Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Today, I think of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I have had the chance to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly about the issues affecting veterans, the armed forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service and their overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the more than 300,000 veterans of Operation Banner.

I believe that it is a duty not just to think about this matter from a constituency standpoint but to think of the people of Northern Ireland. It is especially incumbent on Back Benchers from other parts of the United Kingdom to remind ourselves that they must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice.

Of the Government’s amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner veterans in our constituencies. We should never forget, as I think a few Members have rightly commented, that those veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. We should avoid drawing a false distinction between service families and an associated other of victims. That is important principally because, if we do not, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces, and impedes those victims’ right to access justice.

Though I am aware that this is not being considered today, I want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in the Bill. New clause 32 tabled by the Government, as the Secretary of State referred to, requires the legacy commission to recognise the circumstances in which the armed forces and police served and the split-second decisions they took. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how that will take into consideration the chain of command? That question has come up among veterans in my constituency and from Members across the Committee.

To allow us to get to the summing-up speeches, I will speak briefly on new clauses 51 and 50, which address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in my constituency. New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on-the-run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up—I want to touch on every single group but especially the excellent and fantastic Veterans Together (Forth Valley)—that was one that evoked the strongest anger among people. The mere ambiguity surrounding the letters and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. I am glad that it is this Labour Government who are decisively ending the ambiguity around those letters.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I support new clause 50 in principle—that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles-related offence. I hear from veterans that trust in the process is at such a low ebb among their community, and so I believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country provides Government accountability and the right degree of independence and accountability generally, enabling us to build confidence that any prosecutions are in the public interest.

On summing up, will the Secretary of State set out how that safeguard will support the Government’s commitment to protecting the public interest where there may be a dispute about the high evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains? Will he also assure the House that the Attorney General’s role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no Government, now or in future, may use it to politicise decisions about the evidence and public interest, which must be taken with the utmost seriousness?

The Bill provides the last chance for many in our community, including service families, to access the truth about what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme, which the previous Government failed to deliver, utterly did not implement. As it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans and as, more than anything, it allows us to progress, I will vote for the Bill this evening.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended.

I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.”

I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states:

“This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”

We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister—sorry, the Secretary of State.