Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

David Davis Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.

[David Davis]

Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.

This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure.

I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.

I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 50 applies well-established prosecution principles of independence and public interest. It has my support, too, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has adopted it. I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his work on this. Clearly, judging by the plaster cast on his arm, he was so excited by the Secretary of State accepting the amendment yesterday that he celebrated a little too hard, but I hope he is well.

[David Davis]

You should see the other guy!

[Adam Jogee]

We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today.

The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier.

The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.

It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.

We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government.

Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The peace that Northern Ireland has today rests on the reconciliation process that we have seen in recent decades, civil rights and the rule of law, as well as the recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, and with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition.

The peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They did not go from Sunderland to Northern Ireland to be on either side; they went because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland. They stood on Northern Ireland’s streets, overwhelmingly as a protective force, on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians, on constant alert against those who were trying to kill. Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1,441 of our British service personnel died; 722 were killed by paramilitaries.

I listened carefully to the debate yesterday. As others have said, there were many fantastic and moving contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is not in his place today. The contribution that moved me most, and most closely reflected the experience of my veterans in Sunderland, came from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is not in his place today. He described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland, and not knowing, when a civilian raised their hand, whether they were making a purely innocuous gesture, or about to throw an incendiary device. That was the experience of the constituents I met at our local Gunners Club in the recess just gone, for a two-hour roundtable to discuss the issue.

The reality is that without the Army’s deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far more bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced. Those who served held the line for decades—long enough for politics to finally take its place—and we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is not right to set veterans against victims, and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves. Serving both, and all, allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, but that will take changes to the law, through this Bill, and full co-operation and transparency from the British and Irish Governments.

I am clear that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed on multiple counts. It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland, and it undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation, which recent weeks show is still absolutely essential. It also failed victims of every background, including the families of the British soldiers murdered by the IRA in Guildford and on the M62, whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous Government’s legacy approach; indeed, they were part of the legal action against it.

Many who came home still carry the cost. In the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their life still, and how, when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge from the British state. The reality is that there were 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, and six prosecutions of them. However, too often since the Good Friday agreement, it has felt as if the legal system was built to scrutinise the split-second actions of frontline soldiers—process as punishment. At the same time, comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people the soldiers were sent to protect civilians from. That system has also felt focused on individual frontline soldiers, not on failings in the chain of command, although in some cases, its decisions profoundly affected civilians. Those who served with honour deserve to live out their life in peace, with our country’s thanks, not fearing a knock at the door. They were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous Government, and they did not feel that the Bill as introduced was appropriate.

In that spirit, I have engaged with our Ministers on this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), over the past year. For a significant time, I was clear, in our private meetings, that I could not support the legislation unamended. I sought many amendments, and some of them were discussed yesterday. New clause 32, which was agreed to, is clear that action taken in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. New clause 43 sets a tight time limit of 14 days for an application for judicial review; that will give some clarity about whether be lawfare can take place long after legal proceedings seem to have closed.

I am pleased that the amendments that we are discussing today go further on the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the past year. As the Secretary of State said, under new clause 50, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles-related offences without the consent of the Attorney General. That applies to everyone, so it is not an amnesty. The peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group. The new clause offers a senior independent check from outside Northern Ireland’s politics. That will go some way towards winning the trust of veterans who have lost faith in the system. The reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions.

A second point about the amendments that we are considering today is that they offer no special exit for terrorists. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the collapse of the trial on the Hyde Park bombing—an attack that killed four soldiers—was the result of an apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly said that such terrorist action was always wrong; there should never have been any doubt about this House’s condemnation of that. Veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying that they were not wanted. That ends today.

Thirdly, and for most veterans most importantly, there will be an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday’s amendments mean that investigators must go through the state’s own records first, and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence. Under new clause 84, which we are discussing today, a resumed inquest must not repeat what has already been done, unless that is essential. I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should not be made to relive the same night, and answer the same questions, every few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) underlined, there will be protections for veterans against cold calling and returning to Northern Ireland, which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion.

I will support the Bill, as the amendments are sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans. However, the Bill cannot be the end of Parliament’s interest in the issue. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South about how the changes will be kept under review. I welcome the fact that under amendment 251, there will be an independent inspection of the legacy commission, and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish Governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in the Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part in holding both Governments to their promises.

If this legislation passes, veterans will have significantly more protections than at any time since the Good Friday agreement—protections written into law, and protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some veterans feel today that we are not yet there; too many have been told that. My local veterans’ charity receives calls from people who served 30 years ago who have never been subject to any questioning or doubt. They have been picking up the phone and saying, “What’s this I hear about the Government wanting to come after me?” What they have heard is clearly not accurate. Of course, I respect the right of anyone in this House to scrutinise the Government through each of our votes.

However, anyone who says that they care about veterans’ welfare is acting absolutely shamefully if they scaremonger, raising fears among 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about their conduct, and the honour with which they served. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring; the latter does no service to our veterans, and I hope that the rest of the debate is the former. Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they laid, through their service, that the reconciliation that we see across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue. In honour of those who have served and every victim of the troubles, I will support today’s amendments and the Bill tonight.

[David Davis]

I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his speech. While I disagree with some of its substance, I agree with a lot of his sentiment, and his support for our veterans is welcome.

May I thank the Secretary of State for his telephone call at home to tell me that he was going to support my amendment 50? I should have realised—I have been here long enough—when I looked at the Order Paper for amendment 50 in the name of David Davis that it would have become Government amendment 50. I feel as if I have been nationalised. It is the only time that I will approve of a nationalisation. I thank him for that.

I commend the Secretary of State for the elegance and tone of his speaking over the past couple of days. This is the most formidable and difficult of Bills facing the House, as I think anybody would recognise, and he has navigated it with great charm. He has reinforced my view that he should have been in the Cabinet long ago, and I thank him.

[Gavin Robinson]

He has already signed it, David—there is no need to lick up.

[David Davis]

I am trying to do as much damage as possible. [Laughter.]

I stand to speak principally to amendment 51 and, to some extent, to amendment 49, which would stop existing paused inquests going forward. Amendment 51 would address directly the paused inquest relating to Loughgall. I picked that event out because it is the most controversial and central to what the IRA were trying to achieve. It is emblematic of many of the reasons why we should not pursue any of these inquests, but should put them in their proper place with the legacy commission, which could deal with them dispassionately.

Before I go any further, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and not just this year but in previous years. They relate to the fact that I was the trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for well over a decade—I cannot remember how many years.

All parties in the debate so far, yesterday and today, have quite properly focused on the need to get closure for victims and, at the same time, to deliver justice for our veterans. Nobody can argue with those two aims. I am focusing mostly on getting justice for veterans by preventing them being punished by the process, but, before I pursue that line in detail, I will address some of the words and definitions that we are using, particularly the definition of “victim” in the operation of inquests in Northern Ireland.

We all have in our minds a fairly clear idea of what a victim is, but unfortunately it is a little different in Northern Ireland. The difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government in article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which changed the definition of “victim” and ruled that anyone affected by the troubles through loss, trauma or injury would be classed as a victim. That means that proven murderers killed in an attempt to carry out another murder count as victims. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.

This issue is still relevant. In September last year, the Democratic Unionist party used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. Most of us would think of that as a tautology, but the motion was defeated by Sinn Féin, supported by Alliance. That is incredibly central to this matter, because the word “innocent” exposes the truth and draws a line between terrorists and their victims.

In response to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, “veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms, but “terrorists” and “victims” are. That is the significance of the amendments I am talking about. In the IRA active service unit killed at Loughgall, there were any number of people to whom that applied. The clearest example was Jim Lynagh, who was guilty of at least 20 murders and probably more than 30. His nickname was “the executioner”. He was not an innocent victim by any rational judgment of the word.

Why Loughgall? It was the greatest single defeat of the IRA—the one that they are most sore about and still feel the scars of. Why is that? Because it involved the defeat of what they considered their most successful unit, the East Tyrone brigade. What was the measure of that success? That so-called brigade killed 250 innocent people. The defeat at Loughgall was seen as a humiliation for the IRA, and that means that they are now desperate to rewrite history and cast their murderers as heroes and British soldiers as amoral killers. That is why they want a coroner’s inquest, rather than a legacy commission.

I am afraid that in Northern Ireland a coroner’s inquest is in many ways public theatre; it is just different. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), made this point, but I will reiterate it. In the rest of the United Kingdom, an inquest is not allowed to pursue a case if it becomes at all apparent that it may lead to a criminal prosecution, such as the finding of an unlawful killing, but in Northern Ireland the reverse is true.

Even Northern Irish judges recognise the ludicrous nature of that situation. We saw that in the Coagh case with Soldier B, where there was judicial review attempt after judicial review attempt, which led to the judge talking about the

“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”

The judge in that sequence talked about having to make views or judgments in slow motion or freeze frame on decisions. Those were life-and-death decisions, for the individuals concerned, and they were made in fractions of a second. That is the central reason for my objection.

Why are operations such as Loughgall, Clonoe, Coagh or any of the others challenged by supporters of the IRA and others? The peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland made this sort of operation necessary. How is that? The IRA knew how to frustrate justice. They would murder or intimidate not just anybody who thought that they might be a witness, but their families. If I were in that circumstance in Northern Ireland, I would baulk at giving evidence if I felt that my family might be murdered as a result of doing so, and I would baulk at serving on a jury for the same reason. That is why we ended up with Diplock trials, which had judges without juries, because that was simply not viable. When Diplock recommended those trials, he gave the example of a man who was executed in front of his young son the day before he was due to give evidence in a terrorist trial. That is the background and the circumstances.

However, the IRA did not stop there. They understood that, as well as witnesses, the other thing that matters in court cases is forensics. That is why they wore a strange uniform of boiler suits, rubber gloves, shoe coverings or wellingtons and balaclavas, because they knew that they had to deny the evidence, but that was not all. When they had carried out their crime, the cars used were frequently abandoned and burned to destroy the evidence. There are plenty of examples—I think Clonoe was one of them—where a crowd prevented the authorities from getting close to a car until it had burned out, for the very simple reason that it destroyed the evidence. Even in the case of the murder of a previous Speaker at Stormont, Norman Stronge, and his son, the IRA set fire to the house, with the same aim.

[Mr Campbell]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the IRA’s determination to deal with forensics, does he know that they also blew up the forensics laboratory in south Belfast, where the forensic information had been gathered?

[David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That serves to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy. This did not happen by accident, and the IRA did not just take to wearing boiler suits as uniforms; this was a deliberate strategy.

The IRA’s strategy faced the state with a conundrum. Doing nothing and sitting back does not work—if the jury processes and other judicial processes do not work, that is not an option. Why do I say that? Let me go back and take the East Tyrone brigade as an example. It killed 250 people before Loughgall. During the late ’80s, it was killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant that 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state was not fulfilling its duty, so the only way to stop it was to catch the East Tyrone brigade in flagrante—in the act of carrying out a crime—and try to arrest them. Of course, the first aim of the state is always to act with minimum force if possible, but the circumstances did not always allow that. This was an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody, who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, “Excuse me, you’re under arrest.” We saw from many of these events how dangerous that was. At Coagh—the case that went through all those judicial reviews—an SAS soldier effectively had to dress up as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.

At Clonoe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned, there was another problem: the intelligence was wrong, which made it even more difficult. There they were facing a double-barrelled dushka machine gun, .50 calibre and capable of bringing down light armour or aircraft. A three-second burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. That was the sort of thing we were asking our soldiers to do. I will come back to the Loughgall example, which is even worse in many ways. That was the sort of thing that we said to our soldiers, “You must do this to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if you have to.” This is not theoretical; in the specific context of the special forces, which is what these three cases relate to, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland. If Members want to look into this, I recommend that they look up the example of Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot at the moment of challenge, or that of Captain Westmacott. There are others, but those cases give the Committee clear examples of the sorts of risks that had to be taken—and were taken—by our brave, honourable, decent and law-abiding soldiers.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?

[David Davis]

I agree with David Johnstone—by the way, I think he is a very brave commissioner. His predecessor was effectively fired for standing up, and he is still standing up. He is right, and to go off on a slight tangent, our other enemies learn from this, as we are seeing elsewhere in the world today. If we are not very careful, we will end up without one of the best parts of our armed forces, because we ourselves will have destroyed it.

Let me come back to Loughgall. The aim at Loughgall was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who would be coming off shift at 7 pm—the attack was timed for 7 pm. It was not the first such operation, but the third; it came after Ballygawley, where the IRA shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station, and the Birches, where they machine-gunned the station—fortunately, they missed people—before blowing it up. At Loughgall, the IRA team attacked the police station in two units. One unit was in a van, carrying a team armed with automatic weapons with the intention of killing the three police officers as they came off duty, and the other unit—of three men, I think—was in a JCB-style digger that was carrying in its bucket a 300 lb to 400 lb bomb.

The attack happened at 7 pm, when the police officers were due to come off shift. Inside the station at the time, because of intelligence that was known, there were three police officers and three SAS soldiers. To be frank, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage it takes to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by a 300 lb or 400 lb bomb. It is beyond my imagination, but that is what they did.

The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds; I do not know whether all of them were fired at the police station, but I imagine most of them were. Inside the station, people reported being hit by fragments of bullets as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. The digger then crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants. “Injuring” is too mild a term, frankly—one occupant had a fractured skull, while others had broken bones, and two of the soldiers fell about 10 feet on to rubble. Others sustained hearing injuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I ask the right hon. Member to put on the record that another man, Anthony Hughes, was killed on that day in that operation? He was a totally, completely and utterly innocent civilian who was not involved in any IRA activity, or in any other organisation.

[David Davis]

I was about to come to that point, and I will probably come back to it again. That is the real tragedy of that day—he was the real victim, as was his son, I think, who was wounded as well. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with this, but one of the things about the British state is that we take our judicial responsibilities in these matters seriously, and we have prosecuted our own soldiers. The name Clegg jumps to mind, but there are others who were prosecuted and sent to prison even for acting irresponsibly, let alone malevolently. Of course that is the worst tragedy of that day—that is literally in my next paragraph. I will give the hon. Gentleman my notes after this debate, so that he can see for himself.

Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why I say that this case should go to the legacy commission. It is a really important thing to investigate, but it should be investigated in a cool, analytical manner, not in the theatre of the court. Why do the IRA want to have a coroner’s inquest rather than a legacy commission investigation? Because they were humiliated at Loughgall, and they want to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and British soldiers as the villains. Let me give the Committee an early sign of the sort of thing they will try to claim.

We have been hearing recently that these IRA people were only aiming to destroy the building—they were not aiming to kill anybody. That would have been completely different from the first operation, where they murdered people in cold blood before blowing up the station. That also does not explain why the IRA fired 78 rounds at the building—bullets kill people, not buildings. It does not explain why they were there at the shift change, when the RUC men were about to come out of the building. It is plainly nonsense, but it is the sort of nonsense that they want to perpetuate in a court. That is another reason why I would rather see the dispassionate actions of the commission than the activities of IRA lawyers in the courts.

[Carla Lockhart]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Loughgall is in my constituency, and he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA was the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. It is important to remind the Committee of the names of Eva Martin, Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, the four UDR soldiers killed by the Ballygawley landmine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, and Harold Henry of Henry Brothers, all of whom were murdered by these people. When we look at their CV, it certainly does not say that they were just going to blow up a building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh in this regard. He was under investigation for Sir Norman Stronge’s murder at the time of Loughgall. Pádraig McKearney had been convicted of firearms offences, too.

As we discuss this Bill, the Government have the opportunity to stop the second inquest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do the right thing and include within the legislation your amendment 51 to stop the second inquest and to show that when these people met real soldiers, it saved lives?

[The Chairman]

Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.

[David Davis]

I am very close to the end, Madam Chairman. The hon. Lady is exactly right, and that is the entire thrust of amendment 51. If I had had my way, I would have said that amendment 49 was better, because it would have stopped all these inquests. The amendments would not get rid of the investigations, but would put them into a better process, which the Government have designed.

I will finish on coroners courts. I have listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and the Committee can guess who I am talking about, but they are tough, intelligent soldiers. However, the court is not their environment, when they are being harassed by a lawyer not to get to the truth, but to get a story out of them. I spoke this morning to one of them who has been through more of these court cases than most, both inquests and judicial reviews. He told me that IRA lawyers are, in his words, “more interested in drama than justice”.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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

David Davis Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. Today, we will debate parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of those tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including those that amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the Bill.

First, I want to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow. That is important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers. It is important that the Bill is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background and whoever the probable perpetrator. It is important, too, that it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice. That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country.

The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including Government amendment 143—the first amendment we are considering—which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to matters raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other hon. Members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with those more substantive matters under three main headings.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not even got to my headings yet, but, as the right hon. Member knows, I am fond of him.

[David Davis]

Our exchanges on fondness will get the Secretary of State into trouble. He talks about balance; who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Will he tell the Committee how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish Government before they were brought to the Committee?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not shared a single amendment. I have talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some members of the Irish Government, but I have not shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish Government. I think the first they ever saw of the amendments was when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else. On occasion, as part of the consultation with various special forces groups and others, we have, of course, talked about some of the broad issues. I have wanted to consult as widely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, the Special Forces Association and to some of the generals and others, but we certainly have not done that with any other Governments.

The first of my three headings is improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the commission. The second is ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. The third is addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence.

First, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learned in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The legacy commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the commission’s investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases, and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group. It is why the Bill repeals the immunity scheme—which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow—and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements with the Irish authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The term “vexatious claim” could in itself be argued to be vexatious. A phrase that I have used a couple of times is “rinse and repeat”. I will come to that a little later. I am keen to ensure that nobody is subjected to being brought back time and again to face the same kind of process.

[David Davis]

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

[Chris Bryant]

Much as I am fond of the right hon. Gentleman, I need to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will finish this point and then I will come to the right hon. Members for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

Our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, the intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of those soldiers.

[David Davis]

The Secretary of State, with every good intention, talks about preventing “rinse and repeat”, yet the moment we introduce this situation into a coroner’s inquest, the opportunity for judicial review arises—multiple stages of judicial review. As we have already seen with inquests, “rinse and repeat” cannot be stopped, so a soldier may be going through three or four judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the Government say.

[Chris Bryant]

I am conscious of judicial review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judiciously reviewed. [Interruption.] I meant to say judicially reviewed—whether it is judicious is a matter for the courts to decide, not me; I am not challenging their authority.

We have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It is about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual. That is a really important distinction to make.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

David Davis Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation?

My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.

The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today.

I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.

--- Later in debate ---

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

David Davis Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago.

This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice.

The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill.

We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating:

“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”.

He went on to say:

“I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.

[Lincoln Jopp]

My right hon. Friend is incredibly well informed on this subject. In his research, has he found any justification for public money being used in that way?

[David Davis]

No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer.

I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow.

This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Andy McDonald, who has a three-minute speaking time limit.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.

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

7. What steps he is taking to help ensure adequate accountability for troubles-era violence for members of the IRA.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.

[David Davis]

Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has put that decision on the record. I am not going to extend Northern Ireland questions, so we will move on.

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President—the Speaker—of the Parliament of Estonia. I thank him and his delegation for being with us today from Estonia.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.

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

The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.

[Hilary Benn]

If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.

When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.

We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.

[David Davis]

The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited.

That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.

[David Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?

[Alex Burghart]

Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[David Davis]

Would my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Alex Burghart]

If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer.

The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.

[David Davis]

My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.

[Alex Burghart]

Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Yes, in other words, it is for our Government to stand up for our international obligations. Hon. Members should look about them; look at what is happening at the moment with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. It is a time for us to believe in the rule of law. There is a declaration of incompatibility and our Government should absolutely stand up for our international obligations.

[David Davis]

The point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act, which is the law in this country.

[Mr Kohler]

The Government have a choice to make: whether to stand up for our international obligations. That is the right thing to do. At this time, of all times, surely we should stand up for our international obligations.

Our amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seek to put clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards against disproportionate legal action, to provide a presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity and to establish independent oversight of how those safeguards operate in practice. Our approach is about recognising service, context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing.

The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legal mechanisms alone.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis.

To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that

“it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”,

not by a remedial order.

Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating:

“It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.”

I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort.

What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.

[Peter Swallow]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to our report to advance his argument. Would he be so kind as to read the next sentence?

[David Davis]

I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee.

Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?

[David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.

I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.

I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.

When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.

But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a classic example of what he is saying was the Shankill bomb? The perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist. He was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered, yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim, as opposed to those who he genuinely caused to be victims.

[David Davis]

That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he

“went out to blow up, not to kill”,

despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people.

I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.

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

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[David Davis]

Forgive me but I will not, as I want to get to the end of this. As we know, Gerry Adams is already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned during the troubles.

The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we are doing today. There will be some civil claims brought against IRA killers—the Secretary of State mentioned some of them—but they will be rather special circumstances. Omagh is one of those; I could explain why, but we do not have the time. There will be a few of those, but very few compared with thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. That is largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday agreement, not to allow decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. They also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. The families of people who have been murdered, where the body has been recovered, are not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. That is how this justice works. And, of course, there will be no witnesses to the IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I am afraid that anybody else will be taking their life in their hands.

I will finish by saying this: today’s remedial order will allow the IRA to further its campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state-sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes, neither of which is true.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I have already given the House that assurance from this Dispatch Box. When we consider the Bill in Committee, we will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in its current form and the many amendments that I can see have already been tabled.

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

The Secretary of State has stated many times that the previous Government’s legislation in this area had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland. Can he tell the House which political parties support his legislation?

[Hilary Benn]

All the political parties in Northern Ireland that expressed their profound opposition to immunity have welcomed the fact that immunity will go under the legislation that we have brought before the House—that includes the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who supports its removal. That is a sign that the Government have been listening to views in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Legacy Act failed to do that.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

David Davis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This is a terrible Bill. Its central failing is that it will lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to the case of Soldier B and the judge’s dismissal of it as a “ludicrous” challenge funded by legal aid. I have known Soldier B for 30 years; I count him as a friend. He is tough and clever yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years and more, on what is effectively preparation for a murder charge, would have been unbelievably stressful. The point my hon. Friend made is that the process is the punishment: four years of stress and wear and tear.

In Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules, but in Northern Ireland the courts have sometimes interpreted those rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. To illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case that highlights what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances.

On 16 March 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving toward them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the mind of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. They made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death. It is a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, given that the soldiers could have been killed.

Today’s debate is actually about morality. It is about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The Government claim that today’s problems arise from legislation passed by the previous Government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts?

Labour, under Blair, effectively gave a de facto amnesty—maybe it is challengeable in law—to at least 650 terrorists, who had carried out more than 3,000 killings. Early release schemes, on-the-run letters and the royal prerogative of mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. It was secret because the Government knew that people would not accept it.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.

People knew that the system would not be accepted, which is why Gerry Adams asked for an “invisible system” for dealing with on-the-runs. Why are they on the run? They are on the run because they are criminals, and this was a secret system to deal with it.

In contrast, 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, democracy and the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, whom we often forget in this. They acted as the direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised all communities in Northern Ireland. By the way, I mean “all communities”; remember that the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics to terrorise that community. Yet today those who upheld the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law received leniency, letters and legal shelter.

Let us not forget that the IRA are also protected by the fact that witnesses, or would-be witnesses, against them know that they risk murder if they turn up. I was in Omagh a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot—six times, I think—only a couple of years ago by the Real IRA, or the New IRA or whatever label they have today. Instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism. We should not treat them worse than the killers they defeated. This House must say, “Enough. Enough moral inversion, and enough rewarding of terror, while hounding those who defended the public.”

We are told that the Bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives, but when real leaders must choose between consensus and justice, they choose justice. This Bill must not rest on appeasement. The world watches while Britain chooses today. Its allies watch with concern, and its enemies with enthusiasm, as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer in future, and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation.

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I start by welcoming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his place. We all know that Secretaries of State do not have to answer Adjournment debates. He and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this, but no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task and so I thank him for being here.

In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland. We must approach that with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers. We should also remember that the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances.

This is not simply a question of policy detail, but a question of principles: the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction; the principle that we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces; and the principle that we do not bend to the demands of terrorists or, indeed, their modern sympathisers. I am afraid that the Government’s proposed legislation does little to show any willingness to defend those principles, to which I will return shortly.

In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs—Government-supporting MPs—argue:

“The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 7WH.]

That is, the Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That is plain wrong. The truth is that there has long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles.

Blair’s Government created the Good Friday agreement. It is an agreement that, for the purpose of achieving peace—a good aim—drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. The Good Friday agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. Four hundred and eighty-three terrorists were released from prison early—effectively pardoned—of which 143 had been sentenced to serve life sentences, and they inevitably included many killers. At least 16 terrorists were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—also effectively a pardon. They included hardened terrorists, guilty of extreme violence, such as Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200; the three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott; and Fergal Toal, who held down his victim’s arms while two of the victim’s fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. They all received the royal prerogative of mercy.

It was also the Blair Government who authorised the so-called on-the-run administrative scheme—that is its formal title—and the letters of comfort that accompanied it. It was a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters. It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, “it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs.” The name speaks for itself: those people were on the run from the law.

It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Féin opposed them on the grounds that it would have protected soldiers too. Those were their explicit grounds. Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it; they already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. The Government are coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort and many others were listed in Government communications as “not wanted” by the authorities.

Again, we are talking about vicious murderers. Ninety-five of those in receipt of letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations—295 murders. The letters were clear. I quote from the first letter of comfort issued:

“You would not…face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom.”

Those were letters given to murderers.

The Government will, of course, retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters were not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered—as does any amnesty. The Government are hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities.

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

John Downey.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important.

He stated there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”

He could not be clearer. He concludes that

“it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge.

The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

He is.

[David Davis]

I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then.

The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed.

Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know.

Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either.

The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really?

To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order.

For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to point out something that the Defence Committee discovered in its investigation of these matters in 2016 to 2017? The maximum of two years actually spent in jail, no matter how horrendous or multiple the murders, also applies to British service personnel. The argument is put forward that victims wish to see justice attributed and punishment given out, but everybody involved in the killings receives a disproportionately light sentence, so there is no justice of a retributive sort in any case.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I had forgotten about that report, but I did see it when the Committee published it under his chairmanship.

Instead of seeing terrorists facing justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests, decades after the fact. That is a problem in part because inquests in Northern Ireland differ in two critical respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government. Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 changed the definition of “victim”. It ruled anyone affected by the troubles—through loss, trauma, or injury—would be classed as a victim. That means that a proven murderer killed in an attempt to carry out another murder is still classified as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.

That is still relevant. In September, the Democratic Unionist party—sadly none of its Members are present—used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. What did Sinn Féin do? It opposed the motion and removed the word “innocent” from before “victims”. Why? Because the word “innocent” exposes the truth; it draws a line between terrorists and their victims. “Veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms; “terrorists” and “victims” are.

Let us understand who these so-called victims are. At Loughgall—the greatest single defeat of the IRA by the SAS—eight heavily armed IRA murderers were stopped on their way to kill again. They and their weapons were implicated in at least 40 previous murders—and possibly more than 200, but it is very hard to pin that number down. Yet because of the Government’s proposals, and the Secretary of State’s promise to the sister of one of those IRA murderers, the soldiers who stopped them face being hauled before the courts, 30 years on, over an operation that prevented further bloodshed of innocent Northern Ireland citizens. The 2006 Order means that those dead terrorists are deemed to be victims.

And what do veterans face? A one-sided inquest, weaponised by Sinn Féin in its attempt to rewrite history. Veterans—many of whom are in their advancing years—are dragged to the witness box. They are made to sit opposite the families of IRA killers—men who died while attempting to maim and kill the innocent. The atmosphere is not one of an impartial inquiry.

I have spoken to a number of veterans, including one in particular who voluntarily attended the Coagh inquest to give evidence. He could not answer some factual questions—he did not know the answers—so the coroner put to him a hypothetical question to get him to answer a hypothetical version of the truth. The veteran declined, quite reasonably, to answer hypotheticals—that was not why he was there. In response, the coroner got “very cross”—the veteran’s words—raised his voice and threatened the veteran with contempt of court. The man was, at that point, a voluntary witness—not any more. He was so disgusted by the process that he will now only give evidence under subpoena; he will not volunteer again.

In mainland Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Northern Ireland, inquests have all too often sought to assign blame—all funded by a legal aid machine putting huge unjustified costs on the taxpayer. Just last month, a judicial review against a soldier who shot one of the terrorists at Coagh was robustly dismissed by the judge, who noted the

“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”

I have never heard a judge be so critical of the award of legal aid, but plainly he thought this was ridiculous—ludicrous, in his words.

Under the Government’s new legacy proposals, our veterans will remain subjects of suspicion and victims of this vexatious lawfare machine.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coroner’s court exists to appease the republicans and that all applications should go through the legacy commission?

[David Davis]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process.

It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.

That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote:

“By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.”

They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said:

“highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.”

I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair.

It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south.

Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives.

When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.

Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.

Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process.

We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that,

“the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.”

The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter:

“make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the Secretary of State, let me give a short reminder that we should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Ministry of Defence will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The protections in the legislation that has been brought before the House are the result of extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, the armed forces Ministers, and veterans’ organisations.

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

The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said:

“The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”.

Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.

[Hilary Benn]

The legislation that the Government have put before the House will make no change at all to the basis on which decisions about any potential prosecutions are made. Indeed, that system will remain as it has been right through the course of the troubles and in the 27 and a half years since. [Interruption.] It is the case. Decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by prosecutors, and it is not for us to gainsay the decisions that those prosecutors make, because that is the absolute bedrock of our independent judicial system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The Irish Government do not have a veto. I stood next to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and I made commitments on behalf of the British Government and he made commitments on behalf of the Irish Government. All of us in the House who wish families to get the answers for which they have been searching for so long should welcome the fact that the Irish Government are prepared to move from where they are now, because they oppose the legacy Act too, to a place where they will give this their fullest co-operation. In the course of that, we all hope to provide more information to give more families answers. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the two Governments are working together on this, because it will help the families.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, if it relates to the urgent question.

[David Davis]

During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate.