Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make some progress, as others want to get in; I am aware of your desire for us to get on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To proceed with this Bill, we must be able to answer Linda’s question, put in the quote I read a moment ago, and be sure that we are promoting reconciliation and not further division. Quite simply, the test for a way forward is that it must provide more benefits for victims than for those who committed acts of terror. In so doing, it would also offer greater fairness to our armed forces and veterans.

Last year, the Government suggested a blanket amnesty for everyone involved in the troubles. The vast majority of those who benefited would have been republican or loyalist paramilitaries, but it would also have stopped any further prosecutions of veterans of our armed forces. The origins of this proposal can be found in the Conservative manifesto of 2019, which promised:

“We will continue to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues that provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and do more to give veterans the protections they deserve.”

The vast majority of those who served in our armed forces in Northern Ireland should feel proud of their service. Over 250,000 personnel were involved in Operation Banner and 722 were killed by terrorist actions. We cannot forget, and we remain grateful for their service, but it is clear that not every action met the standards that we set: a very small minority did not.

From a quarter of a million personnel, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland has brought cases against six former military personnel for offences committed during the troubles. The vast majority of our veterans deserve the chance to talk about their service with pride. They do not need to be granted immunity; in fact, the very assumption that they might need it creates a toxic moral equivalence between military service and acts of terror. What has caused so much anger among the Northern Ireland veterans community is the idea that there is no fairness in who is being investigated. The Bill fails to provide a fair and balanced system for veterans that recognises their service, addresses reinvestigations and provides welfare support. Delivering a Bill that provides more benefit to terrorists than veterans or victims is not fair to anyone.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The shadow Minister has spent some time admiring the problem, but I believe he is very light on the solution. What message might he have for our security forces, our armed forces and our veterans if his party votes today against this Bill?

[Peter Kyle]

My party will be voting against this Bill today because of the equivalence it makes between people who served in the armed forces and those who committed acts of terror and because of the incredibly low threshold. We should remember that 722 service people lost their lives by acts of terror, and the people who committed those acts—against our armed forces—could get immunity from prosecution with the very lowest possible threshold. That is what we will be voting against today. A better process would start by listening, rather than forcing solutions on people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

I know—my right hon. Friend served the year before I was born—but many people would not remember exactly what happened then. Everyone in my patrol would describe those incidents in a different way. Dragging soldiers through the courts for what has happened is a stain on what we had.

The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was put in place in 1998. I can see why it has taken until now to get to where we are, because there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of reasons—people always have a reason for why something cannot be done—so I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for getting us here. We have heard that there will not be unanimous support for the Bill. We see that. I look to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that Democratic Unionist party Members do not agree with the Bill and do not support it, but want to make some reasonable changes as it goes through. I understand that this has a different impact on them and their communities. Many of us will be touched by these issues, but DUP Members still live in those communities. It will be decades before there is change. No Bill will change the impact of the lives that were lost or the impact on people who went and served over there. People are never the same afterwards.

I would like to think that I am quite a reasonable person and I tend to measure what I say, but those on the Labour Front Bench have put up one Back-Bench Member to debate the Bill, and I find that an absolute dishonour to this House. I find it an insult.

[James Sunderland]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is the party of the armed forces?

[Stuart Anderson]

No, I certainly do not. As I said, I am trying to temper my remarks, but Labour is going to vote against the Bill for political reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) turns around to look. There is not one Labour Member there. [Interruption.] There have been a couple, I will give him that, but they could at least put forward an argument for why they are not supporting the Bill, and not just from the Front Bench. Labour Members will be voting against the Bill without having put forward a reasonable argument and that is completely unacceptable. Words have happened too much in this House; we need to see action now.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me for the graveyard shift, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There has been plenty of passion and emotion in this important debate, but I want to give my view, as a relatively new Member and, I hope, a pragmatist. Today is about the past, the present and the future, and it is about people, many of whom were terribly caught up in the troubles. It is already clear that the Bill will not be a panacea—far from it—but it does have defined outcomes that I believe to be broadly positive, for reasons that I shall explain. No one will pretend that this is at all easy, or that it is a formality.

Let me begin by commending the Secretary of State and his staff in the Northern Ireland Office for acting in good faith throughout. This process is very difficult legally, and very sensitive politically. It has required strategic patience and huge personal and professional resilience under pressure. Ultimately the Bill is a no-win statute, because it will not bring people back, and it will not bring solace to victims and their families, in that those whom we should be holding to account may now never be brought to justice. However, I believe that it will ultimately provide some solace and some closure, although not a lot. Despite all its imperfections, I believe that it will do what it says on the tin, as the least worst option.

This legislation has done the rounds. It has been through the Irish Government, veterans groups and victims groups, and it is probably the missing chapter of the Good Friday agreement of 24 years ago. It therefore comes as no surprise to anyone. It has, I believe, received due diligence. It has taken longer than expected, and yes, the Northern Ireland Office has received criticism—not least from Conservative Members—for the strategic pause that has been necessary, but it was a manifesto promise, it was in the Queen’s Speech, and it is finally being delivered. It is now deliverable as well, but it is also a heavy responsibility for the Government.

What I want to say about the Bill relates first to veterans, veterans groups and those who may still be serving. Do I think that the Bill is the right way to protect veterans from vexatious complaints? The simple answer is yes. Why? Because it breaks the cycle. It ends the misery, and it ends the knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. We owe it to these people, who served in good faith in Northern Ireland. I commend the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and the work of so many veterans groups. This has gone on for too long, and it needs to be killed now.

Of course, it is not possible to deliver legacy protection for veterans in isolation. It has to be able to withstand legal challenge. It has to be article 2 compliant. It has to get through Strasbourg and comply with the Human Rights Act. The principle of legal equivalence underpins that statute because it has to, and therefore the premise of conditional amnesty is rightly pivotal. It was right to move away from the original premise of what might be termed “new and compelling evidence”. Who decides that, and how does one draw the line in law? It is impossible: the bottom line is that one cannot. I therefore understand the logic of why a blanket statute of limitations has been introduced, and I think that is now the right thing to do.

What does the Bill actually do? We know that it establishes the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. In theory, it creates an environment of openness, which may give answers and some closure, but I appreciate the flaws in the argument. It will grant immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission. The important point is that legal equivalence does not mean moral equivalence, so it is absolutely right that conditional amnesty is dependent on engagement. The Bill will end troubles-based criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, which is the right thing to do, and it should mean the commissioning of a record of every troubles-related death from the ICRIR. The list goes on.

However, in the interests of balance, I should point out that the PSNI currently has a caseload of at least 900 unsolved cases. Op Kenova, which was mentioned earlier, has unfinished business for many, and victims and families will not get the resolution they seek. I am also acutely conscious of the concerns of those who believe that protagonists just will not engage. In my view, we have to give this a chance. It is important that we do that.

The Bill is divisive, as we have heard today, and we have to go forward as carefully as we can, mindful of the particular sensitivity of victims’ families. That is a given. But the time is now 24 years on from the Good Friday agreement, and we have no choice. We have to deliver on the promise that was made, not least to our veterans. Personally, I am bewildered and disappointed by Labour’s decision not to be in the Chamber today and to vote against the Bill. In addition to doing the right thing for our security services and our veterans, the Bill is ultimately about national politics, not party politics, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will do the right thing this afternoon.

[Stuart Anderson]

I certainly laboured that point, but it is a point that really needs labouring. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is not the party of veterans, and that its action tonight will be seen across the veteran community?

[James Sunderland]

My personal view is that we have to show the requisite support to our veterans, our armed forces and our security services. Today is ultimately about two things. It is about drawing a line under vexatious complaints and about hoping that Northern Ireland can emerge into a peaceful and prosperous future. I very much hope that that happens.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

Dame Eleanor, I am conscious that I have been on my feet for more than an hour now and that Members from across the Committee will want to participate in this debate. I will take a couple more final interventions, however.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Clause 18 clearly states:

“The ICRIR must grant a person…immunity from prosecution if conditions A to C are met.”

Condition C is that the person engages

“true to the best of”

their “knowledge and belief”. If it is later proven that the information that individual gave the process is false, will immunity be revoked?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I am sure that whatever view each of us here today takes of this Bill, from whichever vantage point, we all feel a great weight of responsibility in dealing with these matters. I am mindful of the time, so I will keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can. The Scottish National party has serious concerns about the Bill and the approach that has been taken to it in terms of its principle. I have been clear throughout, leading on this for my group, that where independent prosecutors consider that there is a sufficiency of evidence and the likelihood of a conviction, and where they judge it to be in the public interest to do so, they should still be able to bring forward these prosecutions. I am sorry to say that this Bill and the general principle behind it utterly squash that prospect. I do not intend to reprise my arguments from the Second Reading debate, except to say that we do not believe that the goal of achieving truth and reconciliation is advanced by closing down the prospect of further investigations that can be conducted to a criminal threshold, or indeed by setting aside the norms of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of individuals to seek recourse through that law.

The SNP has not tabled any amendments. We oppose the fundamental principle behind the Bill, and we do not believe it can be amended into acceptability. I am quite up front in saying that we will continue to oppose the Bill. That said, if the Bill is going to pass, which it certainly will, there are aspects on which we will join others in trying to improve.

In that vein, I place on record our very strong support for amendment 115. I heard all the dialogue with the Minister, and I do not doubt his sincerity on this for one moment. If the wheels are whirring behind the scenes on how a possible compromise might be brokered before we conclude our business tonight, all well and good. If not, I strongly urge him to accept the amendment and, if necessary, improve it elsewhere. We do not want to divide on this, but we cannot go another day without having clarity on how sexual offences will be treated under this Bill.

I listened closely to the arguments advanced for the other amendments, and we will approach the remainder of today’s proceedings on that basis.

[James Sunderland]

I spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading, although I highlighted several frictions and concerns that may merit further work, which is where we are today.

The people of Northern Ireland, our veterans and those directly affected must be at the heart of this Bill, and I hope to offer a wider perspective that may be of use. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said:

“Is the Bill perfect? No, of course it is not, and no legislation is, but let us not lose the good, or at least the intent to achieve the good, in pursuit of perfection.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 195.]

That is where I think we are today.

We know what the Bill does, as it has been covered a lot over the past few weeks and months: it establishes an independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery; it grants immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission—this is a key point—on a case-by-case basis; it ends, in theory, troubles-related criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings; it commissions a historical record of every troubles-related death; it covers memorialisation; and, importantly for me and for many others, it does not provide moral equivalence, which is an important improvement on the draft Bill.

The lingering concern of many I have spoken to, both here in England, Wales and Scotland and over the water in Northern Ireland, is that perpetrators may now never be brought to justice and the truth may never be known, notwithstanding what the Bill says it does on the tin.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. One thing the Bill might do, and I hope it does, is ensure the names of those who go before this reconciliation body are made public so that people know who they are and understand who carried out the deed, whatever the result for the person concerned. Victims and families may understand who did it, and I hope that will be considered in the Bill.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister heeds his point.

Having looked at what the Bill does, and having discussed it on Second Reading, I ask: where can we go from here? Where do we need to go as a Committee? First, I would urge the Government to reconsider the exclusion of rape and sexual offences, which merits further work, although I fully understand the arguments that exist in law. It may be a political point as opposed to a legal point, or it might be both, but it requires extra work.

Secondly, clause 18 currently says that the ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution if conditions A to C are met. Condition B states that a person needs to have engaged and stated the truth to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is a very low and subjective expectation of one individual’s account, for which the immunity panel is not required to seek corroboration. What if that individual is not telling the truth?

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is making. I, too, have concerns, but even if that was ironed out—I stand here to speak for the 21 families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings, the biggest mass killing on our streets in this country for which no one has faced justice—does he think that that would be enough for the lives of Maxine Hambleton, Tommy Marsh and Paul Anthony Davies? Would anything we could do today allow the families of those people to feel that an amnesty was enough?

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and she is not wrong, but the point I would want to make to her is that the Bill provides for a truth and reconciliation process whereby the truth could become known. After 24 years of the Good Friday agreement, and with prosecutions limited so far to date, it is important that we move on and not only offer hope to families wanting the truth but draw a line in law under the endless prosecution of vexatious complaints.

Let me return to the issue of people potentially stating falsehoods to the commission. There are numerous reasons why a perpetrator may give a false account to gain immunity, with the obvious one being to play down their role in an offence. There is also the potential for cynical abuse of the immunity process, perhaps by political elements. We must also address the issue of someone who acquires immunity for pre-1998 offences yet may still have been involved in terrorism post-1998 and still perhaps to this day. A distinction is required in that regard.

[Fay Jones]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to amendment 97, which has been tabled by DUP Members and calls for a file to be passed to the Public Prosecution Service if it becomes clear that lies have been told to the commission. Although that is incredibly well intentioned, does he share my concern that it confers a status on the commission that it has not necessarily asked for and may not even want?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is not wrong. My personal view is that we need to do a little more to ascertain that proof. It may be that the word of one individual may not be enough to grant them immunity; independent evidence and independent corroboration over a period of time may be needed to secure that immunity.

[Gavin Robinson]

First, the panel will already have to make an assessment of whether the information it has been given has been given truthfully, to the best of the person’s knowledge. Amendment 97 simply says what should then happen should it decide that that information was not given truthfully, to the best of the individual’s knowledge. It would not have much to do; it would already have made the assessment, and the file would then just go to the PPS.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the exact provision, in clause 20(4), I believe, which sets out that the panel does not need any information other than that which is given to it by P, and then to have a read of subsections (1), (2) and (3). I think that there lies the answer to the question he is raising—subsection (4) could simply be deleted. An amendment has been tabled by my party and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for that precise purpose.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Minister is now in his place and I hope he is paying heed to what we are saying, because these are all tweaks to the Bill that I feel we could make.

Let me return to clause 18 and ask, first, what defines an acceptable level of engagement. How do we specify it? Nothing in the Bill defines what level of information someone needs to give in order to qualify for immunity, and I think that needs work.

Secondly, Where a person is deemed a subject of interest, and perhaps is assessed as being a current threat, is there a case for their not being granted immunity? I believe that there is a bit of work to do there, and that this may be possible.

My third point is that we should perhaps legislate so that if a person is convicted of a post-1998 terrorist offence, the offence they were granted immunity for can be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing for other offences—I know that that is tricky and divisive, but it is worthy of consideration.

My last point on clause 18 is about what happens if the person’s account is found not to be true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We discussed amendment 97 earlier. If it is proved that the information given is completely false, perhaps immunity could and should be revoked. I know that the Minister will cover this issue later, but I think there needs to be a bit of work on what happens if there is compelling evidence that proves that the information given at the time was not true. In my view, therefore, clause 18 needs work.

That may not be possible, but I have outlined some suggestions to the Minister. My next point relates to clause 20, which is entitled “Determining a request for immunity”. In forming a view on the truth of the person’s account, the immunity requests panel will not currently be required to seek information from a person other than P. I reiterate my previous point that the threshold for the provision of information by the perpetrator is already very low and subjective. What change might we wish to make? Perhaps there should be a requirement that corroboration is sought before any immunity can be granted.

On the issue of prisoner release, the Bill states:

“Schedule 11 makes provision about prisoner release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.”

Paragraph 5 of schedule 11 states:

“If a fixed term prisoner is released on licence under this section, the prisoner’s sentence expires”.

The key point is that the existing early release scheme provides that if a person’s application for early release is successful, they must serve the minimum term under their sentence before being released. Paragraph 5 replaces and repeals several provisions of the 1998 Act, potentially removing any minimum sentence. That virtually removes any incentive for a perpetrator to engage with the process. I therefore urge the Minister to look at that provision.

There are other areas that are not covered in the Bill, and we may come to them later. First, there is no legislation on the glorification of terrorism, or to enable those who flout such legislation to be held accountable. The issue is not provided for at all in the Bill, and that may require further work.

We may also need a better UK-wide definition of a victim or survivor of terrorism. In addition, there is the tricky issue of reparations for the bereaved. I know that that is difficult in law and difficult politically, but perhaps we could look at it in due course as part of the reconciliation process.

Perhaps we could even conduct a review in due course of how this legislation evolves and how it works in practice. Is the truth and reconciliation process working? Are people coming forward? Perhaps we need to build into the Bill a clause whereby we can legally review these issues in due course, with a view to tweaking what goes through Westminster.

This is a very difficult issue and this is a difficult Bill. I commend Ministers and everyone involved, particularly in the Northern Ireland Office, for getting this far. We now have something on the table that needs to go through. Time is short, and I recognise that the Bill will come back to the House on Monday, but I urge the Minister to consider what I have said over the weekend.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has engaged continuously with Northern Ireland issues since his entry into the House in 2019. We are grateful that he has shown such an interest. His speech allows me to make an initial point for people outside this place who do not understand how we operate. Today we are dealing with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, and on Monday we will deal with parts 3 and 4.

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when it comes to the requirement for an amendment that allows for the revocation of immunity in circumstances where somebody has lied; one on the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 so that there is an inducement for people to engage in the ICRIR process rather than stay outside; and one on the glorification of terrorism. While there is a discrete amendment on the glorification of terrorism today, we will debate new clauses 3, 4 and 5 on Monday, and they deal with all those points. I do hope that, after hearing what the hon. Member for Bracknell has had to say, colleagues throughout the Chamber will not only look at those new clauses and the thrust behind them, but encourage the Government to look on them favourably when we debate them on Monday. They are demonstrable and positive changes that would make this Bill better.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is back in his place. Perhaps I was a little hard on him, especially after he suggested that he was going to support some of my amendments. I genuinely believe that I would not have wasted my time over the past number of weeks, with colleagues from across Northern Ireland, in the preparation of amendments to make this process better if none of those amendments had the prospect of success today.

It is disappointing that, even when we hear positive noises not just on amendment 115 but on a range of issues that have been put before the Committee today to make the Bill better, we really get zero traction. It is very frustrating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

This will be deeply unpopular on the Opposition Benches, but the reason we have inquests and they do not result in criminal convictions is that they do not reach that threshold. Obviously, the evidence is there in the inquests, and I do not decry them—they are very important—but they are not at the criminal threshold, which has driven the experiences of veterans and so on. Yes, inquests have made findings—they have found things around collusive behaviour—but they have never been proved in court. While people will have very strong views—I have seen that across the Committee—we have to go with what is proved in court. That is the lie of the land. Even cases that I cannot believe have not been prosecuted have not been proved in court. It is a desperately sorry situation for everybody—the victims, veterans and so on. While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, I just do not see what good end point that achieves.

I understand that we must be open. The Department could be more open with this process than it is with inquests, because of all the legalities included in that. The idea behind this immunity from prosecution is that there could be total transparency. I accept that people think, “They won’t be transparent,” but what do we do? Do we just throw away this last chance—do we let these old guys die in a hotel room in Belfast and let the sectarianism continue, the protests outside the courts continue, the spitting at me when I walk in continue—or do we try to do something just a little bit different?

I have never asked for favours for anybody. All I have asked for is fairness—just fairness. There are some people you will never find me defending, because I have my own thoughts about it. All I have asked for is fairness, and I have been treated in a particular way in Northern Ireland. I just urge colleagues to think about the art of the possible. We all have a duty—to victims and to veterans.

[James Sunderland]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I will give way one last time and then I will finish.

[James Sunderland]

As we all know, my hon. and gallant Friend has been a proud champion for veterans. He has probably accomplished more for veterans in his time than many other parliamentarians. But he is also very keen, when he needs to, to be critical and challenge the Government, so what he is saying this afternoon carries a lot of weight, certainly for me. Does he agree that this is about pragmatism and timing, and that the time is now? Does he agree that we have admired the problem for far too long, that we still have an opportunity, with the Minister in his place, to amend the Bill as we need to over the weekend, and that the Bill does need to pass?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kind words. I strongly agree with him that the Department needs to reflect on what has been said. I was a lone voice in opposing what came out from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in August. I pay tribute to him again, because many people—me, certainly, and the Opposition too—were pretty rude about him and rude to him about his proposals. He has had the courage to look at them. He wants to get this right. He has no skin in the game to do something that is going to divide communities and not stand the test of time.

I say to colleagues across the Chamber that there is a way around this rape-on-the-face-of-the-Bill stuff. I had exactly this issue with the overseas operations Bill. There is a way around it. We can deal with the legal language and make it really clear that that is not part of this.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Bill has managed to unite all Northern Ireland parties in opposition to it. The word “reconciliation” may be in its title, but victims say that it is traumatising. Both the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Northern Ireland have criticised it. The Labour party has voted against it at every stage. That is because it benefits terrorists more than their victims.

Anyone doubting that should read the BBC front page today, and the story about Louie Johnston, who was just seven years old when his Royal Ulster Constabulary officer father David Johnston was shot by the IRA. Louie has asked MPs to show empathy with his family today and not force through this Bill.

Lords amendment 44 addresses the flaw at the centre of this Bill, by removing the immunity clause. The Government must not put immunity back in. It is not a wrecking amendment, as the independent commission would have a better chance of winning people over without it.

I listened with interest to the Secretary of State’s recent speech to the Institute for Government. He told a story about meeting three RUC widows, and how all three wanted different things in relation to their husband’s death. He said that, if he were a member of the public, he would side with the widow who wanted justice above all else. He suggested that conditional immunity in exchange for information would satisfy two of the three widows, and he said this is progress on legacy.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was intrigued to hear the Leader of the Opposition publicly state last week that, if he were to become Prime Minister, he would repeal this Act. This surprised me for a variety of reasons, and I wonder if the shadow Minister might indulge me for a second. Am I right in thinking that public protestation means Labour has no intention of drawing a line under legacy issues in Northern Ireland and moving on? And does it mean that Labour has no wish to stop vexatious complaints being made against British servicemen?

[Peter Kyle]

Labour believes in a more consensual way forward. We believe that, in the past, there has been agreement that drew more consensus. This Government published a Bill that had broad agreement in Northern Ireland and was deemed human rights compliant, yet they jettisoned the Bill after gaining all that consensus and chose a different way forward. We believe the way forward lies in the origins of that draft legislation, and we believe there is a way forward that takes into account the learning since.

The hon. Gentleman mentions vexatious litigation against former servicepeople in the Northern Ireland context. Perhaps he could give an example of vexatious litigation where someone is currently being prosecuted or pursued as a result?