Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.

If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.

[Hilary Benn]

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.

These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.

The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.

I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.

Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan?

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Colum Eastwood]

I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.

A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day.

[Jim Allister]

Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?

[Colum Eastwood]

There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.

What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.

What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Jim Allister Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

That is self-evidently the case, because the protections that I just read out, which the Government have put in this legislation, would not exist. That is a powerful argument why the Bill should carry over.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; many Members want to speak.

I will turn briefly to some of the arguments that will be made against carrying over the Bill, because I think it is important that we conduct this debate on a shared understanding of the facts.

First, on prosecutions, in the last 28 years just one soldier of the 250,000 who served in Operation Banner has been convicted of a troubles-related offence. During all that time there have continued to be inquests and cases investigated. The truth is that the chances of prosecutions are rapidly diminishing. Secondly, I remind the House that the basis on which any decision about a prosecution is made rests, as it always has done, with independent prosecutors. No one who has done their duty lawfully has anything to fear. Thirdly, on the claim that paramilitaries—in particular the IRA—were given amnesty by the on-the-run letters, they were not. At the moment, there are eight troubles cases in which suspected paramilitaries have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including of soldiers and members of the RUC.

Let us not forget that, when in government, the Conservative party wanted to give immunity to terrorists. That is what the legislation said. Members and colleagues will be aware that there are many unsolved killings of British service personnel, whose families deserve answers, including of those in a number of the most deadly IRA attacks, such as Guildford, Warrenpoint and the M62 coach bombing. The Opposition’s argument against the motion rests on their wish to return to immunity, which never existed and is wrong in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.

[Jim Allister]

The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?

[Alex Burghart]

I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.

The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.

The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Jim Allister Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.

[Chris Bryant]

I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.

The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.

The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am pleased to see that there is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, so I do not have to hold myself to the commitments I made earlier. [Laughter.]

I say to the Secretary of State that I am pleased that the Labour Government have accepted that they will legislate on the matter of on-the-runs—again, it is a statement of fact, and I could never comprehend why the Labour Government were resisting such an amendment. So, too, will they legislate to ensure that paramilitaries and former paramilitaries—people who sullied themselves and tried to destroy our society—will not form part of any advisory board to the commission. That is right. I could not for the life of me understand why the Labour Government were resistant to that approach. I am grateful—[Interruption.]. No, it was always indicated that it would not happen in practice, but they would not legislate on the face of the Bill. I say “they”; I mean the Labour Government. I am glad that at least that concession has been given.

I am grateful that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to make a fundamental point, which draws on comments that were opened earlier. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), but I am pleased that he referred to what happened yesterday in the Omagh inquiry. It is beyond me—I hope it is beyond every sensible Member of this House—that the Government are still resisting the dates for the legacy commission. The legacy commission has to stop its work on a given date—the date the Belfast agreement was signed—yet the largest atrocity of the troubles occurred just three months later in Omagh. The Government are resistant to allowing the legacy commission to consider the case of Omagh.

Why is that important? It is important because the Omagh inquiry is set up, and its terms of reference allow the inquiry only to look at what the British state could have done to prevent the largest atrocity of the troubles, yet the Irish Government have questions to answer. Yesterday when John Ware, the former “Panorama” journalist, opened up his evidence in court, he referred to the Irish soldiers who received a bomb warning the day before—on 14 August—in Finner base, as has been mentioned. I have every word of that. Will the Secretary of State ask immediately for a copy of that document? He knows that it goes further; he knows that it says clearly that on 14 August they have to inform the guards and the Northern Ireland security forces and that they have to place people on border checkpoints 196 and 194. It was very clear and precise. Why was it opened up yesterday? Because the belief is that, in a 1,500-page bundle, the Irish did not know that they had given it, and they were worried that it was going to be taken back and not opened up.

If the Irish Government had information the night before, at Finner base, that the Omagh bomb was going to be placed in Omagh, as was opened yesterday in the inquiry, that needs to be explored. Yet it falls outside the terms of reference. All we ask in the amendments is that we legislate for ourselves to say that the legacy commission can at least consider the largest troubles-related incident that sits outside the dates of the troubles.

[Jim Allister]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.

[Gavin Robinson]

It was Mr Justice Horner, as he was then, who declared in 2021 that there should be an inquiry on both sides of the border to deal with the jurisdictional issues. I say this to the Prime Minister: the legacy commission will have the ability to look at the issues, provided the dates are moved from 21 April 1998 to 31 August 1998. It is easily done, and it is so fundamentally important for those victims and families who suffered at Omagh and who require truth and justice. I make the plea, knowing that I am going beyond the bounds of a carry-over motion debate, that this is so fundamental that we cannot allow this point to pass and for the Government fail those families yet again. Yesterday’s revelation is as stark and as telling as it needs to be. The information shared yesterday falls outside the terms of reference, and yet the legacy commission should and could take on that work.

I intend to revisit this matter next week, but in the interim I implore the Secretary of State, with whom I have raised it on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, who I am grateful is here, to consider the import of what was shared yesterday in the inquiry and what was withheld from the Sir Peter Gibson review in the past, when it was emphatically said that the Irish had no warning when they did. The inquiry’s chairman is incapable of drawing conclusions from that because it falls outside his terms of reference. The legacy commission could do that work; it needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.

The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him.

Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation.

As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.

Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it.

A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests.

I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State refers to new clause 32, which introduces certain protections in respect of the security forces in regard to the legacy commission and to inquests. For example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account, the orders that they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, and so on. All of that is good, so why do the same provisions not extend to cover any trial of such a person, should that occur? If it is right for the legacy commission and coroners to take those matters into account, why is it not right for a Diplock court also to take them into account, if it were investigating a criminal trial?

[Chris Bryant]

I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is right. Máiría Cahill was defending me from outrageous suggestions directed towards me in a tweet by Michelle Gildernew, who had the temerity to do so knowing that Máiría Cahill had confided in her in the 1990s and she did nothing. I thank Máiría for her steadfastness and her courage over many years on the issues that she has raised.

New clause 21 is another attempt by the official Opposition, among many others on the amendment paper, to ensure that any process understands the context of operations, the environment in which people served, the rules of engagement, the pressure and the threats. How often do we hear people talk of Bloody Sunday and never mention the days that preceded it—I say that not as an excuse or a challenge for what happened—and the two police officers who were murdered? Those two police officers, patrolling that city on a cross-community basis, were murdered on the streets.

I often remember a gentleman who was in the end very senior in the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland saying to me, “Gavin, I remember one day being out the top of the Land Rover. I heard a clink, turned around and thought I was going to be shot because two of my friends had been killed the day before. I nearly shot until I realised it was an elderly lady putting out two milk bottles.” What he was trying to indicate to me was that as a young, 20-year-old man he was so perplexed, scared and petrified—knowing he had lost friends yesterday, wondering whether he would get home that afternoon and not knowing the answer—that when he heard that clink first thing in the morning, he thought he was next and he nearly shot an unarmed civilian. Thank God he did not, but he shared that story with me so that I could understand. So I support new clause 21 entirely when it talks about “contemporaneous Rules” and the environment in which people operated.

The Government have tried to meet us on equivalence in some ways in their new clause 31, which replicates amendment 56 tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and amendment 10 tabled in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. New clause 9 has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who has put in efforts about “on the runs” and putting those beyond the pale. I understand that the Government have moved their position on that, but they could engage and support rather than always tabling their own new clauses.

New clause 5 deals with support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no apologies for saying that support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be before this House. We talk all the time about veterans, and rightly so. My grandfather served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, although not during the troubles. He served his community. Some 302 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary served their community and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is was right that they were honoured with the George Cross, but it was wrong that they were so disgracefully dishonoured through the changes that were brought about in policing. Yet here we are, just weeks away from celebrating or acknowledging 25 years of renewed policing in Northern Ireland, with questions around support for the police.

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). I acknowledge that he has engaged with many victims, but while he was speaking I received a text message from a member of a victims’ group who had hoped for a visit from him when he was Secretary of State. He did not visit, although he sent a junior Minister. I remember visiting that same victim on the main street in Omagh. He served as a police officer on 15 August 1998. He showed me the shop where he was laying bodies that day—28 people lost their lives, as well as two unborn children. He then took me into the entry next door, where he had had to bring other bodies because there simply was not sufficient room in the front of the shop. He and his colleagues have been demonised for years, but this RUC man was weeping when he was sharing with me the pain he still had, although that was not his intention, and the pain he still harboured from those days. He has asked the Government to support him and his colleagues whenever they engage with the Omagh inquiry. He has lamented the fact that the Omagh inquiry is but a partial piece of the jigsaw.

The Omagh inquiry has only the terms of reference that allow it to answer the question, “What could the British state authorities have done to prevent Omagh?” What could we have done to prevent an act of terror? Omagh was blown up because dissident republicans from the Republic of Ireland sought vehicles in the Republic of Ireland, moved through the Republic of Ireland and came to Northern Ireland to destroy that market town. And so they did. But our inquiry will answer only what we could have done to prevent that. Time after time we have raised the issue about the legacy commission’s dates. Why are we, as a House of Commons, still prepared to pass legislation that says that the troubles ended in April 1998, when we know the Omagh attack occurred on 15 August 1998?

Whenever we raise these issues, it is, “Oh, you are just having a go at the Irish. The Irish have promised that they are going to give information,” but no, they have not. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said earlier, this issue was raised at the Omagh inquiry last week in evidence given by John Ware, a “Panorama” journalist. He made reference to a call that was received by the Finner Irish army camp in Ballyshannon on 14 August 1998. Colleagues may remember me raising this last week, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised it as well. The reason John Ware made those comments was that he and core participants felt that the details he was about to outline in the inquiry were with them mistakenly, and that had he not read them out—and had the Irish Government realised they had let them slip—they would have been rescinded. That is why I got a call four weeks ago giving me the details on a similar basis, so that they could not be rescinded.

[Jim Allister]

Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government on how they were going to co-operate in the Omagh inquiry, yet we find they were sitting on information and when 50-plus questions were sent to them, they answered two.

[Gavin Robinson]

There is a recurring theme. We were told that the Irish Government would have a Garda legacy unit and that they would answer this mythical telephone, but they do not answer. They do not provide answers, they do not respond to emails and they still have an inter-state case against our Government—they expect much of us but give nothing in return.

On 14 August 1998, a telephone call was made to the Finner camp. According to an Irish army document—handwritten—the call came in at half-past 10, and a male caller,

“who sounded reasonable and did not appear to be drunk”,

said:

“Pay attention to the back roads around Kinlough”—

border control checkpoints 197 and 198—

“Inform the GS and NISF”—

Garda Síochána and Northern Ireland Security Forces—

“road leads to Enniskillen, Irvinestown and Clogher.”

Then he stopped and said:

“Forget Clogher, Omagh, Omagh, Omagh”.

Garda Síochána spoke to the barracks orderly sergeant and the barracks detachment staff, whose names are redacted, on 16 August, when they decided for themselves that it was not a warning—it was—with the most devastating consequences. Ten days later, there was another effort to try to retrofit the call. But why am I mentioning any of this? I am mentioning these things because there was Government knowledge, Garda Síochána knowledge and intelligence service knowledge of the call that came in on 14 August, yet Baroness O’Loan in the other place, who was the first Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, conducted an inquiry into Omagh. For two years, she investigated the Omagh bomb. Was she aware of those calls? No, she was not. The revelation last week was a revelation to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.

[Jim Allister]

There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.

It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:

“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”

Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.

I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:

“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.

It is the one that records the fact that we

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s

“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”

the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that

“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,

whether it appeared that the

“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,

and the extent to which they

“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”

Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?

We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that

“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.

Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.

The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.

There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, all right.

[Jim Allister]

Good grace. [Laughter.] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date.

Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution. In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep.

I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.

The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.

However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language. To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

[Jim Allister]

I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.

As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.

[Jim Allister]

Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today.

I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them.

New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.

We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic.

I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too.

I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points.

The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation.

I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly.

Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents.

Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought.

The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday.

I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict.

No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed.

From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability.

We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes.

Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission. One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests.

On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests. It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.

There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift. Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches.

Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do? They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.”