Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as

“a direct threat to national security”?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, ma’am.

This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service.

One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.

For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot.

Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there is no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us, but his Bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded, because they will be hounded.

[Mr Francois]

On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable.

First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light.

Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons.

Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome.

Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release.

Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans:

“If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.”

What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently:

“If potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their Government will stand by them, when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why risk joining at all?”.

Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a

“direct threat to national security”.

If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless.

When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan:

“We must reverse it as soon as possible”.

The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill.

In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023.

Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I.

Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army.

When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.

On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.

Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.

A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Matthew Patrick]

I do not have time.

I now turn to the issue of inquests, which has been raised by hon. Members. As the Government have long committed to, clause 84 makes it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared with an inquest.