Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I rise to support the Opposition Front Bench in their concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out. First, the Bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones. It essentially means that they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing or even asked to give evidence. Secondly, Labour’s protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the Irish Government have denied that they exist at all. It remains unclear how they will work in practice to protect veterans, and the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris has said that no additional protections will be given to veterans, so there is a conflict between the two parties to the agreement.

Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the protections for veterans in the new legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked the Secretary of State that question at the Dispatch Box, and he never answered it. I would be grateful if at some point he, or the Minister when he gets up, would say whether the protections extend to both sides.

The main point that I want to make, having served in Northern Ireland, is how quickly people forget what a peculiar and terrible event it was—so peculiar to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom with British citizens all around them, having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom. It seemed almost outrageous, but that was what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and those were very tough to follow at times because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around any corner. You never knew when you went to a house whether someone would be sniping or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and on the alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background in which that happened.

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

The right hon. Member makes an important distinction about the manner in which we deployed our soldiers. What he has described is a policing action, and there are very different requirements for delivering scrutiny. Is he not incredulous that other Members of his party are conflating that with the concern that we would put those requirements on future veterans, who would be fighting a conflict where we hope they would be acting forwards in a way that is entirely different from what he described?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will not follow the hon. Member down that road, because I have limited time and there is something I want to reflect on, but the reality is that many people and veterans believe that this will be a problem for future recruits.

I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the legislation passed by the previous Government because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded in the final analysis by one particular case. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine. I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we would ever find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland. We have had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured and that he was executed, but we never get to know. His parents died not knowing and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Is it true that he was cut up? That somehow spread, and nobody wants to own up to it.

It struck me that for as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for it, we would never know or get closure. I was persuaded on those grounds that it was time to shift from the way we were behaving—the way we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. As Soldier F even now tells us, it is unlikely that we will achieve what everyone here keeps talking about as justice. What we will achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of it. It struck me that the only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, have those cases explained and get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened and why. Therefore, they would at least have closure through having knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.

I wish we knew where Robert Nairac lies, if he lies anywhere at all. I wish his family knew. Many other soldiers and civilians are in those circumstances too. The terrorism and brutality of the IRA was appalling, yet we are still arguing about it even today.

Let me take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit’s funeral. I remember when he watched the person who set the bomb and blew up the Grand in Brighton walk free. I remember him saying to me afterwards, “It was the worst moment in my life—I went through all of this and I had injuries. This man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland, but my wife will never be free, because she is immobilised for the rest of her life, and I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds in the bombing.” For his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, as horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made.

Let me simply say that the attacks on the previous legislation forget that it was about trying to get truth and reconciliation, and about learning from other countries such as South Africa. As difficult and problematic as this issue is, there are major faults in this legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and that he will accept many of them.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the characterisation he used at the end of his question. This is not a politically correct process; this is about trying to find a way forward for those families. The honest answer to the fair point that he raises is that each family deals with the loss of their loved one in their own way. Some do not come forward. They live with their grief silently, alone. Others have campaigned. If it had not been for the campaigning of the Bloody Sunday families, there would not have been a Saville inquiry and we would not have got to the point where the former Prime Minister stood at this Dispatch Box to apologise for the killing of their loved ones.

Having said that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is likely to be held to account through a judicial process, and that is why one of the focuses of the new commission will be on fact-finding and the new body for information retrieval, using all the means at our disposal to try to provide answers to those families. It will then be for them to decide how they come to terms with what happened. We owe it to them to leave no stone unturned and to put a better system in place.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.

[Hilary Benn]

I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I do not remember using the word “equivalence”. What I said was that independent prosecutors would make decisions on the basis of the evidence that they had before them. The current legacy commission is able to refer cases for potential prosecution, and the new legacy commission will be able to do the same. If there is evidence that will allow paramilitaries to be prosecuted, it will be for the prosecutors to decide whether to bring a case, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the convictions that there have been since the Good Friday agreement, he will find that most of them have related to paramilitaries. As I said a moment ago, most of the trials that are currently being awaited relate not to the armed forces but to paramilitaries.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is such a strong advocate for the many veterans she represents. I encourage her to look at the legislation to see the nature of the legislative commitments to give effect to the veterans’ protections. There will be a couple that will not be in legislation because they are entirely in our own hands, agreeing a protocol with the commission to ensure that there is no cold calling.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new deputy, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to the House. It is very remiss of me not to have done so. This is the first chance we have had to sit together on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), from the Ministry of Defence, who has played a really important and significant role in putting the protections in place. I note that Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, has said that the Confederation

“welcomes the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

I, too, welcome that recognition of what we have done.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case.

I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means.

Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations

“unless there are compelling reasons to do so”.

My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.

[Hilary Benn]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.

The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.

I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Today, we speak on behalf of our veterans and the 176,000 members of the public who have so far signed the petition to give veterans protection against the vexatious legal pursuit of our brave heroes. Last week, when I raised this in the House, the Prime Minister dismissed it as “political point scoring.” He is wrong; it is a matter of justice, a matter of ensuring that those who risked their lives to protect our citizens during the troubles know that the state stands behind them.

The Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—not naive people—issued a joint statement last week in which they said:

“Inconsistent application of justice—particularly where it revisits incidents already thoroughly investigated—serves only to retraumatise veterans and undermine public confidence.”

I agree with that statement entirely. It is exactly consistent with the views of every veteran I have spoken to, and I have spoken to a rather large number of them since February, when I first raised this matter.

Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. The legal witch hunt will not end in Northern Ireland; it will cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in and undermine their abilities to defend us. I am a strong advocate of human rights. I think I am the only person in the House to have defeated Governments from both sides, both in the House and in court, on matters of human rights. I take those rights extremely seriously, but this issue is driven more by politics and its exigencies than by human rights.

Take the inquiry process, which both my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) referred to. The Secretary of State will tell us later, but I imagine that by reinstating the inquiry process, the Government believe they are addressing the implied article 2 right to investigate purportedly unlawful killings. I imagine that is what they are trying to do. Indeed, The Guardian this morning, as we have heard, referred again to the Secretary of State claiming that the Government are protecting the right to investigate 202 murders of British Army soldiers. Really?

I wonder whether that claim comes with an undertaking to take witness statements from the 200 terrorists who committed those murders—who, incidentally, I say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, were given pardons by Tony Blair as part of a peace process that began some 40 years ago. I think 423 were released from prison with pardons, and approximately 200 so-called “on-the-runs” received comfort letters. That is not this Act—that is then, yet it continues to exist now.

The Veterans Commissioners continued:

“There can be no moral equivalence between those who served in uniform to uphold peace and the rule of law, and those who sought to destroy it through acts of terrorism.”

Again, I could not agree more. The largest group of people killed during the troubles, by a vast margin, were murdered by paramilitaries, to use the current euphemism for terrorists. They were killed by terrorists. Every single one of those 2,000 people killed was an unlawful killing, to use the phrasing of the coroners courts these days. We do not need a court to establish that. How many of those IRA murders will be subject to inquiry? On the current listing—we have 33 listed—just two such cases, out of 2,000. That is because the major driver for these inquiries is the IRA-Sinn Féin effort to hide their own barbaric acts behind a freedom-fighting façade, trying to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and the British state as the villains. That is why battles such as Coagh, Clonoe and, very likely soon, Loughgall feature so large in the demands for inquiries and the prosecution of long-retired, innocent British soldiers. All three of those actions were humiliating defeats for the IRA.

Let me be clear: all of the IRA members who died in those exchanges—so-called “victims” in this context—were actively in the process of committing atrocities. They were trying to murder innocent people. At Coagh, they planned to murder an off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment officer. At Clonoe, they attacked the Coalisland police station using an armour-piercing machine gun in an attempt to murder the officers inside. At Loughgall, they drove a bomb-laden digger to blow up a police station and were armed and ready to murder any survivors. All were armed, dangerous and intent on murder. Many of them had killed before, making them a fatal risk to our soldiers—a risk our soldiers had to cope with in split-second decisions. Those are the people we will put on trial if we allow them to lose their protection that we ought to be giving our veterans today.

Look at the individuals involved, starting with Coagh where the inquest heard about Michael Ryan. Ryan was probably responsible for many murders; I can cite two. He shot two UDR officers—one in front of little children at a crossing, the other in front of the officer’s 13-year-old son. That is the sort of people we are dealing with.

As for the IRA’s greatest defeat, Loughgall, the weapons recovered at the scene had been used in over 40 previous murders—there is no doubt about that. Of the IRA members there, McKearney and Arthurs were both involved in the Ballygawley police station attack, which killed a further two policemen. James Lynagh—nicknamed “The Executioner” by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—was believed to have been involved in more than 30 killings, including the cold-blooded assassination of the 80-year-old Sir Norman Stronge, who was largely blind and deaf, as well as his son in front of him.

As for Patrick Kelly, who was the leader of that attack, he led the self-styled East Tyrone brigade, which is believed to have killed around 250 people before Loughgall. By the way, he also took part in the second attempt to assassinate brave UDR officer Glen Espie, who is sitting behind me in the Gallery. He fought off the assassins on two occasions—he was shot twice and fought off IRA assassins twice. If they had not been stopped, there is no doubt that all of these killers would have continued their psychopathic campaign of murder.

The IRA’s campaign of violence was indiscriminate and extended far beyond the island of Ireland. I say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that the number was not 722 if you include the police officers and UDR officers. If you include them, 1,073 servants of the British state were killed in the course of defending innocent civilians from those murderers. The IRA is trying to equate the British Government’s actions with that psychopathic behaviour, but of course nothing could be further from the truth.

There is ample evidence of the Army taking enormous risks to arrest rather than take the often safer option of killing the terrorists. Consider the arrest—not the killing—of the South Armagh sniper. He killed seven people, but he was arrested and not killed. Consider the arrest—not the killing—of the killers of Captain Westmacott. They were arrested—not killed—by the rest of his patrol. Even today’s Daily Mail mentioned the rescue of Bernadette McAliskey. There was an attempt to kill her by the Ulster Defence Association. British soldiers rescued her even though she was effectively a political arm of the Irish National Liberation Army.

The clearest demonstration of our real strategy is that, while 1,073 British forces, soldiers and policemen were killed by republican terrorists up until 1994, 145 paramilitaries were killed and 428 were taken prisoner. That means that around three or four were taken prisoner for every one killed. Seven British soldiers or policemen died for every IRA person who was killed. That tells us the strategy and it tells us what the IRA is trying to reverse.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend marvel at the remarkable restraint shown by British soldiers, no matter where these officers or personnel were from across the UK, in dealing with this and never once stepping over the mark in regard to these cases?

[David Davis]

Absolutely—the phrase I would use is “heroic restraint”. Under those circumstances, restraint means putting their own lives and the lives of their comrades on the line. That is what was going on there, that was the decision that was being taken, and that is what is being challenged today. My right hon. Friend is right about that, and that restraint was institutional. It was not simply heroic soldiers, although of course it was that as well. The yellow card system demanded restraint and issued warnings of proportionality.

Every time a British soldier killed a paramilitary, it was subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, and when that process failed we ensured the matter was properly investigated. Remember the Saville inquiry, which cost £200 million, took 12 years and consisted of 5,000 pages. What other country in the world would review its own behaviour in that way? I am not going to actually give all the answers, but Members should consider in their own mind whether some of our allies might not have gone quite so far to give everybody justice.

Our soldiers were held to the highest standards of law, yet our Government are rewarding that by effectively threatening them in their retirement. Remember: we have been talking about human rights. That is not a proper reflection of their human rights. They are human beings too, and they have human rights. We should remind ourselves that human rights are founded in natural justice. They do not spring out of the air; they are founded in natural justice. In this process, there is no natural justice for our brave veterans nor, frankly, for the real innocent victims of the troubles. The process gives neither.

The Government are understandably struggling to find a solution, and the Secretary of State knows that I have some sympathy for his position. Let me tell him the criterion for success, because it is very simple. The Government must completely remove the threat of prosecution from our brave veterans who have served their country well and who have already been through the judicial review of every action they took. If the Government repeal the legacy Act without a robust replacement—that is the key point—we hand the narrative back to those who seek to rewrite history. I accept that mistakes were sometimes made, and where they were, those responsible must be held to account. That has been done. But we must not allow politically motivated lawfare to dismantle the very capabilities that make our armed forces precise, lawful, effective and among the best in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

I would like to hear more from the Secretary of State about the protections that veterans will be given, one of which, I understand, is that no veteran will be asked to travel to Northern Ireland; rather, they can give evidence remotely, which is important. There does need to be more on protections, but—[Interruption.] Let me finish. It is not acceptable that we have an Act that has been rejected by victims and the families of veterans and found to be unlawful, as well as being unacceptable to many members of the parties in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to make one thing very clear: the vexatious pursuit of veterans is the key here. Some never finally made it into court, but they were pursued; some died before they got to court. It is not a good comparison to say that only one was actually found guilty, when so many have been pursued vexatiously from start to finish. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understands how it feels to be pursued—to have to go to Northern Ireland, to have to come back, to be arrested by the police and then taken away. That is what was wrong with the legislation that existed previously.

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The nub of the matter is that we must ensure that veterans have the right protections and that they are not taken through additional tests, but we have to change the legislation, because it was unlawful. We have no choice. It has let down victims. The new legislation that we are putting in place will involve deep co-operation with the Ministry of Defence—I note that the Minister for Veterans and People is here—to ensure that every protection that is available, within the law, will be provided to veterans. I am sure some of that will be outlined in the Secretary of State’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful for your tolerance, Mr Mundell. I start by saying to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), and one or two others on the Government Benches, that to accuse people like myself who served in Northern Ireland of supporting the legacy Act and then demeaning ourselves by apparently attacking others is utter nonsense. We are after one purpose and one purpose only: to find a way to protect veterans who have been pursued through the courts in a vexatious manner and had their lives destroyed in their latter years. That was the sole purpose of my support for the legacy Act. Even though I had my doubts about it, I supported it for that reason. There was nothing else on the table to provide support for those veterans, so I really take it ill, and the hon. Member for South Ribble demeans himself by attacking people on that personal basis.

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

This is an issue about inconsistency, and it covers all previous Governments. The problem is that we were originally involved in the law of armed conflict, which settled these issues, and we have had a collision with the Human Rights Act 1998, which has changed everything. The real point is that there is no moral equivalence between people who set out to kill, maim and destroy in a democracy, which happened in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) laid out, and the British servicemen who were ordered to go to Northern Ireland. They went out of their duty to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland against a violent and destructive insurrection.

I have to tell anybody with the idea that there is some kind of equivalence here—that if we cannot proceed against IRA terrorists we have taken them out of the equation—to go back and find out about when we pursued IRA terrorists through the court. There is no evidence. There were no records kept. They know that very well. If anyone thinks they will get 400 witness statements from people who know they are protected by the lack of evidence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) said, they must be living in a different world from the one that I am living in.

The reality is that the only people who will be prosecuted, unless this Government do something to end that process, will be the veterans. Even if they are not prosecuted and eventually found guilty, the persecution and the chasing of people who served their country ruins their lives and makes them worry for the rest of their lives.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

That point cannot be overstated, because many Northern Ireland veterans already suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems. I speak as a vice-president of the mental health charity Combat Stress. The very idea that there are people who are nowhere near a prosecution or potential prosecution but are now haunted by not only the trauma of their service but the possibility that they will be dragged to a court and exposed in some way, with their families saying, “Daddy, did you really do something wrong?”—it cannot be overstated how utterly brutal this is. It is a deliberate campaign by those who are trying to bring these prosecutions.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend: that is what is really hanging over us. If nothing is done and the existing Act is repealed, we are left with the single problem we started with: how do we protect veterans from the vexatious persecution that has been going on? I have lots of respect for many Government Members, particularly the Veterans Minister. He knows very well that that is their interest. I say to them simply that they cannot repeal the Act without replacing it with protection for the veterans who served their country.

I served in Northern Ireland. I did not ask to go to Northern Ireland. I went out with my regiment, the Scots Guards, and we served, I think, pretty well in Northern Ireland, but we did not want to be there—to be spat at by people in the United Kingdom and wonder, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said, what was coming around the corner next. We put up with all that in the United Kingdom. It is a unique experience—it is not like going abroad to fight a war. Being on the streets of the United Kingdom, carrying a rifle and trying to protect those who are also under attack from those who would will their destruction is something very peculiar, yet my soldiers and many others acted with the most phenomenal restraint. Provocation was there all the time, but they acted with the utmost restraint. I know of no other country whose soldiers would have ever done that, no matter what their background was. I am immensely proud to have been one of them. We should stop demeaning each other about politics in this. This is about protection, and we should be talking about that.

I lost a very good friend in Northern Ireland. It is pretty awful, really, when I think back to what actually happened. Robert Nairac was kidnapped. He was tortured for a long time. We know not what happened to his body, although we may guess. He was executed after having escaped—that much we do know. No one from the IRA who committed that atrocity will ever, I suspect, be held to account in any court of law. That is the injustice of this process. His parents died never knowing where his body was, and his family today still do not know. Talk about injustice—that is injustice.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service. I agree that that is a gross injustice. Would he support a new investigation into his friend’s death, if new evidence were to emerge, and does he appreciate that the existing legacy Act would prevent that, which is one of the reasons it needs to be repealed?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was attacking equivalence. The reality is that if we get rid of the legacy Act right now, we will go back to a one-sided process where veterans will be pursued but nobody in the IRA will come in front of the courts. Many of them have these ridiculous letters of comfort given to them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said. That equivalence is a distraction. I want to see those people prosecuted, but are we going to get witness statements from people who have run to and hidden in other countries? I doubt it very much.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The only likelihood of ever finding out what happened to Captain Nairac’s body would be if somebody came forward to the truth and reconciliation body, which is part of the legacy Act, in return for immunity, and told people where it was. There will be no other way of finding out.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was going to come to that point. My right hon. Friend guessed what was on my mind—not that it was that deep for him to get to it. That was the whole reason why, in the end, even though we had our doubts, we supported the legacy Act: because we thought that, on balance, there was at least the likelihood of getting to the bottom of many unexposed cases, and of the deaths and violence that took place, knowing full well that those from the IRA will never be prosecuted for it and we will never know otherwise.

The Government cannot proceed unless they are able categorically to clarify that legislation will protect veterans from the vexatious pursuit that has been so much in their minds and worries throughout this period. If we cannot give them that—if the Government cannot legislate for that—then there is no purpose in getting rid of the existing Act. That has to be the point. The Government may not like it, but they must face this reality: there cannot be pursuit of veterans if previous inquiries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said, have cleared them of whatever the charge was before. This repeat process that has been taking place, on absolutely no evidence whatever, is what has caused all the worry for our veterans.

If we care about our veterans, we should not rush to change the existing legislation until we can confirm protection for these brave men and women who served their country so loyally, on behalf of civilians in Northern Ireland. If we cannot find a solution, it is ours and the Government’s duty not to tamper with what exists, for fear of destroying the one protection we have given those veterans.

Clonoe Inquest

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, he is the Member for Hereford, so many of the people who have retired and will face these threats will be his constituents. He and I are long-standing supporters of human rights in this country, and have both defended article 2, for example, but this case is a misuse of article 2. The people who wrote the European convention on human rights were recently out of the second world war—they did not write it to be interpreted in this way. He has made a double point.

Returning to my right hon. Friend’s point about the IRA, since the events in question, the Good Friday agreement has allowed for the release of convicted terrorists in order to achieve an end to the bloodshed. I guess we all agree with that, yet we continue to persecute those who fought against the terrorists. These persecutions are conducted decades after the fact, without any new evidence being presented to give reason for the reopening of cases. After the action, everybody involved was questioned thoroughly to establish the facts—what the intelligence was, what the arrest plans were, and what happened. On the basis of that questioning, on 15 October 1992—with the evidence close to hand and the events fresh in the witnesses’ minds, and when investigation of everything was possible—the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland concluded that there should be no prosecution of the soldiers. There was no case to answer.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate before the House, and for the quality of his exposition. Does he agree that this case highlights the single biggest problem that we face, which is that the IRA kept no records at all, and if it did have any, it destroyed them? Many IRA members got letters of comfort from the then Government, quietly and secretly, which ended up killing any chance of prosecution. Soldiers who served have none of that; they are left out in the open, and can be prosecuted, while many IRA members have disappeared and can live a life without further charge.

[David Davis]

My right hon. and gallant Friend makes the central point of the argument perfectly. Here we are, 33 years later, with a Northern Ireland coroner judging events in retrospect, without any new evidence, and finding that soldiers acted unlawfully. That is entirely at odds with the result of the legal investigation immediately after the operation in 1992. I believe in a process of peace and reconciliation that allows closure for all the relatives of the dead, but he makes a good point: there are no records, and that goes for the vast majority of the people who died in the troubles. That makes this a process not of peace and reconciliation, but of vindictiveness and vengeance. It is an attempt to rewrite history, not find the truth.

There have been countless attempts to take British soldiers to court for their actions during the troubles, but how many ex-IRA combatants have faced the same thing? Not one. Not a single IRA member has been pursued over the 2,000 deaths—all murders—for which the IRA were responsible. Our veterans are being punished in their retirement years for decisions they made when serving their country. The psychological impact on them, and on soldiers serving today, is enormous. The ruling also undermines the integrity of present and future operations. We cannot send soldiers into high-risk environments, ask them to undertake brutal training, and expect them to operate with confidence if they fear being condemned decades later.

The ruling on the Clonoe incident risks further persecution of the British soldiers who served during the troubles. The Government must ensure that those who serve our country today are protected from such partisan distortions of justice. Our soldiers deserve better. What we are seeing with the Clonoe ruling is historical revisionism that seeks to punish those who served our country in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The law must be applied fairly, and we must not allow politics to undermine the legacy of those who fought to protect our freedoms.

The Government—I say this directly to the Secretary of State—gave notice at the time of the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. The judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner on the Clonoe incident exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. The Ministry of Defence is quite properly seeking a judicial review of this inquiry, but even if it wins, we must put in place statutory protections for our soldiers, now and in the future, from this persecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement, not a future of endless stress and psychological torture. If the Government leave them open to persecution it will be shameful, and will serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

Many Members may have received letters on this issue from retired Special Air Service soldiers. Most of them say in those letters that they support human rights, but they do more than that; they guarantee those rights for the rest of us. Let me end by quoting the words of Charles Province, the American soldier and poet:

“It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the peace camp organiser, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

It is the soldier, not the politician…who has given these freedoms.”

These soldiers are the guarantors of our security, our freedom and our justice. I say to the Secretary of State, surely we owe them no less than security, freedom and justice in return.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

As we have a little more time than expected, I want to say a few words in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). I served in Northern Ireland, as many others did, during the troubles. We did not ask to go there; we were sent there, and we were given real restrictions through the yellow card on how we were allowed to behave. In fact, all the soldiers with whom I served were so fearful of loosing off their rifles at any stage that they would probably have erred on the side of bringing themselves into danger, because they were so certain that they must not make a mistake.

Not a single soldier I ever met thought that this was some kind of game to be played. It was a life-and-death issue, and all those whom my right hon. Friend has described were fully aware of what was required of them under the yellow card provisions. They would not have loosed off their weapons had they not genuinely feared for their life, given the cases that had gone before, and the deaths that happened—the IRA did not give any warnings before they fired. Those issues are critical in all this, and when we sit in judgment over what happened then, all these years later, it is not justice. It becomes a pursuit by those who, as my right hon. Friend said, want to change the history.

We gave away a lot in the Good Friday agreement, and many of those who lost family members—we will all remember various individuals—had to put up with this requirement so that we could get peace. It takes a lot to get peace, and it takes a lot of suffering thereafter to find out what happened. In many cases in which soldiers served bravely and died, there are questions to be answered about the manner of their death.

I think of Robert Nairac, and I make no apology for raising his name again. He was captured by the IRA, tortured, beaten and killed. No one knows where his body lies. His parents died not knowing what happened to him. We do not know whether he had a proper burial. We certainly know that his parents are dead, but we will never find out what happened to him, and many others like him. They served their country because they believed, as my right hon. Friend said, in upholding justice and freedom.

I put it to the Secretary of State that the key to this whole debate is our duty to protect those who put their life on the line to protect our freedoms and our justice, and our duty to make sure that things are fair. If we forget about them for just one moment, we are not worthy of being here, for they do not have a voice and cannot say no when they are ordered into situations where they could die.

Only the British Army could have done what we did in Northern Ireland. We put up with so much and restrained ourselves with such dignity. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to my right hon. Friend, and to ensure justice for those who fear pursuit for only one reason: political purposes. It is time to end this.

Clonoe Inquest

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.

The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

The EU has behaved not as a friend to Northern Ireland. The EU has behaved as a sovereignty grabber in respect of Northern Ireland. That is where it caused, and continues to cause, the offence. If hon. Members think it is a good thing to back that up and endorse it, they obviously do not think very much of the territory of Northern Ireland.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

We are moving slightly into the ridiculous; may I bring us back to the main point? The purpose of the Bill that the hon. and learned Gentleman has drafted is simply to provide a solution for what is currently an unworkable position. I say to Government Members that it is not about 27 nations hating the UK; ultimately, it is about function. Sir Jonathan Faull, who was the director general of the EU internal market service directorate, ended up as director general of the taskforce for strategic issues related to the UK referendum, and he and his team came to a simple conclusion: the only way to make the situation workable was to have, in essence, what is in the Bill. He has put out a statement today to say exactly that. It is a practical issue, and those who knew and understood the difficulties at the time said there was a way to do this, but they were ignored.

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are looking for a solution are supporters of this Bill, because we cannot go on as we are. Those who think that it is okay to subjugate part of their own territory are opposed to this Bill. They are quite content with the colonisation of part of our territory. In constitutional terms, where we have ended up is that Northern Ireland is no longer a full part of the United Kingdom. Why? It is because we are not our own masters in 300 areas of law and that a foreign jurisdiction makes those laws. What does that create? It creates what is called, in constitutional terms, a condominium: Northern Ireland is ruled in part by UK laws and in part by foreign laws. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) finds that hilarious—sorry, it is not hilarious to be subjected to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

No, I am going to make some progress.

I strongly refute the fallacy that to depart from the Windsor framework is to breach international law. On the contrary, to perpetuate the infringement of our territorial integrity is to breach international law itself and, indeed, the Belfast agreement, which was built on consent, of which there has been none in respect of the current arrangements. The correct application of international law is to the effect that agreements that contradict the regulating principles, including respect for territorial integrity, are themselves the villains of the piece.

Having set out everything that is wrong, let me come to the solution. The Government have always told us that we cannot conduct sanitary and phytosanitary checks away from the border. It cannot be done, so we must have a border—in our case, in the Irish sea. But this week a statutory instrument was laid before this House that does exactly that. It does it for goods that come from the EU, via Northern Ireland, to GB. It says that the goods can be checked wherever they arrive, such as at factories or other premises; they do not have to be checked at the border. If we can do that for goods coming through Northern Ireland to GB, why can we not do it in reverse? Of course we could check goods without tampering with sovereignty; we could do so anywhere within the territory of the United Kingdom. It is not the impracticability of carrying out the necessary checks that is the problem; it is the fact that under the surrender of sovereignty it has been insisted that they are carried out in the Irish sea border.

That brings me to clauses 16 to 18 and the concept they would permit of mutual enforcement. I readily accept that the clauses draw heavily on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022—which found the approval of the previous Parliament—but they are none the worse for that. What they do is simple: they say that two respecting neighbours—that is what I hope the United Kingdom and the EU are—with the necessary trust between each other can operate a system where they mutually check the goods flowing through their territory to ensure they meet the standards of the recipient territory. That is a fundamental tenet of much of international trade. It is something that can be built upon in respect of this matter that the United Kingdom says, “Yes, we know the EU wants to protect, it tells us, its single market and, yes, we want to protect our single market, so we will undertake, by virtue of criminal sanction for those who do not, to check that goods flowing from our factories to your consumers, from our territory to your territory, meet the standards you set, and we expect you to do the same.” That can be done without any of the paraphernalia that we presently have.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On this particular point, it is worth pointing out that the EU already does it. In its agreements with New Zealand, for example, it trusts that specific veterinary practices to check lamb and other products arriving in the EU are done at the point of departure. By the time they get to Rotterdam, they are cleared straight through on the basis that they respect the checks done by those veterinary companies. They already did it for 40 years with UK companies where any subsequent checks had to be done. All this is already being done. The question is: why is it not being done for the arrangement we have at the moment?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. The fascinating point is the very concept was articulated from and originated within the EU itself.

During the early stages of the negotiations, Sir Jonathan Faull and academics Daniel Sarmiento and Joseph Weiler came up with that proposition. It is not my proposition. It is not a United Kingdom proposition. It was an EU proposition. They said the answer is mutual enforcement. Today we have a statement from those three gentlemen, which has been made public. It says, “On Friday of this week, the House of Commons will be debating a Bill which attempts to address some of the difficulties resulting from the Brexit divorce agreements between the EU and the UK, which might be of interest to readers. In 2019, we proposed a solution which would have obviated any need for these complicated and divisive legal manoeuvres. The UK and the EU could have respected each other’s positions and saved everyone a great deal of time and effort. The Financial Times characterised the proposal as a ‘win-win solution’. Regrettably, it was not followed.” I echo that: regrettably, it was not followed. Why was it not followed? Because the politics took over. Instead of looking for a workable, practical border solution, the politics of making the United Kingdom pay for leaving the EU took over. That is how we got into this morass of a pernicious imposition through the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I will respond in, hopefully, the same tone and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I suspect there is a big prize for him waiting in the Government Whips Office after this debate. He welcomed every intervention going. I do not besmirch his character at all, but since he suggested that there is interest in the concerns being raised by the Unionist community, I reflect that with almost two hours left of a five-hour debate, I am the third speaker. Scores of Members from Northern Ireland on both sides of the Chamber will probably not get the opportunity to make their point and represent their constituents, because of a quest to make sure that the Bill is talked out. I say, respectfully, that the hon. Member did exactly what he was asked to do, but when considering these issues, I am not sure just how constructive that will prove to be.

The hon. Gentleman said in his remarks that we will be able to deal with issues as time goes by. I have watched “As Time Goes By” on repeat on UKTV Gold, and I have watched people in this Chamber say that we will deal with these issues “as time go by”. Here is an opportunity to engage in the concerns that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised, having received support from across the Unionist spectrum in Northern Ireland to raise them. Yet, as time goes by, though it is said that we shall not be dismissed or demeaned in the position that we are putting forward, that is exactly what is happening.

I stand not only as leader of my party and my colleagues, but as a co-sponsor of the hon. Member’s Bill. I commend him on the position that he has outlined to the Chamber today and on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot. He is not a gambler—anyone who listens to him will know that he will put forward his principled position without fear or favour—but he took a chance and he has this opportunity. I commend him on doing so in a collective and cohesive way that has allowed for greater co-operation not just from those in Northern Ireland, but from across the country. He should be commended for that.

The hon. Member and I embarked on this journey in the same position as we approached the 2016 vote. Although over the intervening years there have been a few crossed paths, a few cross words and the odd crossed sword, I suspect that it is good, fitting and encouraging for people at home that today we are speaking with one voice about these issues.

I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bootle that one of the best ways to deal with the issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and me, and supported by colleagues in their own remarks, is to honour agreements that have been reached. When the hon. and learned Member said in his remarks that it seemed as if the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to “suck it up,” the Minister said from a sedentary position—I hope she will not fall out with me for sharing this—“No, we fight to maintain the Union.” [Interruption.] She is agreeing.

However, whenever agreement was reached earlier this year, the “Safeguarding the Union” paper outlined a number of stepping stones to a better place. The Minister and her colleagues present voted in favour of that agreement. They recognised the recurring issues in Northern Ireland, and the harm that those issues were causing the people of Northern Ireland and consumers, no matter the constitutional outlook. If constitutional principles are not shared, it harms ordinary people in Northern Ireland. They voted for solutions on an interim basis—a stepping-stone approach—to move these issues forward. Where are we on that today? What is the Government’s position on eradicating routine checks within the UK’s internal market system? They voted for it in this House back in February, and they did so because they recognised the constitutional implications that checks were having and the practical frustrations they were causing consumers in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is addressing an important part of the Bill’s purpose—from all the rhetorical issues right down to hard tacks. The previous Government went into the negotiations on the Windsor framework because it had dawned on, and been agreed by, the European Union that the protocol was not working. It recognised that nothing is fixed; these things are about experience, and then tempering that experience and changing. Labour Members keep saying, “You’ve reached an agreement and you will breach it,” but the real principle behind that is to recognise that there are still fundamental flaws, and that we could agree a better way to harmonise everybody in that respect.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for co-sponsoring the Bill and being present today. He is right: the people who say in this or other debates that we cannot change what is written in tablets of stone are of the very party that was, from 1998, part of securing the Good Friday agreement, which was worked on in a political way, with parties in Northern Ireland, including my own, and changed time and again through processes at Leeds castle, the St Andrews agreement and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The very arguments that they are deploying against change ignore the fact that they have a history of doing exactly the same thing—particularly on the Belfast agreement, which they often suggest is written in tablets of stone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible, to allow others to speak.

I wish to come to what the Bill is actually about, rather than what people say it is about, but first I want to dispel the idea that it would mean going backwards. The idea of mutual enforcement in fact originated, as others have said, in the EU itself at the time. It came from those who were tasked, as senior officials—British and others—to come forward with a solution, before the end of the Brexit debates and so on, with an alternative way to make the borders work and to take the heat out of what later became really quite powerful and ended up with a Government literally unable to move any motion at all and have it succeed.

I have personal experience of this issue because, when there was a break in the negotiations between the UK Government—who handled it pretty badly at the time, by the way—and the Commission, I managed somehow to get a team of people together to go and see Monsieur Barnier directly. We sat at a table with all his negotiators, and a few of ours who were there, and we talked through the principles. This was before mutual enforcement became a concept, but we talked about what already existed in the EU with others from outside the EU and inside the EU, and how they traded. We ended up reaching very much the same conclusion as originally reached by Sir Jonathan Faull and others: that mutual enforcement was the better deal. Monsieur Barnier agreed with us. At the end of that agreement—I can see him following me out as I put my coat on—he said, “The principle behind any chance of this being agreed is that we must have trust. Without trust, we cannot have an agreement.”

The sad part about it was that when I came back to the UK to speak to my Government, they did not want to take any interest in that as a departure. They had already got bogged down in other areas. Sadly, two weeks later, what actually happened was that the Government went back in and carried on with their complicated and hopeless negotiation, without first setting out the principle of what they wanted. I think Monsieur Barnier was open to that and I think the EU wanted mutual enforcement. At that stage, there was no question about weaponising the border; it was about how we could reach an agreement. We could have done much more then, and I still today think that this idea is it.

The Bill, then, is not about going backwards in the sense that it destroys what we have done; it actually says something about what we have done so far in two stages. The protocol, it seems to me, could only ever have been temporary, and the Windsor agreement, which I did not support, opened up the negotiation again, which was good, but the ask was so limited, and in some ways rather restrictive, that we have ended up with the principle being there, but the practical bit does not work. That was the moment when we should have used the opportunity to go back into mutual enforcement. What is so wrong about that? The EU already uses the principle in its dealings with other countries.

As I said in an intervention earlier, the classic example is New Zealand. The EU trusts the New Zealand veterinary officers—particular key ones, but they trust them all once they are registered—to say whether certain foodstuffs are, under SPS rules, packaged properly and agreeable under the EU rules. They are trusted to say that EU rules are met. That is a critical component. When those foodstuffs are shipped and arrive at Rotterdam, most often it comes up on the computer and they are waved through. Any checks that have to take place in Rotterdam for non-EU countries take place 30 km behind the border, and they are spot checks just in case something has happened en route or something else has changed on the way. In other words, things move smoothly through. But such arrangements were not agreed in the various agreements here.

Eventually, in trying to draft this idea together, I sat down with others to try to figure out how we could make mutual enforcement work. I give credit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for having brought forward the Bill, because it gives us a chance to debate the matter. I know very well what goes on in this Chamber and I know only too well how Fridays work, and the sad part is that if the Government do not want to have any further debate on something, they arrange for it to be talked out. It has happened on both sides; cynicism exists on all sides. I understand that. Lots of people will have come in, particularly from London because they are closer, and they will do what they have to do to talk this out. The Bill is not going to get through; I never expected it to. [Interruption.] Honestly, do not object; Government Members know very well that that is exactly what happens. Some will be here because they believe in something—I look across at my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—but the majority are not. Therefore, let us just understand fundamentally what we could have been discussing and what the current Government could now be engaged in; they could be talking to the EU about changing these arrangements.

The current arrangements are damaging relationships and causing issues around Northern Ireland. We know that; nobody is arguing that that is not the case. If we have such problems that affect the constitution and the smooth running of businesses both in Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom, then surely any Government would want to make sure those are settled. It is not a polemic, it is not a right or left wing thing to do; it is called practical governance to try to figure out how this works.

I did not agree with my Government when they brought forward the Windsor agreement in its final stages, and I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought they had lost a real opportunity. The EU had accepted that its imposition earlier on did not work and it had to change it, but what we ended up with was a de minimis change which did not solve the problems; in fact some of them have got worse.

When we strip out all the politics, the key component is that mutual enforcement requires each side to make reciprocal legal commitments to each other and to enforce the rules of the other with respect to trade across the border. In other words, we would accept that where our exporters export to the EU, we are responsible if they breach EU regulations. So if the EU says a company or individual is exporting goods in breach of the terms of its trade, the UK Government will take the responsibility to proceed against them, and vice versa for the EU.

That does not require no border, because there has always been a border in Northern Ireland; we just do not want a hard border. That was always the issue. People talk about borders, but they mean a hard border. I had some experience of that when I had to man one of the checkpoints there when I was sent to Northern Ireland. I hated doing it, but that was a hard border. We do not want a hard border and mutual enforcement obviates the need for a hard border. Borders will exist, and we talked about that in terms of currency and VAT.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On this mythical hard border, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to implement such a thing for any land border of 300 miles with 280 crossing points, and that the process we are embarked upon is trying to get a two-way flow of trade that obviates the need for any of those checks anywhere on the border?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The real point is getting rid of the Irish sea checks; it is anathema that one part of the United Kingdom is now treated separately from the rest of the UK. That is surely a reasonable idea and if it is in this Bill then the Government should want to take it through to the next stage and debate it. This is what the Bill does. Mutual enforcement does not of itself remove customs duties; neither does it harmonise or require mutual recognition of standards. It works by inverting the usual approach to customs enforcement; duties may, for example, be imposed for anti-dumping reasons or due to subsidies that one party claims are injurious to itself or to companies as a result of goods failing to qualify for zero duty under rules of origin. That is what the Bill does. All the rest that has been talked about is not in this Bill; it is very simple and very practical. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK already has an agreed mechanism, which is very important for identifying and addressing these distortions. If we are able to allow that and make changes, that is how it will work.

There are other areas, too, which I will speed through as quickly as possible. Mutual enforcement can also under these terms accommodate the collection of customs duty. The detailed procedures are obviously beyond the scope of briefing papers and the Bill, but the reality is that we could have a system whereby an order of goods from the UK to the Republic of Ireland triggers a UK export declaration and an EU import declaration such that in terms of the EU’s customs data any sums owed are put into the goods invoice and paid by the importer to the exporter. There are many other ways ahead that can be facilitated, particularly now that almost all of this is done using modern technology, not large sheathes of paper and with a man standing at the border with a ladle to check whether the brandy being imported or exported tastes like brandy. That does not happen any longer, but from some of the debates it would seem somehow we have not moved on from 17th-century customs requirements.

To ensure compliance with this regime, a penalty in this arrangement would apply to those parties who failed to follow the procedure. The penalty would apply to both exporters and hauliers, therefore incentivising all parties involved in the carriage of goods to ensure that appropriate EU customs duties are paid. By the way, the same would be required in the Republic for its importers. It should be noted—this is the important bit that has gone missing—that an analogous system would in any event be required for the red and green lane approach prescribed in the Windsor framework.

Is this going back? No. It is using what we have and ultimately making it better. That seems to me the practical principle behind this idea of mutual enforcement. We should have started in this place, but we now have an opportunity to look at this issue and decide if there is a better way to do it that will take some of the good stuff already there and improve it by saying to the EU that we want a smooth process between the EU and the UK, because everything else then follows. Many EU members already agree; I have heard their discussions.

I cannot remember who it was, but somebody got up and said, “Did we not think they were allies? Did we not think they were friends?” It is because we think they are allies and friends that we want to get rid of the things that make us have rows and arguments about the most practical issues that could be dealt with. That is the point of this mutual enforcement process: to get rid of the ludicrous arguments about who we are and who they are. We can then be very good allies and friends, which we are and will need to be over the next few years, as we enter arguably the most dangerous time that I can remember.

I have a point for the Government. Given that almost identical rules apply in the EU and the UK, the EU could, and arguably should, negotiate an SPS equivalence agreement with the UK, as it has done for countries as far away as Canada and New Zealand, as I have said before.

[Jim Allister]

Given the right hon. Member’s experience of international affairs, what does he think are the prospects for the present arrangements? Are they an incentive or a disincentive to securing a trade deal with the United States of America?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thought the hon. and learned Member might tempt me down that road. Whether we have a trade deal with the United States of America is way beyond my paygrade. No Government I could ever join would ever have me, so on that basis I will answer from my own perspective. Yes, there is a change in Administration in America. I understand one thing, because I negotiated a trade deal with the incoming President of the United States, about which I have never quite told the full story. It became very clear to me in those discussions that he wanted a trade deal, more than anything else, with the United Kingdom, and he said so.

How we go about that is a complicated issue. There is an easy way to do it, through what are called sector-by-sector trade arrangements, which are agreed before moving on to the next area. That is made more difficult by the arrangement in which, somehow, part of the United Kingdom now seems to be partly inside the EU. That makes it difficult for them to understand whether any goods and so on would slip through into the EU. That will cause a problem—it is not my place to say whether it is insurmountable, but these are unnecessary difficulties. However, if we had mutual enforcement, that would not be the case. It would be very clear at that point that that would actually be a very good basis for a trade deal with the United States to smooth our arrangements with them. They are our biggest trading partner and, ironically, unlike the EU, one that we have a surplus with and not a deficit of some significant degree.

I end on this point. In terms of what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years, there are big, deep gulfs and divides over anything that touches on Northern Ireland and its relationships with the UK and the rest of Ireland. I came here to look at the practicalities of a better way to sort out the trading relationships that leaves Northern Ireland as a solid part of the United Kingdom. Yes, it has a special place, because it is the one land border that we have with the EU, but that does not mean to say that we should treat it differently in terms of its arrangements with us here in Parliament. My worry is that we set those insurmountable problems ahead first and, at the end, we then do nothing. We could achieve this change. If the Government had their way, they would take all the bits from the agreement and try to discuss and implement them with the EU. The EU knows that that would not work. It is time to make some changes. Just talking out the Bill helps no one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I am going to make progress.

As I said earlier, the core challenge remains the trilemma: how do we preserve the integrity of the UK’s internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and respect the legitimate interests of our EU partners in protecting their single market, just as we seek to protect ours? The Windsor framework provides an answer to a very difficult question. I say simply that, across several elections, the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members elected to this place have been elected on a platform of avoiding a hard border. For good reason, then, we need to support the Windsor framework.

Thirdly, the Bill would serve to prejudice the democratic decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly is making itself. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland initiated the progress for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. That vote is provided for in the Windsor framework and under domestic law, which was strengthened under the terms of “Safeguarding the Union”. It is now a matter for Northern Ireland’s elected representatives to decide on. I am pleased that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are able, as part of the functioning devolved institutions, to exercise the important democratic scrutiny functions included in the Windsor framework. The Bill would fatally undermine the powers that those in the Assembly have over scrutinising regulations that apply in Northern Ireland.

The Government will only support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that work for business, protect the UK’s internal market and uphold our international obligations. The Windsor framework does just that, and the Government are firmly committed to it, just as stridently as we are committed to the UK internal market and to Northern Ireland flourishing within a strengthened Union. Just as important is that we will be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about what is and is not possible, and what the trade-offs are with various options. There will be no more magical thinking; no reopening of the wardrobe into a political Narnia of mythical solutions to the practical issues that we must consider in respect of trade; and no more simplifications that work as soundbites but do not stand up in reality. At this crucial time, the people of Northern Ireland deserve honesty.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does the Minister not agree that mutual enforcement is, in principle, about using what already exists in terms of trade? In the course of building on the Windsor agreement, might she consider influencing the EU to get rid of the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Fleur Anderson]

I do not know where in the world mutual enforcement has worked. I understand how it can work in some limited ways, but not in the wholesale way outlined by the right hon. Member. I am afraid it is in the tradition of unreal answers to real and complex challenges to which the Windsor framework remains the only credible solution.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

On the one inquiry I announced to the House, in relation to the murder of Pat Finucane, I explained the unique circumstances that led me to reach that conclusion. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, inquiries were never taken off the table as an option. They have remained on the table. It is for the Government of the day to decide whether a public inquiry is ordered or not. He is right that civil cases and inquests in due course will return. It is the case that some people do not have confidence in ICRIR. That is why I think it is important that we should take further steps to try to build that confidence, but I have no doubt about its capacity to do the job that is required on behalf of the families that seek its help. As I made clear in the House previously, in the end, ICRIR’s effectiveness will be judged by those families. Do they get the answers that they have sought for so long by approaching it? I know that Sir Declan Morgan is really committed to making sure that he can do that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I, like a number of others, served in Northern Ireland. We did not ask to go, and I lost a very good friend there—and others, at the same time. That man’s parents died without ever knowing what had happened to him, but it turns out that he may well have been dismembered and disappeared completely. There is no closure for them, and there is no chance, unless Ireland opens up its books and looks into this, that we will ever get any justice for him. He had a family as well, and many friends who wonder what happened to that brave man, and there are many more like him. So I say on their behalf: yes, let there be justice for families, but let us not forget all those soldiers who will now, in some cases, be hounded for no reason at all—those who lost their friends and their children and who did not want to go there in the first place. Where is the justice for them?

[Hilary Benn]

Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. Let me also say how sad I am to hear about the case that he has just described. Justice information should be—must be —available to all. I would just point out, however, that there are service personnel who lost their lives in the conflict in Northern Ireland who did not support the legacy Act, precisely because it proposed to give immunity to people who had killed their loved ones. That is another reason why I think it is right to remove immunity from the statute book, which the remedial order that I have laid before the House today will do.