Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

If the next speaker keeps their contribution to four to five minutes, we might be able to get in two more Back Benchers before I call the Front Benchers for their contributions. I call Jim Allister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

It is not just about the final prosecution, but about what people have had to go through over all these years. Will the hon. Member say how many people have actually had the knock at the door, or the call, or had to give evidence? That is the issue that is really hurting people?

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I call Al Pinkerton, who I assume is coming to the end of his contribution.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I was not, but I will endeavour to do so, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because he puts his finger on the point that it is not just about the numbers—I had been going to make that point myself—but the actual experience of those veterans.

In conclusion, I absolutely recognise the deep anxiety felt by many veterans. That concern—that fear—must not and should not be diminished or dismissed; but nor should it be unjustifiably stoked for political ends. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence, they must listen to victims, veterans and legal experts.

In the last few days before the Government announce what I think will be new legislation, may I put a couple of questions to the Secretary of State? First, what steps is he taking to ensure that any new legacy framework is compliant with the ECHR? Secondly, following this turbulent hiatus, how will he ensure that our armed forces veterans are protected from the most vexatious of legal actions, and that the investigation does not become the punishment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Later.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister has made it clear that he is not going to give way.

[Mr Francois]

Who would wish to serve a Government who may ask them to risk their life fighting for the state, only to be prosecuted in a courtroom half a century later? As General Lord Dannatt, a highly respected former Chief of the General Staff, put it so well:

“Why would any sensible young person think of putting on the Queen’s uniform if they thought they could be tapped on the shoulder years after an operation and questioned over false allegations?”

The Secretary of State will already be aware from his colleagues in the MOD, some of whom have a distinguished special forces background, that this process is having an adverse effect on morale in the special forces community, and in the Army more widely. It would be an act of sheer folly, and aid to our enemies, to continue with this act of military self-harm so that, put bluntly, even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave. This is therefore not just morally but operationally mad, and a gift to our adversaries to boot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I did not say it was illegal; I said it was unlawful. I shall come directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Look at the facts: of the 250,000 veterans who served so bravely in Operation Banner, as we heard, the number who have been prosecuted for offences has been very small. The Centre for Military Justice records that only one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement. The House might want to reflect on that, because for almost all of those 27 years, immunity was not on the statute book—the legacy Act was not passed. [Interruption.]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Do not shout.

[Hilary Benn]

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, we have also heard it said that terrorists are not being prosecuted and have somehow been given immunity. I want to challenge that, both because the only thing that gave terrorists immunity was the legacy Act, and because during the troubles an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 republicans and loyalists were tried and convicted, many of them serving sentences for murder and bombings. Indeed, there have been five convictions for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012.

The so-called “on-the-run” letters had no legal force and did not give anyone any immunity. On interim custody orders, I made it clear in a written answer a couple of weeks ago that we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. By the way, I say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that the remedial order does not bring back inquests—he was incorrect when he suggested that.

The fact that the legacy Act enabled terrorists to be given immunity was, as we have heard, one of the principal reasons why so many people in Northern Ireland were strongly opposed to it. We need to have in mind the people of Northern Ireland when we discuss these matters. Across all the political parties, among many victims and survivors—and I have met many of them myself—and Northern Ireland veteran groups, some of which I met last year, there is not just one view on this.

I know that there are some—and we have heard the argument in this debate—who say there should be absolute immunity for anyone who served in Operation Banner. I would simply say to them that, as a country, we either believe in the rule of law—[Interruption.] Well, that there should be no prosecutions. We either believe in the rule of law, or we do not. That was a point forcefully made by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

As the former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace put it,

“the British Army is not above the law, and nor should it be. That is the difference between us and the terrorist.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 678.]

In a joint statement last Friday, the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said that they do not call for immunity from the law but “for fairness under it”. I could not agree with them more.

Because immunity was struck down by the domestic courts even before the Government were elected—and we came into office committed to repealing the Act—any incoming Administration would have had to fix it. It is wrong for anyone to suggest anything different. [Interruption.] The answer is because we do not agree with it.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Members will refrain from shouting out and having dialogue with the Secretary of State. Please intervene in the normal manner.

[Hilary Benn]

Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement.

Windsor Framework: Parcel Delivery

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I will call the Member in charge of the debate to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Windsor Framework on parcel deliveries across the Irish Sea.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Tomorrow, 1 May, the noose of the Irish sea border will tighten even further in respect of business in Northern Ireland. We already have the red lane Irish sea border, subject to the full complement of EU requirements, through which all raw materials for our businesses have to pass. We also have what was called the green lane, which has been renamed but otherwise little about it has changed, for the passage of other goods; we have a business-to-consumer border for parcels; and now—in some ways the most threatening because of the scale of the businesses that will be affected—we have the business-to-business parcel border. Of course, that is a border partitioning the supposed United Kingdom and its supposed internal market.

The essence of an internal market is that goods move unfettered and unchecked between and within all parts of it. We now have something else, courtesy of the absurd protocol—or, as we now call it, the Windsor framework. In view of the fact that that decreed that we in Northern Ireland are subject to the EU’s customs code, which in turn decrees that Great Britain is a third or foreign country, we now have the absurdity of various dimensions of border for the passage of goods from GB to Northern Ireland.

For 200 years, the Northern Ireland economy has been intensely integrated with the GB economy, particularly in manufacturing. It was always the northern part of Ireland that had the big manufacturing sectors. Therefore, the integration, in particular with regard to the supply of raw materials, has been pivotal and GB has been the primary source of all that.

Now, parcels will be subject to rigorous EU requirements, including the requirement for a commodity code—

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right. It is a crisis, and I am sorry to have to report to the House that it is not the only crisis that we have inherited. There is crisis and failure absolutely everywhere, after 14 years of failure, that this Government of service will begin the hard yards of fixing, including in social care. We will work across the House, and we do endeavour to create a national care service. That will not be easy, but we can begin the first steps and we will share that across the House where we can.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q5. For decades, my constituent Jack Taylor has been continuously ignored by previous Governments. He and other nuclear veterans have been denied access to their medical records and compensation. The Prime Minister has rightly said that these national heroes deserve full accountability and justice. Will he therefore consider supporting a special tribunal with statutory powers on this 70-year-long scandal?