:

“I get sent by the Secretary of State to the Executive, and by the Executive to the Secretary of State. The Executive will say, ‘This is Westminster-related’ and Westminster will say, ‘We give a significant grant to the Executive. It is for them to pay for this.’ I am caught between the two”.

That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.

On the requirement for bodies such as the PSNI to classify documents as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring them to the legacy commission, the Chief Constable also told us that, alongside that being logistically and financially burdensome, there are severe implications for trust and confidence in the PSNI. Again, the Government told us that the question of funding for the PSNI and other devolved organisations is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and that those organisations are best placed to identify sensitive material. However, Operation Kenova did not undertake such a predetermined assessment of legacy materials. I therefore reiterate our call for the Government to reassess the current financial envelope and to consider the wider implications of their reforms, particularly the substantial and currently underfunded administrative burdens they place on organisations such as the PSNI, which are already under significant pressure to deliver core services in the present, while also addressing the past.

On victims, financial resourcing may form the foundation of the legacy process, but victims and survivors unquestionably sit at its heart. We heard a range of concerns about how the new approach will operate in practice for them. For instance, on the proposed victims and survivors advisory group under the proposed legacy commission, questions have been raised about its membership, the method of appointment to it and the risk of it duplicating the important work already undertaken by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government commit to complementing the work of existing groups, but we await further information regarding the composition and operation of this new group.

The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Joe McVey, recently expressed concerns that the debate on legacy legislation had been reduced to a false dichotomy of “veterans versus victims”. His warning is important, and I encourage us all to bear it firmly in mind as we move forward.

On veterans, as I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives throughout our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, whom we heard from twice, told us late last year that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but said that the proposals were not really “protections” for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections, rather than as safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in this process among the very groups—veterans and others—in which they hope to instil confidence.

In response to us, the Government acknowledge the concerns that measures may not go far enough for many. They add that they are in active consultation with veterans on further steps, emphasising that any additional proposals must be “practically deliverable” and compliant with human rights obligations. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening, but we still await the detail of further measures before we can make a proper assessment.

On the structures proposed to address legacy, our report highlights several areas of concern. Owing to time, I will concentrate on some overarching ones, namely investigations, inquests, and information disclosure. On investigations and the question of who may request one, we heard from many stakeholders that the Bill’s narrow definition of a close family member risks excluding relatives who have often been central to pursuing answers, sometimes for decades after the events in question. Because the trauma is often carried from one generation to the next, our legislation must be designed with an awareness of these long-term and cross-generational effects.

Organisations including the ICRIR have urged the Government to broaden the definition of a close family member. In response to our report, however, the Government maintain that their current approach is “balanced”. None the less, they acknowledge that views differ on the matter, and have committed to continued engagement and careful consideration of those perspectives. Again, I gently encourage the Government to revisit the definition. We heard similar concerns regarding the rigidity and exclusivity of the list in the Bill stipulating what is considered

“serious physical or mental harm”.

On inquests, the Government’s plan for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission is seen by some as an improvement on the system introduced by the 2023 Act, but concerns persist, including regarding why judges are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. The Government reject the call for appointments to be routed through the commission, arguing that their approach is consistent with that for appointing inquiry chairs under the Inquiries Act 2005 and making many other public appointments.

Information disclosure has been and remains one of the more significant issues with legacy policy. The troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act or with Operation Kenova. Our report highlights concerns about trust, appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice. It is clear from the Government’s response that the proposals on information disclosure will not be revisited. That is likely to concern those who argue that retaining the so-called ministerial veto over what is disclosed presents a serious challenge to the Bill’s overall architecture and risks undermining trust and confidence.

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

I thank the hon. Member for all her efforts on behalf of victims of the troubles and others. This is a chance to put in place accountability mechanisms that we should have put in place decades ago, particularly for those who do not have a judicial pathway. Families in Derry know what happened in their city on Bloody Sunday, regardless of a verdict. IRA victims know what directing terrorism looks like—the explaining away, the casualness with life—regardless of a judicial process.

Does the hon. Member agree that legislation alone will not get us to truth and a reconciled future, and that this must be an opportunity for those who created victims to step forward, bravely, to give that long overdue accountability: for the UK Government to accept that they compromised key human rights protections and at times colluded with paramilitaries; for loyalist paramilitaries to accept that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the IRA to step up and acknowledge their decades of coercion of communities, and their casualness with human lives—in seeking to achieve an outcome that could never have been achieved in any way other than democratically?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for the work she does and the perspective she brings to the Committee, and I agree that this is a matter of building trust and confidence and building a better future across these islands. That requires everybody to step up.

We noted a range of concerns in our report regarding the role of the Irish Government, including in relation to the timeline for equivalent legislation and information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. The Government response offers some welcome clarification. It confirms that the legacy unit is now operational and that the Irish Government intend to publish the necessary legislation to facilitate co-operation in either April or May this year. However, actions will matter far more than assurances, and we now await the practical outworkings of those commitments.

Finally, we know and respect the fact that, for some, reconciliation may be impossible. For others, it could be the basis of a better future. My Committee will soon begin an inquiry that explores that in detail. The Government’s response did not fully address the concerns we set out in that section of our report, particularly those relating to part 4 of the 2023 Act. We will use our forthcoming inquiry into reconciliation to continue pressing these questions.

We await the next stage of the troubles Bill, when we will all have the opportunity to put those who carry the legacy of the past at the heart of a new approach for the future. We owe it to them to get it right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?

[Hilary Benn]

I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Social Democratic and Labour party welcomes this remedial order, which goes some way to restoring the rule of law to legacy processes and in turn to the present day. The introduction by the previous Government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase, “Justice delayed is justice denied”.

This order is specifically about the troubles legacy Bill, but across these islands—in every jurisdiction, every day—we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time. We now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay, whether it is Hillsborough, infected blood, the Post Office scandal or the Magdalene laundries. There will not be a Member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. My ask is simply that Members think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way.

It is not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this House, and particularly today. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes—none of them have won. All of them have lost members of their family. It is not about people being able to draw a line under the past because MPs in London have told them to. MPs have called them IRA sympathisers.

The previous legislation, which this order undoes, was not about reconciliation or truth. The word “reconciliation” appeared in the title of the Bill and nowhere else. The Bill was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised. It was not just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I am not here to write a reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system, but these provisions and amnesties extended to the darkest corners—yes, of the security services, but also to those who directed the terrorism and who played God with people’s lives, and who should of course be held to the law.

The Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working, but inquests have worked. They were belated, yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. Those inquests have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with the most to hide. Those inquiries have also exposed truth and corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families; the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats. The 2021 inquest freed those families—freed people who had grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother, their father or their parish priest was a gunman, when it was entirely obvious that that was not true. They finally got accountability from a regiment that operated without it.

False narratives have been used by the security forces, by the IRA and by republican and loyalist terrorists to impugn and to add grievous insult to injury for so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre; an inquest less than two years ago rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack, where 10 Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. That was carried out by people who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood alongside. When people say that it is IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests, it is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black.

I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. We have had the Good Friday agreement and the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames-Bradley and Haass-O’Sullivan and the on-the-run letters, and all the other processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims. This legislation turns that around. However, it is just the beginning: we have to get the processes right if we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth, accountability and remembrance. This has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but also in human rights compliance, truth and justice. Today I again urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, where concerns exist about disclosure, ECHR compatibility and judicial independence, to ensure that we face down those vested interests, in or out of uniform, and show Britain as a democracy that upholds laws and rights.

Dealing with legacy will not be confined to the remedial order, the troubles Bill or the joint framework. As Members on both sides of the House know, it shapes our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other, and how we can best deliver a shared future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. The answers will not all be found in this order, or in the legislation that is to come. We have never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did: for the IRA to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2,000 of them, as collateral damage; for loyalists to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law.

I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently—did try to serve decently. I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many Members feel in the service given by them and by their loved ones. However, I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everyone in Northern Ireland had. Three hundred thousand soldiers served in Operation Banner, and fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of the time of victims’ families, and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. The Bill is the start of that, and I ask Members to approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I confess that I have not been in Westminster Hall for a while; I was watching the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to see exactly when I should stand up. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate, which is an important part of the conversation as the case for modest Assembly reform builds.

The Social Democratic and Labour party has been working quite intensively to find common ground and take this conversation beyond campaigning and graphics and into the realm of the possible. I welcome the indications from the Prime Minister last week, when I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions, that the UK Government are freshly open to engagement. There had been a fairly hands-off approach.

I restate the SDLP’s frustration that the Executive parties have made not a single step towards reform. In spite of election campaigning, there is nothing in the programme for government. I welcome the Assembly’s acceptance of an SDLP proposal to take some of this issue on through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but if anybody wants to see an example of an issue being slow-walked, it is that committee’s discussion and inquiry over the past year.

As with the agreement that created the institutions, we accept that parties are approaching this issue from different places and at different paces. As with that agreement, it is also clear that we will not come to a conclusion without some sort of facilitation. I will not spend much time on the need for reform: the periodic collapses, the quagmire and stalemate on public policy, the daily draining away of public confidence, this week’s failure to agree a multi-year budget and the feedback from Baroness Hallett in the covid inquiry last week all ably make the case, as did the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

The flaws are by culture and by design. There is much recrimination about some of what is in the agreement, but hon. Members need to be reminded that we were trying to end a hot war and resolve a centuries-old conflict, which the agreement very largely did, in spite of what my colleague Mark Durkan memorably called the “ugly scaffolding”.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that much of the work that was achieved in the Belfast agreement was undermined in St Andrews in 2007, when there was a change to how the First and Deputy First Ministers were elected? Rather than being a co-post, it became a divided office.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Those subsequent changes, particularly at St Andrews, have distorted the institutions away from a place of consensus and towards veto, brinkmanship and power struggle. There is a lot in the agreement that the SDLP would like to revisit—not least strand 2, which has shockingly underperformed—but the immediacy and urgency of this issue means that we have to focus on where common ground can be found.

I agree with a lot of what the Alliance party has suggested but, bluntly, I do not think it is achievable. I do not think that it is possible to get there from where we are now, although we were very open to a lot of those conversations, not least on mandatory coalition and designation. As a party that is anti-sectarian, centre-left and for a new Ireland, we have never fitted neatly into any binary, but it is important to recognise both where we are as a society and where we want to get to.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

There is a real point there: people who may be in what we would term a Unionist or nationalist party may not really regard themselves as those things. That is a really positive and legitimate challenge. As the hon. Lady herself says, even her party does not fit neatly into boxes, and I certainly know Unionists, in Unionist parties, who would also feel the same. Does she think that the current set-up gives no latitude to reflect the views of people who may be Unionists or nationalists?

[Claire Hanna]

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

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

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

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

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

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

[Claire Hanna]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We have had a catalogue of reasons why there need to be changes to the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland. We have had collapses, difficulty in getting a three-year budget, the fallout and the use of veto powers by the parties.

The thing that strikes me is all these things have happened under different Administrations in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years. When the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in power, the Administration collapsed about five times—

[Claire Hanna]

Who collapsed it?

[Sammy Wilson]

Well, it was collapsed by the parties that were in power at that stage, because they had the ability to keep it running—but they did not. It collapsed again when the distribution of seats changed. It collapsed for a number of reasons, but the important thing is that those arrangements were put in place to safeguard minorities. The Alliance party and the SDLP, which are now calling for reform, were the keenest to have that consensus requirement in the Belfast agreement.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. They are now proposing that consensus be removed and—here’s the thing—that we go to majority rule, albeit with a weighted majority of 66%. That is not reform; that is retreating to something that they condemned in the first place, and that they said required the arrangements in the Belfast agreement to be put in place.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the right hon. Member confirm whether he believes that the Assembly has or should have responsibility for international affairs, which is included in the Windsor framework, and can he outline where cross-community consent for Brexit was demonstrated?

[Sammy Wilson]

I find it rather odd that the hon. Member has talked about how dysfunctional the Assembly is but wants more powers for it. Either it is dysfunctional or it is not. If it is functional and she wants more powers for it, why do we need the changes?

Let us look at the words that are used. “Reform” is one, and I have noticed that another phrase—“keyhole surgery”—has come in. Of course, these are all euphemisms for removing the very safeguards that were required when nationalists were in the minority. That is why they were put in place. Now the arithmetic in the Assembly has changed, and we find that those parties that believed there should be safeguards for minorities no longer require those safeguards and want to revert to a form of majority rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

That is helpful. The current 60:40:40 system strikes me as one that does protect minorities, while the danger of the consensus is that you get tripped up by hold-outs. That is what I see happening from my perspective outside.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene. Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not take my intervention, and I am sad about that. I was seeking to clarify whether his party’s position had moved from being the quite radical one—more radical than my position or that of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood)—of ending mandatory coalition and to a 90-Member Opposition. Did the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) understand that from the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim?

[Mr Kohler]

I do not know. I would like to hear from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I am happy for him to intervene.

Retaining the current arrangements comes at a real cost, both socially and economically. Political deadlock has hindered reforms in health and social care, while the ongoing divisions drain public finances through duplicated services, higher policing costs and lost investment. Those pressures have been compounded by Brexit. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the EU, yet the previous Conservative Government’s approach has created persistent problems along the border, in Stormont and across the economy—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing the debate. She referred to the fact that she secured a similar debate only a year ago, and it is a tribute to her consistent campaigning and relentless focus on this issue that we are back here again. I knew then, as I know now, that her ambition is for Northern Ireland to be as strong as it can be for the people of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has just said, I have no doubt that she shares that ambition with everyone in the Chamber.

It is important to note, as the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) said, that in the nearly 30 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, it has not stood still. Thanks to the St Andrews and Hillsborough castle arrangements, the Executive have responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. The “Fresh Start” agreement provided for an official Opposition for the first time. The New Decade, New Approach agreement provided for important changes to the petition of concern.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, and everybody advocating for evolution in Northern Ireland’s institutions, recognises the importance of reaching across the aisle, just as the architects of the original agreement did. They knew the importance of building a coalition of support. That support must come from not just the parties themselves, but the public as a whole. It was the Northern Ireland public who voted so decisively for the historic agreement 30 years ago. Let us be clear: any changes must work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, not just the parties. In my mind, I ask whether it can command the widest possible support and if it improves the lives of the people in Northern Ireland. Fundamentally, as others have said, that is what we are here for: better outcomes for the people we serve.

It is important to place the debate in its full and proper context. Although the Assembly and Executive are not perfect—I dare say some would say that about our Parliament, too—as others, including the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), noted, the Good Friday agreement remains a landmark achievement for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I said in a recent debate that it is one of the finest achievements of the previous Labour Government. We would not be stood here nearly 30 years later if it were not for that Labour Government and the Conservative Government who came before them, particularly through the work of the then Prime Minister John Major. He helped to change the approach to bring about peace, as did those in Northern Ireland—politicians and not—who came together to give peace its chance. Without everyone—and I mean everyone—we would not be here looking at nearly 30 years of peace and prosperity.

Of course, no system is perfect, and that is certainly true of the strand 1 institutions, which for almost 40% of the time have not been functioning. I know that government is hard and power sharing even more so, so I pay tribute to those Ministers who are working day in, day out to address the serious challenges of bringing down waiting lists, tackling the cost of living crisis, driving higher standards in our schools and unlocking the potential of economic growth. I am encouraged when I see the Executive coming together to deliver on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, it is imperfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. All of us know that. That is why we approach these debates with humility and determination. Any proposed changes must deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for encouragement, and I will always encourage debate among those who want Northern Ireland to succeed. I am pleased that we are having today’s debate because it is healthy for a society to consider changes and improvements that might be made—indeed, we are reforming the House of Lords—and I also know how strong and genuinely felt calls for the reform of the institutions are, particularly from Alliance and the SDLP, as we have heard today. Many among the Northern Irish public will share that view. The 2024 Northern Ireland life and times survey clearly shows support for the Good Friday agreement as a whole and for its further evolution. I agree with the 68% of people in Northern Ireland who think that the Good Friday agreement remains the best basis for governing Northern Ireland. That is a remarkable vote of confidence in an agreement that is nearly 30 years old and continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.

I acknowledge the recent Assembly motion that called on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process between the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government. The UK Government’s position is clear. The Prime Minister said last week, regarding the Northern Ireland parties, that

“we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 259.]

However—this is evident from some aspects of today’s debate—I do not see a shared view on institutional reform among the political parties or, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland.

[Claire Hanna]

Does the Minister acknowledge that at the time of the Good Friday agreement, the parties did not arrive together at consensus, and nor did they with the likes of the St Andrews agreement, when things were distorted? Does he agree that it is unusual for all the parties to arrive at a fully formed agreement, and that a degree of facilitation is required?

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree that those parties did not come with a consensus already, and about the importance of their working together and finding consensus between them. In the vein of what I have just said, I welcome the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is considering reform of the institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Northern Ireland Executive have very considerable responsibilities in respect of the Northern Ireland economy. I note that the Finance Minister has published a draft three-year budget; the fact that we had a three-year spending review has given the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to do the same for the first time in a number of years. As the Minister said, there are choices that the Executive have to make—that is true of all Governments around the world—and I look forward to seeing the Executive come forward with a proposal for a balanced budget.

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

8. What recent engagement he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

Since becoming a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I have met Executive Ministers, building on the extensive engagement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Our discussions have been wide-ranging, and have included discussions on economic growth and transforming public services.

[Claire Hanna]

The Minister will be aware that for a number of months, I have been raising concerns about the local growth fund and its impact in Northern Ireland. Just before Christmas, organisations got the devastating news of a large cut to the local growth fund, which will devastate a number of support jobs and work done to help vulnerable people into meaningful employment. What steps will the Northern Ireland Office take to prevent the loss of those crucial support jobs, and to help put in place services to tackle our low productivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The Greenland issue is obviously very important and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. The future of Greenland is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, and for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. Yesterday, he will have seen that I put out a statement to that effect, along with fellow allies in Europe. Of course, NATO is hugely important—the single-most effective and important military alliance the world has ever known. He keeps encouraging me to sort of tug away at parts of NATO, and to choose between Europe and the US. That would be a strategic mistake for our country.

Yesterday we were working with our NATO allies, including the US—our NATO ally—on a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which will not happen without security guarantees from the coalition of the willing backed by the United States. That is a vitally important issue, and we made progress on it, but there will not be a just and lasting peace in Ukraine without those security guarantees, and not achieving a just and lasting peace in Ukraine is not in our national interest. That is why I am applying so much time and energy seeking to get that outcome.

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

Q7. Even its strongest advocates acknowledge that Northern Ireland is trapped in dysfunction—not because reform is not possible, but because the DUP and Sinn Féin have not allowed it. We have become a political “Hotel California”, where the past is always around but the future never arrives. There is growing public consensus that some of Stormont’s procedures simply are not working. The SDLP has found slivers of common ground across the political parties, too. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for a structured conversation that both protects power sharing and addresses the culture of veto and decline so that Stormont might finally take responsibility and start to deliver for the people?

[The Prime Minister]

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government. As the hon. Lady well knows, it enshrined Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and set out clear principles and processes under that framework. I am aware of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s inquiry into institutional reform, and I can indicate that we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Claire Hanna Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

The answer is 20.

[Alex Burghart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

Time is short, but I hope that we can consider why, as well as how, pain is to be addressed in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party approaches legacy from a basis that considers the rule of law, equality before the law, and the impact on reconciliation. We recognise that this is not a sterile debate, taking place only in this Chamber or in Committee Rooms, and it is not a knockabout for a headline or a tweet; it is a daily reality for many thousands of families. While the issue of legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland, shaping the tone of our politics, and affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing, and the ability of Government to deliver. This Bill is not perfect—legislation rarely is—but we cannot miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. This is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent and reconciled future.

It is positive that we are discussing a bilateral agreement between the Irish Government and the Government in London. This is a much-needed departure from the unilateralism pursued by the last Government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy Act, which was not only struck down by the courts, but rejected by every single party in the north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record. They exploited the fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working, while fighting and stalling the processes that were in place. The Conservative party’s approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities and, worse, wasted the time, the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors.

The joint framework allows both Governments to begin meeting their responsibilities for dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State and his officials. Although we will seek by amendment to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well-intentioned political oversight, I understand that people are working closely on this across the Irish sea, and that Dublin’s legislation will be published swiftly once this Bill has made its way through the House, so that its architecture is compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that these things be delivered in parallel, and right that it is a partnership. When people make lurid claims about what the Irish Government have or have not done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it, I can view that only as cynicism.

The SDLP does not pick and choose which victims we support. We do not pick and choose who we demand accountability from. Every death was a tragedy, and every murder was wrong. Publicly and privately, we will push Dublin, as we will push everyone else, on its obligations and its omissions from this framework, and on the Omagh inquiry. We will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism of those, including many on the Opposition side of this House, who attempt to draw an equivalence, from London, between the Government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement of paramilitaries.

From the early days of the conflict, victims have borne the most—including lacklustre investigations and the release of prisoners—and asked the least, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. To go far outwith the Good Friday agreement, they have had that compounded by an uneven transition for paramilitaries, on-the-run letters, decades of cynical memorialisation, and the immunity scheme that was in place under the previous Government.

Unlike others, the SDLP does not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of context, for military commanders and IRA commanders, violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice. Brushing all those crimes under the carpet, as the previous Government attempted to do, was also a choice.

The deaths of far too many innocent people were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth less, having been expended for a goal that could never have been achieved that way. That has never been properly acknowledged. The IRA has never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and it made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, and that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith that they were born into. They do not need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point. Likewise, the running of state agents by security forces was not a “necessary evil”; it was reckless and morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it, and those trying to pretend it did not happen.

Uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure in order to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. For many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claimed to defend.

Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on confidence in policing. There is no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there is not a pathway to justice, or even truth, for every family, but we have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years.

As for those who suffered loss, I hear daily their dignity, fortitude and the wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and heed those voices, and we should proceed with the Bill. I will finish with the words of a fine Ulster poet, John Hewitt:

“Bear in mind these dead:

I can find no plainer words.”

He asked us not to differentiate between people, depending on how they died, but to offer truth and justice for all of them.