Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Louise Jones Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I begin by acknowledging the outstanding service of the many British service personnel who worked so hard on an incredibly difficult operation to protect the communities of Northern Ireland. We should be in no doubt that they upheld British military ethics to the highest standard and rigorously trained, with operations carefully planned and professionally carried out. As a veteran, I was honoured to serve with other veterans of that conflict, albeit at a later time. We must never forget the 722 veterans who paid the ultimate price and did not return. We must never forget their sacrifice, or that of those who were injured. We must remember them and honour their service with pride.

The Northern Ireland legacy Act is a prime example of how to get legislation very wrong. In 2014, as part of the Stormont House agreement, the UK and Irish Governments agreed a way forward to deal with legacy investigations, which had broad support from—crucially—victims and political parties. Instead, in 2020, the Conservative Government decided to push on, by themselves, in a completely different direction, and introduced legislation that made false promises to veterans that could not be kept, introducing chaos to the system, and which has immediately failed in the courts.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Louise Jones]

I will make some progress and then come back to the right hon. Gentleman. It was a law that was forced through to try to curry favour in a desperate attempt to save the dying Administration of Boris Johnson. Among all the complicated arguments around how best to properly deal with the impact of the troubles, there is one huge, incontrovertible fact, which was ignored in the previous speech, and which no amount of clever talk or posturing can obscure: the legacy Act, as it stands, gives immunity to terrorists. That is abhorrent.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

You sent them letters of comfort.

[Louise Jones]

To address that point, the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said that the letters that the right hon. Gentleman refers to grant no immunity. The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands. That is a simple fact. If we want to protect veterans—I know that everybody in this room wants to—we must remember those who were murdered in cold blood by terrorists. Those terrorists now sleep soundly in their beds, free from the threat of prosecution—the threat of justice—precisely because of the Northern Ireland legacy Act. They were given that by a British Government. A British Government have given terrorists who have murdered British personnel complete immunity.

There was an article in The Guardian today about the family of Tony Harrison, a British para who was murdered in east Belfast. He was shot while at home with his fiancée. He was not on military operations—there was no firefight. He was shot in the back in his own home. He was just 21 years old. Under the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands, there is no route for his murderers to be held to account. No wonder his family have now launched a legal challenge to the Act, because they refuse to have Tony be denied justice. We must never forget, but always remember, the 200 personnel whose families are being denied justice because of this Act and how it stands. That is fundamental to why the legacy Act must be repealed and replaced.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady has made an eloquent case for how defective the legislation was. Why did the Government not oppose sections 46 and 47 when they were in opposition? Does she think that they were wrong not to oppose them? She evidently thinks that the legislation was faulty, so why did her own party support it?

[Louise Jones]

I think that is a bit of a moot question when we are debating repealing the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me if we opposed it in Parliament before I got elected—I am stood right here making the case to repeal parts of the Act and replace it. [Interruption.]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. This is not an ongoing conversation. Ms Jones, please continue.

[Louise Jones]

I say to anybody who signed the petition or is here today because they fear the raking over of every firefight, weapon discharge or contact from 50 years ago: that fear is false. I say again: it is complete scaremongering spread by people who are at best naive—perhaps they do not know the details of the legislation or are ill informed on the content.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I have just been outside with a load of veterans who, like me, served on Op Banner. Is the hon. Lady saying that they are naive and misunderstand this?

[Louise Jones]

I have said—the hon. Gentleman can read back—that scaremongering has been spread by people who should know better. They know fully the details of the legislation and the context of Northern Ireland and have gone out to these veterans and said, “There’s going to be lots of malicious lawfare against you if this Act is repealed”, when everybody here knows that is not the case at all. They are pushing a cynical political agenda.

I and my colleagues who are veterans are vehemently opposed to spurious prosecution, to dragging people through the courts where there is absolutely no case to answer and to malicious lawfare. I cannot repeat that enough. I do not want to see a single veteran who has not committed a crime in any sense being hounded. Op Banner was an incredibly complex campaign. I find abhorrent the idea that any veteran should be at risk of malicious lawfare simply for doing their job on a very difficult operation. I call on the Secretary of State to explain how we will protect any veteran who is accused of any wrongdoing in Northern Ireland.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Surely the hon. Lady has come to the crux of the point, which is that no Minister has so far been able to give us that reassurance. She sincerely states her desire not to see veterans subject to lawfare, but they have not had that reassurance. Whatever the inadequacies of the current legislation, it provides protections, and we have no reassurance that they will not be removed.

[Louise Jones]

All I have heard is a very strong defence of the Act as it currently stands. I more than welcome a discussion about how we can move forward and repair what several Members have already said are the inadequacies in the current Act. That is the key point: there are inadequacies in the current Act.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

[Rachel Gilmour]

This is a deeply sensitive debate. Two of my brothers served as officers in Northern Ireland, and the memory of Operation Banner has been raised time and again by many of my constituents. The truth is that many of the soldiers in Northern Ireland were young lads from working-class communities sent by their Government and deployed to areas not dissimilar to those they had grown up in. They found themselves operating in some of the most stressful scenarios imaginable.

I had a meeting with the Minister for Veterans an hour ago; does the hon. Lady with me and with him that we must focus on the orders that were given higher up the chain of command rather than pursuing non-commissioned veterans in their old age? Does she also agree that there is a desperate need for reform to ensure that avenues to justice for bereaved families are reopened and that all armed forces personnel are treated with dignity and understanding of the complexities of their experiences?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady made important points, but interventions must be short.

[Louise Jones]

I agree with the hon. Lady. I am a former officer, and one thing that was really drummed into us at Sandhurst is the responsibility we have for those who serve under us. It is often the lot of those of lower ranks to make the most difficult of decisions, and the responsibility is on officers to make sure that when soldiers go into a difficult situation, they have the training and the cover that they need. It is right that officers be held to account for any role that they play, and it is definitely something that I will be keeping a close eye on.

I say, as a proud veteran of the British Army, that we do ourselves a huge disservice if we do not hold ourselves to the highest standards and ensure accountability when or if a comrade has failed those tests.

[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.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Louise Jones]

No, I really must finish.

I end by remembering all the victims of the conflict in Northern Ireland. Far too many innocent lives were lost and families changed forever. The peace process and the Good Friday agreement stand testament to the immense courage shown every day by communities in Northern Ireland—communities who every day choose peace. We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities, not against them, and I hope all Members present will reflect on that important undertaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member’s son for his service. Mine joins in two months at the age of 16. I hope that 30 years down the line, when he has defended his country as the hon. Member’s son has, they do not go through this, because morale is at rock bottom. There is no naivety among veterans.

[Louise Jones]

The hon. Member is welcome to check Hansard after the debate, but I was referring specifically to people—we all know they exist—who are scaremongering without knowing the details of the Bill and naively making up things that are not based on evidence. At no point did I say that any veteran is naive, and I know that he has too much respect for our procedures and for colleagues to keep repeating that when it is not true.

[Stuart Anderson]

I think that all the veterans in this room believe that the Government’s current route is wrong—are they misguided, or are they naive? If we go down the route of changing the law in this way, I can guarantee that our veterans will face prosecution for the service that they gave their country for many years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

They look in pretty good form to me, and there are lots of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about business confidence. I did not have time yesterday to read out all the businesses that have come out in support of our EU deal, and I do not have time today—it is a long list. I went immediately to Lidl and spoke to the staff there. They are delighted with the deal we put forward yesterday. Business like the work we are doing, and it is giving them confidence in the EU deal, but the right hon. Lady is opposed to each and every measure.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q4.   I recently visited Barrow Hill primary school in my constituency—a school in receipt of a new free breakfast club. The team there are doing a fantastic job, but challenges remain. What more can we do as a Government to support both them and local parents to give the children of Barrow Hill the start in life that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; we are united by a shared focus on creating better life chances for our children, and I am delighted to hear that her constituents are already benefiting from our changes. Thanks to our plan for change, we will deliver free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. I am determined to support parents to give every child the best start in life. That is why we are rolling out free childcare, expanding the first 300 school-based nurseries, and delivering more family hubs.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Louise Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

May I say that it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the contents of his Bill, as set out in its 25 clauses, and the issues that surround it, which have clearly been the subject of consternation, to say the least, in some quarters.

I listened carefully to the many points and assertions that the hon. and learned Gentleman made; no doubt everybody in the Chamber listened to them. I do not underestimate the significance of the concerns—perceived, real or otherwise—that he and many others have in relation to the operation of the Windsor framework, which in effect was a successfully negotiated recalibration of the Northern Ireland protocol. There is no doubt that all sides worked hard to achieve an agreement, given the obvious complexities, nuances and tensions that were bound to arise when the implementation of the decision to leave the European Union was made in the light of the 2016 referendum.

The detailed statement made by the most recent former Prime Minister, the response to it and the questions about it on 27 February 2023 set the tone, in my view—I think that is also the view of many other hon. Members—for a genuine attempt on all sides of the negotiation to be as flexible as possible, given the circumstances.

I want to quote a few points from that debate. The Prime Minister at the time said:

“Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union”—

we all agree with and recognise that—

“and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 570.]

He went on to take each of those in turn in more detail. He later said:

“Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 571.]

That has been referred to in the debate; I will return to that in due course. He went on to say:

“The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 574.]

It is important to move on to the current Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. He said:

“This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 577.]

Who would not agree with that statement? We do not want to continue to be locked in endless battles and arguments with our allies.

It is worthwhile referring to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who said at the time:

“My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 582.]

That is important from the Conservative Benches. The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:

“I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement”,

and it was an achievement. Even the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) said:

“I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 584.]

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. Does he agree that his contribution shows that there is space for fulsome debate and important democratic scrutiny of these things that affect our family of nations?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us here today want to discuss this issue because it is crucial to our constituents not just in the short term, but in the longer term. The former Member for Clwyd West said:

“The Command Paper tells us that the framework, ‘narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations’”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 605.]

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Louise Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As a veteran, I pay tribute to the service of those police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep people in Northern Ireland safe during the troubles and in some cases paid the ultimate price. None the less, any solution that does not have the support of victims’ groups and political parties in Northern Ireland is not, in my view, tenable. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any veterans affected will receive all welfare and, if appropriate, legal support where necessary?

[Hilary Benn]

I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is absolutely what we should do when we are thinking, in this particular case, of those who served in the armed forces—the 250,000 people who served in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner.