Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then.

The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed.

Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know.

Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either.

The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really?

To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order.

For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to point out something that the Defence Committee discovered in its investigation of these matters in 2016 to 2017? The maximum of two years actually spent in jail, no matter how horrendous or multiple the murders, also applies to British service personnel. The argument is put forward that victims wish to see justice attributed and punishment given out, but everybody involved in the killings receives a disproportionately light sentence, so there is no justice of a retributive sort in any case.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I had forgotten about that report, but I did see it when the Committee published it under his chairmanship.

Instead of seeing terrorists facing justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests, decades after the fact. That is a problem in part because inquests in Northern Ireland differ in two critical respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government. Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 changed the definition of “victim”. It ruled anyone affected by the troubles—through loss, trauma, or injury—would be classed as a victim. That means that a proven murderer killed in an attempt to carry out another murder is still classified as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.

That is still relevant. In September, the Democratic Unionist party—sadly none of its Members are present—used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. What did Sinn Féin do? It opposed the motion and removed the word “innocent” from before “victims”. Why? Because the word “innocent” exposes the truth; it draws a line between terrorists and their victims. “Veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms; “terrorists” and “victims” are.

Let us understand who these so-called victims are. At Loughgall—the greatest single defeat of the IRA by the SAS—eight heavily armed IRA murderers were stopped on their way to kill again. They and their weapons were implicated in at least 40 previous murders—and possibly more than 200, but it is very hard to pin that number down. Yet because of the Government’s proposals, and the Secretary of State’s promise to the sister of one of those IRA murderers, the soldiers who stopped them face being hauled before the courts, 30 years on, over an operation that prevented further bloodshed of innocent Northern Ireland citizens. The 2006 Order means that those dead terrorists are deemed to be victims.

And what do veterans face? A one-sided inquest, weaponised by Sinn Féin in its attempt to rewrite history. Veterans—many of whom are in their advancing years—are dragged to the witness box. They are made to sit opposite the families of IRA killers—men who died while attempting to maim and kill the innocent. The atmosphere is not one of an impartial inquiry.

I have spoken to a number of veterans, including one in particular who voluntarily attended the Coagh inquest to give evidence. He could not answer some factual questions—he did not know the answers—so the coroner put to him a hypothetical question to get him to answer a hypothetical version of the truth. The veteran declined, quite reasonably, to answer hypotheticals—that was not why he was there. In response, the coroner got “very cross”—the veteran’s words—raised his voice and threatened the veteran with contempt of court. The man was, at that point, a voluntary witness—not any more. He was so disgusted by the process that he will now only give evidence under subpoena; he will not volunteer again.

In mainland Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Northern Ireland, inquests have all too often sought to assign blame—all funded by a legal aid machine putting huge unjustified costs on the taxpayer. Just last month, a judicial review against a soldier who shot one of the terrorists at Coagh was robustly dismissed by the judge, who noted the

“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”

I have never heard a judge be so critical of the award of legal aid, but plainly he thought this was ridiculous—ludicrous, in his words.

Under the Government’s new legacy proposals, our veterans will remain subjects of suspicion and victims of this vexatious lawfare machine.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The legacy Act offered a false promise of immunity. It was found to be incompatible with our obligations, and it had no support in Northern Ireland. At some point, Opposition Members must recognise that it had no support there. How can Northern Ireland move forward if the basis of the last Government’s legislation lacks that support? In those circumstances, it is for prosecutors to make decisions, and we need to respect that. People may agree or disagree, but we need to respect a system in which prosecution decisions are made independently, because there are other countries in the world where that is not the case.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?

[Hilary Benn]

I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The legislation was passed; it was never commenced. It was struck down by the courts, and the remedial order will remove it from the statute book, because we do not agree with giving immunity to terrorists. We do not agree with the principle of immunity because we believe, as I hope the whole House believes, in the rule of law.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy?

[Hilary Benn]

The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.

I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.

What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Louise Jones]

I will make a little progress, and then I will.

The hard truth to acknowledge here, as others already have and others no doubt will, is that a very small number of military colleagues did commit a crime. None the less, it is a central belief of mine that it does not matter who you are or what you do, you should be held accountable without fear or favour if you commit a crime. That is a hard truth. I know that every single veteran here would say that any person who has been a member of the military and committed a crime should be held to account.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Louise Jones]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), if she would like to jump in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am thankful to the hon. Lady for her service. She has not yet mentioned the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which precludes anybody who has been found guilty, even of murder, from serving more than two years in jail, whether they are a veteran or whether they are a terrorist. Does she accept that a degree of equality and of compromise have crept in, and will she bear that in mind when she talks about accountability for terrible crimes?

[Louise Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for making that point. It is important to note that only one soldier has been convicted in the past 13 years. I do not have time to go into the details of that case, but I urge him and anybody present to look into them. Whether or not a prosecution was in the public interest there, I note that he served only a suspended sentence.

The legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists. No more needs to be said: it gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel who were murdered by terrorists during the troubles. It is not supported in its current form by victims, it is not supported by any Northern Irish party and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced. Again, I call on the Minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare in relation to any conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I share the dismay shown by the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and others, when decrying the fact that the legacy legislation gave—I use her own words—“immunity to terrorists”. What nobody has yet spelled out is why it gave immunity to terrorists. There is a simple answer to that: it could not give immunity to our armed forces without giving immunity to terrorists as well.

Unless hon. and right hon. Members can come up with some brand new alternative—one that defeated the scrutiny and the inventiveness of successive Governments in trying to grapple with that problem—the question they have to ask themselves is, if the price of giving immunity to our veterans is that we have to give theoretical immunity to terrorists, most of whom have had practical immunity from prosecution for many years, and hardly any of whom are ever likely to be prosecuted, is that price worth paying? We cannot have it both ways.

Something that was rightly said earlier in the debate is that people should be trying to work across party lines to come to a solution on this, and I think that I can honestly claim to have been trying to do that for rather a long time. In 2017, the Defence Committee, which I was then chairing, published a report entitled “Investigations into Fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British Military Personnel”—HC 1064, if anyone is interested. The purpose of that report was to examine in great detail what the legal options were to enable the Government of the day to protect our veterans.

That report was published in April 2017 but, prior to that, on 7 March, we had a hearing—of which I have made the Secretary of State and the Veterans Minister aware—in which no fewer than four top professors of law took part, with a variety of views, preferences and personal attitudes towards what had happened in Northern Ireland and so forth. We were not asking them whether they approved of amnesties; we were asking them what was and was not legally possible. What they told us was this, and I am quite disappointed that no one has uttered these words, as far as I can tell, in the entire debate: it is possible to bring in a statute of limitation, and the requirement by law that something being investigated need not lead to somebody being prosecuted. Professor Philippe Sands, someone not unknown to the Government, stated in that hearing:

“The obligation to investigate is not an obligation to prosecute. It is not an obligation to take any particular steps. It is simply an obligation to find out the facts of what has happened, and ascertain.”

What was made clear in that discussion with the four professors of law was that if a Government were not to find themselves guilty of behaving with impunity, a statute of limitation had to apply to everyone. That is where people get upset, because the people who support our armed forces do not want it to apply to the terrorists, and the people from the republican movement do not want it to apply to our armed forces. But the fact is that if we are to protect anyone from prosecution in these circumstances, we have to protect everyone. Someone who just focuses on the group of which they disapprove being protected is ducking the hard choice that we have to face.

Someone mentioned trying to follow the model of Nelson Mandela. That is a very good point, and it is precisely what the legislation was intended to do. We satisfied ourselves that a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitation—in other words, immunity—for people who gave their evidence to the truth recovery process, similar to what Mandela did in South Africa, was a way in which this problem could be laid to rest. When the Government say that they plan to give our soldiers every support, it sounds to me that they accept the fact that cases are going to be brought, and they are going to try and support the soldiers. But the punishment is the process. It is true that probably hardly anyone will end up going through the process to the end.

Let me insert something else that I referred to in an earlier intervention: people on both sides of the debate say we must not equate this and that, and I certainly do not equate soldiers with terrorists morally, but in applying the law, the law has to be equal for everybody. In fact, that has already been recognised in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which limits the time that anybody can serve in jail, even for the most heinous murders, to two years. That is the only time someone can serve in jail. There may be people who have had relatives murdered who will derive great satisfaction from the fact that, after all this time, the murderer will go to jail for such a short period. But the reality is that the punishment does not fit the crime, and at first some of us thought that this was just a free pass for the IRA. I will not name the Minister concerned, but I and someone from the Labour Benches with a strong service background, who is now a Minister, went to meet the Sinn Féin MPs in Parliament—because they do have a presence here, even though they do not come to the Chamber. They said that they believed that the two-year limit applied to the soldiers as well as to their own allies. We looked into it and checked it with Ministers, and that was found to be correct. The fact is that we are already compromising. We are already treating both groups the same.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I was about to finish, but I will give way.

[David Smith]

I have to declare, having set up another peacemaking programme in Northern Ireland myself and done a master’s degree in reconciliation studies, that the legacy Act was very much not a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission. The right hon. Member is talking about the equating of terrorists on one hand and our armed forces on the other; I simply ask, what would he say to victims on how they could pursue justice under the legacy Act as was?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

When we are talking about victims of terrorists, I would ask, first of all, how likely is it that terrorists who have not been prosecuted all these years are going to be prosecuted in the future? Secondly, how do people think the victims felt in South Africa when a line was drawn for the sake of enabling the society to move forward?

What the legacy Act did was the least worst option. As we have heard, the reality is that there is no obligation to act on the finding of incompatibility with the ECHR. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report entitled “Proposal for a Draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024”, which states in paragraph 20:

“It is a discretionary remedy, meaning the courts do not have to issue such a declaration”—

of incompatibility with the ECHR—

“when they find a provision to be incompatible with Convention rights. A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”

Indeed, section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that a declaration of incompatibility

“does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and…is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.”

I accept that there are other legal problems, but the impression that I get from the Secretary of State, whom I have known for many years and much admire, is that he has set his face against this route of a statute of limitation, coupled with a truth recovery process, and is not really listening. That is why we are not fighting to keep in place the one thing that could give protection to our Northern Ireland military veterans.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Clonoe Inquest

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I expressed that view to the veterans I met this afternoon, when I thanked them for their service in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The right hon. Member invites me to do that this evening, and I readily do it, because they were seeking to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom, including of Northern Ireland, in the face of terrorism and terrorists.

As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out in his speech, the terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. However, I would add that many of them were prosecuted and convicted—paramilitaries on the republican side, and also those on the loyalist side who were also guilty of the most appalling crimes. As was pointed out, part of the price—in my view, rightly paid—to enable the Good Friday agreement to succeed and to bring the extraordinary peace and prosperity Northern Ireland has seen in the almost 27 years since, was the release of prisoners, which was really, really difficult for many families to accept, to understand and to cope with. I would also point out that, in recent years, a number of republicans have indeed been prosecuted—in fact, more republicans have been. I think I am right in saying that there has been one conviction in the last 12 years of a soldier who served there, and that was a suspended sentence.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the case of Robert Nairac. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which does such an important job to try to reunite the remains of loved ones who were murdered by the Provisional IRA with their families—although Robert Nairac’s parents are dead, I think he has other living relatives—has made two recent attempts to find his remains, on the basis of information it has received. I am very sad to say that so far that has not proved possible, but I hope that those who have information, and who have enabled the ICLVR to find the remains of a number of people and return them to their families, will continue to provide information to that body so that it is able to recover those remains.

As the Secretary of State, it is my job to ensure that these concerns and perspectives are heard, alongside other views expressed by a range of parties who also want to see, in their own way, a resolution to the complex troubles that happened and the issues that remain outstanding. I am thinking in particular of the many families I have met since taking up the post who have said to me, “We still do not know, decades later, what happened to our loved ones who were killed.” They carry that trauma with them to this day. Therefore, the Government are absolutely committed to trying to develop legacy mechanisms that are compliant with human rights—I stand with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington in my support, and the Government’s support, for the European convention on human rights—and that can command a degree of public confidence across communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

I will just say this about the approach the previous Government took. It caused, self-evidently, immense difficulties, including numerous findings of human rights incompatibilities and therefore an erosion of trust in the Government’s ability to address these issues fairly.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I remind the Secretary of State that, at a hearing in 2017, the Defence Committee took evidence from four distinguished professors of law, including Philippe Sands, with whose work he is no doubt very familiar, and they made it very clear to us that in principle there was nothing illegal about having a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery process? That met the requirement of avoiding the otherwise illegal act of giving impunity for crimes committed. The Secretary of State says that there were technical problems with the previous legislation that rendered it in some respects illegal, but will he not accept that the persecution of elderly veterans—which cannot, in the end, lead to anyone spending more than two years in prison anyway, given the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—will continue unless and until some form of legislation is put back in place to draw a line under prosecutions and to fulfil the other part of the requirement by a truth recovery process? Whatever he thinks about the specific legislation they are repealing, will he not accept the principle that that is the only way to protect people against this form of legalistic persecution?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, that there were not technical problems with the legacy Act; there were many legal problems with the legacy Act. It is the Government’s position, and I think it is the position of the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, that we uphold the European convention on human rights. I have said from the beginning that I am determined to ensure that the legacy mechanisms, in the form that they are brought before the House, are compliant with the European convention on human rights. There are plenty of examples of other people in other countries who do not abide by the European convention. In my view, it is a very important foundation of our liberties and our protection. There are legal problems with the legacy Act, not technicalities, if I may say so.

I also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea of immunity from prosecution was also opposed. I have met one family of a soldier who was murdered by the IRA who were outraged by the idea that his killers should get immunity under the legislation the previous Government passed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am very sorry, but that answer did not address the question of principle. The fact is that, unless the Secretary of State’s chum, Professor Sands, and three other equally distinguished professors of law were mistaken, there is no reason in principle—regardless of how flawed he, and the courts, even, may think the previous legislation was—that we cannot have a statute of limitation to put an end to these prosecutions, coupled with a truth recovery process. Of course, it will always be possible to find someone who wants the other lot prosecuted but not their lot, but it is the job of Government to cut through that and do the right thing, as Nelson Mandela did so effectively in South Africa.

[Hilary Benn]

I am not familiar with that particular bit of evidence. The right hon. Gentleman cites one group of lawyers who hold one view, but it will not surprise the House if I say that it would be possible to find another group of lawyers who hold a different view. The purpose of the courts is to adjudicate between the various arguments that are put and reach a decision, and we respect the judgments of the court. It is not possible to have a legal system or a coronial system where we get all the verdicts we like and we are guaranteed to never get verdicts we do not like. The fact is— [Interruption.] We have appealed some aspects of the judgments. The Government came into office committed to removing conditional immunity because we thought it was wrong to give terrorists immunity from prosecution for the crimes they have committed.

I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that the truth is that the prospect of prosecutions is diminishing with each passing year. Many of the families that I have met recognise that no one is going to be held to account for what happened to their loved ones—they just want to find the answers.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I have two things to say to him on that. First, I am glad he organised—for 13 years, I think—an event at Stormont to mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Such an event also occurred yesterday, so his legacy lives on, and I was pleased to attend it, as I have on many occasions in the past.

Secondly, the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet again—we met last week, but I met again yesterday—Margaret Veitch and Ruth Blair, who lost loved ones in the Enniskillen bomb. I reflected with them, and it resonates so much with this point, on the glorification of terror, particularly from those who have a responsibility to live by the Nolan principles and to fulfil the political offices they hold, yet who attend commemorations and glorify those who revelled in terror. The excuse they always use is, “We have a right to remember our dead.” That is what they say: they have a right to remember their dead. Margaret and Ruth lost family members by simply turning up to remember their war dead on Remembrance Sunday in Enniskillen, yet they hear their political leaders say, “We do this because we have an entitlement to remember our war dead.” Margaret and Ruth and their parents were offered no opportunity to remember, rightfully, those who made the sacrifice for freedom in our country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of truth and justice. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. If prosecutions carry on, people will do everything they can to cover up the truth in defending themselves. When people criticise the legacy Act, which did propose a truth and reconciliation commission, are they not really criticising a measure that would have given them a much better opportunity for the truth to come out, once the threat of prosecutions was removed, given that the punishment would not fit the crime even if someone was found guilty?

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.

I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.

I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.

Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.

The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.

What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.

That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past.

Clonoe Inquest

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done that for us, and I think I have heard enough—let us move on.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that appalling atrocity. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I met a number of the Birmingham families over video. They have lived for so long with the pain and suffering, and, of course, with the fact that the people who were put in jail for allegedly having done it had not done it, which has only added to their distress. Because it happened in Great Britain, it is a matter for the Home Office. However, I would say that ICRIR is now beginning to look at the case of the Guildford pub bombings. Why? It is because the families have approached ICRIR. I would just point out that it is open to the Birmingham families—if they wish—to approach ICRIR and ask it to look at what happened to their loved ones.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am less enthusiastic than many people for this development. If, as the Secretary of State says, the purpose is for the families to find out the truth, can he confirm first of all that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 remains in being, so that if somebody is prosecuted successfully for the most heinous of offences, they will not serve—whether they are from the armed forces on the one side or the terrorist forces on the other—more than two years in jail? Given that that is the case, which is the more likely to give the families the truth: trying to take people to court, where they will defend their position and try to cover up inconvenient facts; or trying to have an amnesty—that hated word—coupled with a truth recovery process, where the truth can be said because people know that they will not go to jail as a result?

[Hilary Benn]

Clearly, legislation on the statute book, and the provisions that it contains, remains in place until such time as it changes. On the right hon. Gentleman’s important point about what the families would prefer, the answer must lie with the families themselves. I, as I know he will also have done, have met a very large number of families. A lot of them acknowledge that a prosecution is unlikely but want the truth. Some of them still want there to be a prosecution for justice to be done. Our responsibility is to give families, and the bodies investigating on their behalf, the means to provide the answers that the families, after all these years, are looking for.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will turn to elements of this later in my speech, but I referred earlier to the importance of the conditional immunity clause. I think what my right hon. Friend will hear in the course of this debate is how many people think the pendulum has swung in this delicate balance, as he has put it, too far in the opposite direction to the way he believes it has swung.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that it was back in April 2017 that the then Defence Committee first recommended drawing a line with a statute of limitations coupled with a truth recovery process. We recognised that the process had to be for everyone or for no one. Does he accept that there is a risk of having overcomplicated the process, and is any remedy likely to be available if, in putting this into practice, it is found that service personnel are not being sufficiently protected for ongoing prosecutions?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There is obviously no statute of limitations. The Bill has moved on and, as I said, I would like to think it has been improved a great deal. But it will be an independent body that allows for these things to happen. That is vital both in dealing with the issues of the past, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and in helping all victims perhaps to get some information about the circumstances by which they lost loved ones or others.

Northern Ireland Elections

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Through this statement and the forthcoming legislation, I will be creating the time and space needed for the talks to develop. On behalf of another Secretary of State, I have made commitments about updating the various parties. I will try to make sure we keep to those commitments.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In this period of remembrance, I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that, whatever the outcome of this necessary delay to the elections issue, he will stand fast by the legislation sponsored by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), to incorporate a statute of limitation in the truth recovery process as a way of ensuring an end to the repeated reinvestigation of former service personnel who served during the troubles? That measure was first recommended by the Select Committee on Defence in April 2017, and all other alternatives have been found to be useless.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There were a number of questions on this at oral questions, but I am not sure if my right hon. Friend was in his place. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill is about to have its Second Reading in the other place, and I look forward to working with everyone to make sure it gets to the right place. Lots of people are not happy with that Bill, and I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) earlier that it will never please everyone. However, I believe we can improve that Bill through the parliamentary process in the other place to encompass both its critics and its supporters. That will make the Bill a whole lot better.