Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

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

[Chris Bryant]

And it is not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings being undergone either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. I will not comment on the specific incidents. I have made my views clear about why there should not be any amnesty for people involved. There was legislation introduced that meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand the kind of arrangement that that was. There were people and political parties who did not support the Good Friday agreement, and maybe these are some of the issues that were always troublesome for them. For me, it is important that at this stage we recognise that we need to get as many answers as possible for people, and that there cannot be that kind of immunity, amnesty—whatever we may call it.

The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now.

The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction. Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work.

Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control.

Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through. Anyway, finally—

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

Amen.

[Chris Bryant]

Very good.

Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government do not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This Government believe wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions on prosecutions taken by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are always taken independently, in the light of the individual facts and circumstances. However, there is a public interest in how such cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

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

[Chris Bryant]

What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?

[Mr Francois]

I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.

This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.

[Mr Francois]

No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.

Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:

“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”

Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.

Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.

New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.

The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?

[Chris Bryant]

It does actually, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands quite how our amendment operates. Let me turn to new clause 21, which I think he thinks is key, and which we oppose for several reasons. First, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews, and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. That includes cases in which the Government have already been found by the European Court of Human Rights to have failed to discharge their obligations. The Opposition have clearly learned absolutely nothing from their own legacy Act.

Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required, and that creates more legal process not less. That is why the Government have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Opposition new clause seeks to introduce a judge—a Supreme Court judge no less—at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, thereby changing long-standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court. I note that having asked everybody who has advocated for this new clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court there is absolute silence from Opposition Members, because they know perfectly well that it is a completely and utterly unworkable proposal.

Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that

“individual personnel acted in good faith”

unless

“the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.”

This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process: that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with nearly everything the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has just said, but I am going to make a very different speech, not to disagree with him, but just to put a different tone to this. I have believed for a long time that it is essential to Russia’s grand strategy that it must expand: we knew that in 2008 and again in 2014, and, frankly, we should all have been thoroughly aware of it long before 24 February 2022 when the second invasion of Ukraine happened. I am absolutely clear that we must make sure that Putin and the Russian Federation loses.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to get more materiel to our friends and allies in Ukraine. I do not, however, think that is just a matter for the UK and I worry that sometimes the UK provides, let us say, 12 tanks and Spain provides two and France provides three and none of them work together. The time has come for us all to sit down as allies and ask how we are going to ramp up production of perhaps one or two brands of tank so we are deliberately and solely constructing them to get them to Ukraine as fast as possible. People have been arguing for that for at least a year now, so it is a shame we have not got on with it.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman is right because logistically that would make it far easier for the Ukrainians. Leopard is the obvious choice because it is used by so many other allied countries, but German export law currently prevents that unless the Germans waive it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should do that to allow the Ukrainians the Leopards they need?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes. I do not do this very often but I was saying “Hear, hear” earlier in agreement with a point the right hon. Gentleman made. I am reluctant to be too down on the Germans, however, for the simple reason that they have had to make a very dramatic and sudden about-turn in their whole understanding of their defence policy, but they do have to get over this hurdle. Many other countries in Europe want them to and are eagerly pressing them to, and the time is long past for them to do so. Perhaps we need a European security treaty to deal with some of these issues and get that materiel to where it is most needed and in a way that it can be readily used.

I want to talk about something slightly different: how we can help Ukraine rebuild. So far, along with many other countries in Europe, we have frozen but not seized assets. On 9 September 2022 a joint statement by the World Bank, the European Commission and the Government of Ukraine estimated that the current cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine was $349 billion. That is now a four-month-old estimate and the sum will grow exponentially as the war continues. We have all seen the pictures of what has happened in Dnipro; we know of the railways, roads and bridges that will have to be reconstructed, let alone the schools, the housing and the rest. Ukraine is going to need a very substantial amount of money.

Code of Conduct: Consultation

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Incidentally, I am not right honourable, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. I have a view about that; I am not sure whether it will end up being the settled view of the House. It seems illogical to me that two Members of the House, one of whom is a Minister, could be wined and dined at Wimbledon on a ticket that costs £2,500, then the Minister does not have to register that with the House and never has to register its value, even though they might be the Minister who makes decisions about tennis funding in the UK, whereas the Member who is not a Minister has to register it within 28 days. It seems perverse, and it is difficult for members of the public, who might want to see all the information about an individual MP in one place.

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

May I refer the Chairman to paragraph 58 on page 19 of the report? I take the point he has made very clearly that these are proposals for consultation and could be changed. However, the paragraph says:

“We therefore support the addition to the Code of a rule similar to those adopted by the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, making it an investigable breach of the Code for a Member to subject anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack in any medium”,

which presumably includes the Chamber and Select Committees. [Interruption.] Well, if we read it literally, that is how we would interpret it.

Let me give the Chairman a quick scenario. In a Select Committee, a Member is pressing a witness, maybe about some Government procurement programme that has gone horribly wrong, and they are reluctant to answer. The member of the Committee, doing their job, presses them harder, and the witness says, “I’m sorry, but I regard your behaviour as an unreasonable and excessive personal attack, and if you continue this line of questioning I’m going to report you to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.” To take another example—this is important, Madam Deputy Speaker—Member A and Member B have a heated disagreement in the Chamber, and someone watching on television writes to the commissioner and says, “I think A made an excessive personal attack on B, and I want you to investigate it.”

The point is that this paragraph seriously impinges on article 9 of the Bill of Rights, if we take it literally, so here is my consultation submission early on: this is actually dangerous, and it should not appear in the final version.

[Chris Bryant]

I disagree with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of where we are going, not least because I think article IX is perfectly clear that no proceeding in Parliament should be impeached or questioned in a court of law or in any other place.

[Mr Francois]

But it would be by the commissioner.

[Chris Bryant]

No. That has the force of statute law—the Bill of Rights is statute law—and we are not intending to derogate from that in any way at all. The Chair of a Select Committee at the moment could perfectly well say to an hon. Member, if he or she thought that the hon. Member was being excessively or unreasonably rude or personal towards a witness, “Let’s tone that down a little bit, shall we?” I think it would be in the interests of the House and its reputation for the Select Committee Chair to say that, and it is perfectly within their powers now. Indeed, in the work we have been doing in the Privileges Committee, we have been looking at how witnesses should be treated.

It may be that this rule is not perfectly worded as it is now. None the less—and, again, this is me on a personal level—it just seems odd that we would want to argue that we have to continue the right to make unreasonable and excessive personal attacks on others, especially when we are using the reputation of the letters “MP” behind it.

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The Prime Minister is due to attend the critical European Council tomorrow and Friday. However, despite the imminence of those crucial negotiations, very few Members of Parliament in this House are even aware of the extensive powers of the EU-UK Joint Committee contained within the withdrawal agreement. It is very important that those powers are brought to the attention of the House before the Prime Minister attends the Council tomorrow, hence my request this morning.

The Joint Committee is designed to oversee all aspects of the operation of the agreement and, crucially, managing and supervising the implementation and operation of the future relationship. Its potentially wide-ranging powers are contained in articles 164 to 166 of the withdrawal agreement and its rules of procedure, which are an integral part of the treaty found at annex VIII, almost literally at the back of the 585-page document; there is, in fairness, an annex IX.

The decisions of the Committee have full force in international law, equivalent to the treaty itself, as guaranteed in article 166. The Committee can meet in private. It does not have to publish its agenda, any minutes or even a summary of its minutes and can be chaired by two unelected civil servants, nominated by either side, rather than by Ministers. Under its rules of procedure, the two co-chairmen, acting outside normal meetings, can even make legally binding decisions in its name by an exchange of notes, without any recourse to or consent from Parliament. Rule 9 of the rules and procedures, on decisions and recommendations, clearly states on page 565 of the treaty:

“1. In the period between meetings, the Joint Committee may adopt decisions or recommendations by written procedure, if the co-chairs decide to use this procedure. The written procedure shall consist of an exchange of notes between the co-chairs.

2. Where the Joint Committee adopts decisions or recommendations, the words ‘Decision’ or ‘Recommendation’, respectively, shall be inserted in the title of such acts. The Secretariat shall record any decision or recommendation under a serial number and with a reference to the date of its adoption.”

That is almost exactly the same procedure that is used for notifying and recording EU regulations and directives. Despite all of that, this Committee has hardly ever been mentioned in Parliament, and few Ministers have ever referred to it directly throughout the extensive debates we have had during this Session on the whole issue of Brexit. Crucially, the Joint Committee is contained in the treaty, and therefore has the force of international law behind it, but it is outside the backstop, which is perhaps why it has received less attention than other aspects of the withdrawal agreement to date.

I believe that this has been extremely cleverly drafted to hand control of future elements of this country’s destiny deliberately to unelected civil servants, rather than to Ministers—civil servants who are unanswerable to this House of Commons in the way that Ministers are. Those involved have thought of everything, as rule 12 of annex VIII is entitled “Expenses”, and it even lays out how they can reclaim their expenses. At present, Parliament seems blissfully unaware of the ability of the Joint Committee to take legally binding decisions relating to any future aspect of the treaty or the future relationship, in effect, above Parliament’s head.

There are clear issues of accountability to Parliament that, as far as I am aware, have never really been debated in the House at all. I ask the Minister to confirm that everything I have said is true, and if any of it is not true, will he point out what and why? If it is true, which it is, will he explain what checks and balances this House has over the operation of the Joint Committee?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Take back control!

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Bishop.

In summary, the Joint Committee contained in the draft withdrawal agreement has hardly ever been discussed in the House of Commons or the media, despite the fact that it potentially gives two unelected civil servants the power to make decisions that are binding in international law by an exchange of notes, without the knowledge, let alone the consent, of this House. If we are to approve the withdrawal agreement, we will approve this procedure too, which is why it is so important we should know about it. I believe that these facts must be exposed for debate in this House before the Prime Minister departs for the European Council tomorrow. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I look forward to hearing—I will be intrigued to hear—the Minister’s reply.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Francois and Chris Bryant

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am delighted that the Leader of the House is staying in her job because I will admit—as long as she does not tell anybody else—that I quite like her. [Interruption.] Blowing kisses is not going to get her anywhere, however.

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

Well, we know that.

[Chris Bryant]

Easy!

As the Leader of the House will know, the House passed a Magnitsky-style measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The Government have provided three excuses for not doing anything about this yet. One is that it cannot be done until the end of Brexit, and the Foreign Secretary says that that means after the transition period is over. Another reason is that we would have to table statutory instruments and that there is no time for SIs. However, everyone in this House would love to get this done as quickly as possible. Other countries in Europe have already done it, so will she please stay in her job just to get this thing done?