Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Very good.

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

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee should be aware that the Omagh families are this very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish Government’s perspective as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?

[Alex Burghart]

That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.

Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.

In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.

Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, behave.

[Gavin Robinson]

It does.

[The Chairman]

Order.

[Gavin Robinson]

There you go; it is pathetic, Ms Ghani. This Committee will consider the amendments, but I have no doubt, given the lack of scrutiny and interest in most of what was before us yesterday, that they will be agreed on the nod—and then time will tell.

--- Later in debate ---

In other words, the inquiry’s terms of reference specifically refer to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the Omagh bombing.

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

—that is, the Conservative party—

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

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

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

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