Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable.

Clause 72

The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 73 to 76 stand part.

Government amendment 232.

Clause 77 stand part.

Clauses 78 to 81 stand part.

Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and

(h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”.

Clause 82 stand part.

Government amendments 233 to 235.

Clause 83 stand part.

Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.”

Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(ab) for subsection (2) substitute—

‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’

(ac) Omit subsection (3).’”

This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process.

Government amendments 236 and 237.

Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert—

“(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68.

Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12.

This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission’s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings.

Government amendment 238.

Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.

Government amendment 239.

Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.

Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless—

(a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(b) in their view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert

“, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert

“who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”.

Government amendment 240.

Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70.

Government amendments 241 to 243.

Clause 84 stand part.

Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 85 to 87 stand part.

Government amendment 244.

Clause 88 stand part.

Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions.

Clause 89 stand part.

Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out

“does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”.

This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice.

Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106.

Clause 90 stand part.

Government new clause 49—Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

Government new clause 50—Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences.

Government new clause 51—On the run letters.

Government new clause 52—Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles.

Government new clause 53—Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces.

New clause 7—Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”).

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must—

(a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom;

(b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;

(d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service;

(e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces.

(3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

(4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.

(5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces.

(6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.”

New clause 12—Duty to promote reconciliation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act.

(2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to—

(a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future;

(b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and

(c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors.

(3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Legacy Commission;

(b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;

(c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.

(5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.”

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.

New clause 22—Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence—

“(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where—

(a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and

(b) no new and compelling evidence has become available.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which—

(a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and

(b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome.

(3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that—

(a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and

(b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed.

(4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the public interest in finality of investigations,

(b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and

(c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).”

This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened.

New clause 30—Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate—

“(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with—

(a) an investigation under Part 3;

(b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or

(c) a resumed inquest under Part 7.

(2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies.

(3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence.

(4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual.

(5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification.

(6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means—

(a) the relevant Director of Investigations;

(b) the relevant judicial panel member; or

(c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).”

New clause 31—Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans—

“(1) This section applies where a decision is made under—

(a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons);

(b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations);

(c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or

(d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests).

(2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section.

(3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to—

(a) the Attorney General for England and Wales;

(b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who—

(i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and

(ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland.

(4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may—

(a) confirm the decision;

(b) quash the decision;

(c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.”

This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland.

New clause 54—Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”).

(2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to—

(a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act.

(b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed.

(c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.”

This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26.

Government amendment 245.

Clause 91 stand part.

Government amendments 267 to 275.

Schedule 6 stand part.

Clause 92 stand part.

Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “,

(ea) F is a grandparent of D,

(eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D,

(ec) F is a niece or nephew of D,

(ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”.

This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.

Government amendments 246 to 248.

Clause 93 stand part.

Government amendments 249 and 250.

Clause 94 stand part.

Clauses 95 and 96 stand part.

Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert

“and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”.

This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46.

Government amendment 251.

Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met.

(3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on—

(a) a cross-border body on information retrieval,

(b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána,

(c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.”

Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

With regards to the OTR letters, the Secretary of State will know that I spoke yesterday on that very issue. The fact that there is clarity today that you are progressing the amendment is welcome. However, on-the-run letters did have effect, as the Hyde Park bomber got away with his misdemeanours because of them. They did have effect. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I asked yesterday, whether the letters will have effect on the ongoing new prosecution of John Downey who, by the way, is hiding in the Republic of Ireland undercover? Will that have effect on the current prosecution he is facing?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am always in favour of consistency, and I am sure that that is how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their guidance.

Finally, I look forward to listening to the further contributions of hon. Members today as we continue to consider amendments and that clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. I really hope that we are able to get the Bill right today. It is about achieving a balance, and I hope that that is what our amendments will do.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.

In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.

Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill.

Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.

I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.

[Alex Burghart]

Finally, a bit of order!

[The Chairman]

Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today.

The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier.

The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.

It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.

We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government.

Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree.

I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point. Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently.

My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this?

As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill. I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct.

The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice. In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution. If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers.

Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles.

The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened. Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing.

Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation.

I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Loughgall is in my constituency, and he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA was the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. It is important to remind the Committee of the names of Eva Martin, Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, the four UDR soldiers killed by the Ballygawley landmine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, and Harold Henry of Henry Brothers, all of whom were murdered by these people. When we look at their CV, it certainly does not say that they were just going to blow up a building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh in this regard. He was under investigation for Sir Norman Stronge’s murder at the time of Loughgall. Pádraig McKearney had been convicted of firearms offences, too.

As we discuss this Bill, the Government have the opportunity to stop the second inquest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do the right thing and include within the legislation your amendment 51 to stop the second inquest and to show that when these people met real soldiers, it saved lives?

[The Chairman]

Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.

[David Davis]

I am very close to the end, Madam Chairman. The hon. Lady is exactly right, and that is the entire thrust of amendment 51. If I had had my way, I would have said that amendment 49 was better, because it would have stopped all these inquests. The amendments would not get rid of the investigations, but would put them into a better process, which the Government have designed.

I will finish on coroners courts. I have listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and the Committee can guess who I am talking about, but they are tough, intelligent soldiers. However, the court is not their environment, when they are being harassed by a lawyer not to get to the truth, but to get a story out of them. I spoke this morning to one of them who has been through more of these court cases than most, both inquests and judicial reviews. He told me that IRA lawyers are, in his words, “more interested in drama than justice”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you for calling me, Ms Ghani. It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He has been steadfast and faithful not only to the principles that he upholds and expounds, but to the bonds with his comrades and the legislation’s consequences for them. He has acted in a selfless way, and I guess that is the mark of the man. There are many in politics who would not have taken the position that he did, so it is a pleasure to follow him, and I thank him for his contribution.

I feel I need to do this given his speech, but I must mention the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He started off almost apologetically this afternoon, and last week, after the carry-over motion, he took sanctuary in Londonderry with me and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He feared he had done something inexplicable: he had united the House against him. I did not agree with that assessment, but I believe he is approaching these issues with a level of diligence that we appreciate, and I thank him for that.

Yesterday, I spoke more broadly about the Bill and the amendments then before the Committee. Sometimes I lament that, on issues such as legacy, far too many people hear what they think is being said because of the person saying it, and they do not listen to the contributions being made. There are people in this debate who think, “Well, they would say that anyway, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Brits,” or, “They would say that, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Irish,” or, “They would acquiesce, wouldn’t they—always in the face of terror.” I do not think that does this debate any good. There are people I fundamentally disagree with—we are on different sides of the Chamber and we will be in different Lobbies this evening—but there are things they say and contributions they make in this debate that I agree with.

I do worry that, so often in this debate, there seems to be a tension between victims and innocent victims and soldiers, or should we say “state combatants”? Some would describe them as that, but I think it is disrespectful. We pit individuals against one another. Why does somebody like me talk about veterans and the need for veterans’ protection? It is because those individuals volunteered to stand up for the things that we value in this country.

I listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who is not in his place at the moment. He said that when the Army was deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not deployed for one side or another. That is not quite right. It was deployed on the one side that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland were on: those who believe in the rule of law and in upholding the decency of democracy. It was deployed to stand up for our values. When I say “our values” I mean Protestant, Catholic, dissenter, none—those who believe in the values that hold our society together. The Army was deployed on the side against those who wanted to destroy our nation, destroy our livelihoods and take our lives.

That is why the Army was deployed and that is why we owe it to the veterans—as a Parliament, as a legislative Chamber—to provide protections. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge regard though we clashed many times on these issues, will know that I asked him not to talk about protections for veterans if they did not amount to measures that protected those very same veterans. Talk of safeguards and talk of measures that may be brought forward which could provide some level of comfort, but let us not describe them as protections if they do not protect.

What we hear and see before us today, and throughout the course of these debates, are the following measures: fairness, dignity and respect. They are offered as a protection to veterans. There should be fairness, dignity and respect for anybody in these processes. Of course, they do not apply to veterans; they apply to everyone. On witness participation, witnesses should not be compelled to participate unless there is “new and compelling evidence”. It is offered as a protection for veterans, but it is something that applies in principle to everyone. I do not challenge that, but I do not pretend it is something it is not. On older veterans, this legislation and the amendments before us would guarantee that they are treated with respect and with care, and that an assessment is made if needed. That is their participation. It does not just apply to older veterans. It is presented, wrongly and mischievously, as a protection for veterans, but, rightly, it is an application of a principle that applies to all.

Then we have the provisions around the Attorney General and the consent required in Government new clause 50. Veterans asked for this. Veterans asked for the Attorney General, who also serves as the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to be incorporated into this process. That it has been offered, satisfies the requests of veterans. They asked for it because they do not trust—I heard it earlier mentioned—the politics of Northern Ireland in prosecutions. Our prosecution service in Northern Ireland is independent of politics—it is independent of politics in Northern Ireland—but the consent required of the Attorney General is given because it has been requested by veterans, and veterans assume that it will add some level of protection. But it will not.

Whenever that has been challenged, and whenever the Secretary of State has been challenged about why he is doing it—challenged by victims, challenged by loved ones and challenged by others—he gives an answer that he gave again last night. It is in Hansard. He says:

“yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 867.]

What started as a request from veterans has been welcomed by some veterans’ groups who think it will add some level of protection or cover from the infected process they see in Northern Ireland, but it will not. We know very clearly: one, applies to everyone; two, quasi-judicial process; and three, just replicating exactly the same principles of the prosecutors who are making the decision in Northern Ireland in the first place. So the question is this: why do it at all? What benefit is there at all if they are replicating the same process which is approached independently, is quasi-judicial and applies legal application? What does it add to the process at all?

I said it this morning to a wider audience in Northern Ireland and I will say it again this evening: the problem with this proposition is that it started as a request. That request was acquiesced to and people were led to believe that it was a level of protection. When challenged by victims who say, “How can you be stepping in to protect? How can you provide a mechanism that is going to protect a certain cohort?” the answer is, “Well, actually, it doesn’t apply to them alone; it applies to everyone and actually, it is just exactly the same application of principle that you will see in Northern Ireland. It is quasi-judicial anyway and of course it could be judicially reviewed.”

The reason I raise these points is because I think it is fundamentally important that people speak accurately—accurately, Ms Ghani.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

It does.

[The Chairman]

Order.

[Gavin Robinson]

There you go; it is pathetic, Ms Ghani. This Committee will consider the amendments, but I have no doubt, given the lack of scrutiny and interest in most of what was before us yesterday, that they will be agreed on the nod—and then time will tell.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. When addressing the Chair, please use our names, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman”.

Clause 1

Introduction

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move amendment 143, page 1, line 8, leave out

“including Schedules 1 to 8 to that Act,”.

This is a drafting change.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), or of any Remedial Order made under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any rights or protections that were, as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, granted by the ICRIR to individuals who had previously served as service personnel or crown servants are to be regarded by any prosecuting authority or court in the United Kingdom as remaining in force.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.

Amendment 24, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “12 April 2010”.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) perpetuating or planning an act of terrorism”.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(2A) Any actions which were lawfully performed by members of the Armed Forces, or Crown servants, in the course of their duties shall not, as a consequence of this Act, be considered as unlawful acts of terrorism or criminal violence.”

Amendment 10, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(7) No provisions of this Act may be read to imply or suggest a moral equivalence between perpetrators of terrorism and the security and police forces of the State.”

Amendment 56, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(7) No provisions of this Act are to be understood as suggesting any form of equivalence between terrorist actors and the British Armed Forces, security or police services.”

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “(section 7)” insert “, and

(f) the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.”

Amendment 82, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

“(e) to offer to refer parties to relevant conduct to restorative justice processes as an alternative to referral to prosecution where investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under this Act find evidence that offences have been committed (see section [Restorative justice procedures]).”

This amendment provides that a principal function of the Legacy Commission will be to offer to refer parties to restorative justice processes as an alternative to prosecution. It is connected to Amendments 83 and 84, and NC19.

Government amendment 144.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) In performing its functions, the Legacy Commission must ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.”

This amendment will require the Legacy Commission to ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.

Amendment 53, page 3, line 7, leave out from “, and” until end of line 8.

This amendment would remove the Chief Executive Officer from being a member of the Legacy Commission’s oversight board.

Government amendments 145 to 147.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendments 252 to 254.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 82, line 23, at end insert—

“(cc) the person has previously held one or more of the following offices—

(i) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(ii) a councillor (within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 – see section 126(1) of that Act);

(iii) a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, or

(iv) a Member of the European Parliament representing any constituency in Northern Ireland,”.

This amendment adds anyone who has previously held elected office in Northern Ireland to the list of restrictions on being appointed as a Legacy Commissioner or Director of Investigations.

Government amendments 255 to 259.

Amendment 42, page 86, leave out part 4.

This Amendment decouples the process for appointing Judicial Panel members from the appointment process for other offices involving the Secretary of State and is consequential to Amendments 39, 40 and 41.

Schedule 1.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out from “investigations” to end of line 2 and insert “in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, so far as practicable, to ensure that one of the persons appointed as Director of Investigations must have experience of conducting criminal investigations elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 39, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.

This amendment provides for Judicial Panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.

Amendment 40, page 4, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.

This amendment provides for the senior judicial panel member to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and is consequential on Amendment 39.

Amendment 41, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment removes reference to the appointment process set out in Schedule 1 and is consequential to Amendments 39 and 40.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Amendment 116, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, after “victims” insert “, veterans”.

This amendment changes the purpose of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group so that it additionally provides advice to the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State in such a way as to uphold the rights and interests of veterans.

Amendment 117, page 5, line 11, leave out “so far as practicable”.

This amendment removes the “so far as practicable” limitation on the categories of people who must be members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(iii) the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and”.

Amendment 75, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(iii) one or more persons who is a veteran.”

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, so far as practicable, ensure that the Victims and Survivors Group includes at least one veteran, as defined in Amendment 79.

Amendment 21, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has—

(a) been convicted of a Troubles-related offence, or

(b) been identified, following national security vetting, as having had any former or current associations with any proscribed organisation.”

Amendment 52, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has been, or is, a member of a political party that has any links to, or supports, any paramilitary or terrorist organisations past or present.”

Amendment 1, page 5, line 21, at end insert

“, and

(b) do not include any person—

(i) who has participated in any terrorist act, or

(ii) who has a terrorism-related criminal conviction.”

Amendment 2, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(5A) For the purposes of this section, a “victim” is a human individual who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, through no fault of their own, directly by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law.

(5B) A person is not to be considered a “victim” if they—

(a) are, or were, physically or psychologically injured as a result, or in consequence, of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict related incident; and

(b) were either wholly, or in part, responsible for the planning, or implementation, of an unlawful conflict related incident.”

This amendment inserts a definition of victim for the purposes of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group which would be established under clause 8.

Amendment 22, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(5A) In this section references to victims and survivors refer to innocent victims and does not include those who are precluded from receiving a Victims Pension under Regulation 6 of the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020.”

Amendment 118, page 5, line 31, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer whose function is to—

(a) monitor and assess whether the views and interests of each member are being adequately represented within the Group;

(b) produce an annual report on the effectiveness of the Group’s representational balance and engagement with the Legacy Commission; and

(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State for improving the Group’s composition or consultative practices where imbalances or deficiencies are identified.”

This amendment provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the Group’s representational balance and effectiveness.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 149.

Clause 9 stand part.

Government amendment 150.

Amendment 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would remove the national security restriction on the Legacy Commission’s potential activities.

Amendment 85, page 6, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

This amendment would limit the restriction on the Legacy Commission’s actions to those that would damage national security, rather than including those that would risk damaging national security.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendment 151.

Amendment 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 5, leave out

“human rights should be respected”

and insert

“human rights standards must be complied with”.

Amendment 77, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that veterans who served the United Kingdom should not face disproportionate legal action through the conduct of the Legacy Commission.”

This amendment introduces a specific principle to the duties of the Legacy Commission, ensuring that in exercising its functions, the Commission protects veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who served the UK from disproportionate legal action.

Amendment 119, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that all investigatory and inquisitorial functions should be exercised proportionately, having regard to the public interest in further inquiry and the likely evidential value of what it may yield.”

This amendment introduces a principle requiring investigatory and inquisitorial functions to be exercised proportionately by the Legacy Commission, having regard to the public interest and likely evidential value.

Government amendment 152.

Amendment 81, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that restorative justice procedures can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—

(i) facilitating honesty,

(ii) supporting victims and survivors, and

(iii) promoting reconciliation.”

This amendment creates a duty on the Legacy Commission to function consistently with the principle that restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles.

Clause 11 stand part.

Amendment 55, in clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out “constable” and insert

“Chief Constable, as provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”.

Government amendments 153 and 154.

Clause 12 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 155 to 160.

Clause 13 stand part

Government amendments 161 and 162.

Amendment 120, in clause 14, page 9, line 24, leave out from second “person” to end of line 25 and insert

“(other than a veteran) to attend at a time and place stated in the notice, and in the case of a veteran may require such attendance only where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means—”.

This amendment provides that veterans may only be required to attend in person where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means.

Government amendments 163 and 164.

Amendment 80, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

“(3A) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) may not be issued to a veteran who has previously provided information under the provisions of this section, unless—

(a) materially new evidence has been brought to the attention of the relevant person,

(b) as a result of the new evidence, issuing a notice to a veteran to provide further information would, in the opinion of the relevant person, be proportionate and necessary,

(c) the relevant person has issued a certificate confirming that the conditions in (a) and (b) have been met.”

This amendment would prevent a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member from requiring a veteran to provide information under this section unless the investigator had certified that it was, in their view, proportionate and necessary to do so.

Amendment 138, page 10, line 6, at end insert—

“(5A) A notice under this section may not require a person to attend to give oral evidence when the provisions of section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate] apply.

(5B) Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of full medical records, except in accordance with section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate].”

Government amendments 165 to 167.

Clause 14 stand part.

Government amendments 260 and 261.

Schedule 3.

Government amendments 168 and 169.

Clause 15 stand part.

Amendment 86, in clause 16, page 11, line 36, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

This amendment changes the definition of sensitive information to refer to information that, if disclosed, would damage national security, rather than also including information that would risk damaging national security.

Amendment 87, page 12, line 5, leave out

“person considering whether information is prejudicial information”

and insert

“Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland”.

This amendment would give the decision as to whether the disclosure of information is prejudicial, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Clause 16 stand part.

Amendment 286, in schedule 4, page 99, line 14, leave out from “The duty” to the end of paragraph (4).

This amendment would remove the requirement for relevant authorities to classify information as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring it to the Legacy Commission, reflecting the conclusions of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.

Schedule 4.

Amendment 65, in clause 17, page 12, line 18, leave out from “person” to the end of line 41 and insert

“, unless in the view of the Commission the disclosure of such information would lead to a breach of any individual’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.”

Amendment 88, page 12, line 21, after “concerned” insert

“, unless a judicial panel member finds that it is necessary and proportionate to do so”.

This amendment would enable a judicial panel member to determine that a disclosure of information may be made by the Legacy Commission, notwithstanding prohibitions A to E, if they believe such a disclosure is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 89, page 12, line 38, after “proceedings” insert

“, if any restriction notice has been approved by a judicial panel member”.

This amendment would require a judicial panel member to agree to the issuing of a restriction notice.

Government amendment 170.

Amendment 54, page 12, line 41, at end insert—

“(11) Within six months of this section coming into force, and every six months thereafter, the Legacy Commission must report on any incidences in which the Secretary of State, under the provisions of Prohibition C in subsection (6) and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, has either—

(a) prohibited the disclosure of, or

(b) ordered the redaction of material that has been identified by the Secretary of State as protected international information.

(12) In the case of material falling under subsection 11(b), the report specified in subsection (11) must include any determination made by the Legacy Commission as to whether the redactions resulted in the material being of no use to them in their investigations.

(13) Within a month of each report published by the Legacy Commission under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the report’s conclusions.”

Clause 17 stand part.

Government amendments 262 and 263.

Amendment 37, in schedule 5, page 101, line 39, leave out from “permitted” to the end of paragraph (5).

This amendment would remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to be notified prior to, and their ability to veto on national security or public interest grounds, the disclosure of sensitive information by the Legacy Commission.

Amendment 90, page 102, line 2, after “and” insert

“takes their response into account when reaching a decision”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 91 to 96, would allow the Legacy Commission to disclose sensitive information once it has notified the Secretary of State, and considered their response, and would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to prohibit disclosure on national security grounds.

Amendment 91, page 102, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 92, page 102, line 8, leave out “permitted” and insert “approved”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 93, page 102, line 9, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 94, page 102, line 11, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 97, page 102, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

Amendments 97 and 98 clarify that the power to prohibit proposed disclosures on national security grounds is limited to those areas which would definitively, rather than potentially, impact national security.

Amendment 95, page 102, line 23, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 96, page 102, line 24, leave out “prohibition” and insert “opposition”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 104, page 102, line 24, after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) Where a notification under sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) has been made, the Secretary of State must refer the matter to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

(5B) A referral under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made within a month of the Secretary of State’s notification.

(5C) In considering the referral under sub-paragraph (5A), the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament may request further reasons, and information, from the Secretary of State relating to the decision to prohibit the proposed disclosure on national security grounds.

(5D) The Secretary of State must respond to any request from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for further reasons or information within two weeks of receiving the request.

(5E) After considering a referral under sub-paragraph 5A the Intelligence and Security Committee may within 12 months of the referral lay before both Houses of Parliament a report outlining the Committee’s—

(a) assessment of the Secretary of State’s reasons for prohibiting the proposed disclosure of information; and

(b) conclusions on why the prohibition is an inappropriate response to national security considerations, and how—

(i) the information in its entirety could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed; or

(ii) the information, subject to redactions, could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed.

(5F) Where the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported that a disclosure could, in their opinion, be reasonably made under sub-paragraph (5E)(b) (i) or (ii), the Secretary of State must, within a month of the Committee publishing its report, make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the Committee’s conclusions.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to refer any decision to block a disclosure on national security grounds to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, enabling the Committee to review the decision, request further information, and, if it concludes that the prohibition is not justified, report to Parliament on how the information could reasonably be disclosed.

Amendment 98, page 102, line 26, leave out “risking damage to, or”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 97.

Amendment 38, page 103, leave out paragraphs (8) to (13).

This amendment is supplementary to Amendment 37.

Government amendments 264 to 266.

Amendment 101, page 104, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.

Amendment 99, page 104, line 30, leave out “an” and insert “a merits based”.

These amendments (99 to 101) would extend the power of the courts to review the merits of a Secretary of State’s decision not to permit the proposed disclosure of information, beyond those powers provided to courts in judicial review proceedings.

Amendment 100, page 104, line 33, leave out “review” and insert

“reconsider all evidence relating to”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.

Schedule 5.

Clause 18 stand part.

Government amendments 171 to 177.

Clause 19 stand part.

Amendment 67, in clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Government amendments 178 and 179.

Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.

Government amendments 180 to 182.

Clause 22 stand part.

Amendment 70, in clause 23, page 17, line 36, after “appropriate” insert—

“(k) the number of occasions during that reporting period when an employee of the Commissioner either—

(i) declared, or

(ii) (ii) was determined, following an internal review, to have

a conflict of interest in relation to a case referred to the Commission.”

Clause 23 stand part.

Government amendment 183.

Clause 24 stand part.

Government amendments 184 and 185.

Clause 25 stand part.

Government amendments 186 and 187.

Amendment 62, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) The statement must set out the manner in which the Legacy Commission is to exercise its investigatory function so as to ensure compliance with its human rights obligations, including, but not limited to, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Government amendments 188 and 189.

Clause 26 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 27, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Where conduct forming part of the Troubles—

(a) caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, or

(b) caused a person physical or mental harm as the result of being the victim of a sexual offence,

the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”

This amendment would enable victims of sexual crimes that were committed as conduct forming part of the Troubles to request an investigation under Part 3 of the Bill.

Amendment 68, page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (3).

Clause 27 stand part.

Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) there is material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, and there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43.”

This amendment requires any requests for investigations by public authorities based on new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30 and requires there to be a realistic prospect of information being provided to a prosecutor.

Amendment 139, page 23, line 3, at end insert—

“(11A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.

Amendment 103, in clause 30, page 23, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the request relates to a matter which has previously been the subject of investigatory or inquisitorial proceedings, no further investigation may be accepted by the Directors unless—

(a) materially new evidence has been brought to their attention, and

(b) as a result of that new evidence, a re-investigation would, in their opinion, be proportionate, necessary, and in the public interest for maintaining confidence and trust in the justice system.

(c) Where (a) and (b) are satisfied, the Directors must issue a certification confirming that those conditions have been met.”

This amendment is intended to introduce a rule against reinvestigation of matters related to the conduct of a veteran unless new evidence has been brought to the attention of the Director of Investigations, is proportionate and necessary, and it is in the public interest.

Amendment 280, page 23, line 26, leave out

“or an active resumed inquest”.

Amendment 281, page 23, line 36, leave out

“or an active resumed inquest”.

Amendment 282, page 24, line 5, leave out “or resumed inquest”.

Amendment 123, page 24, line 9, leave out from “unless” to end and insert

“material new evidence exists which was not available to previous investigators and the Directors of Investigations acting jointly have issued a written “New Evidence Certificate” which—

(i) identifies the specific material relied upon as constituting such material new evidence;

(ii) confirms that the material was not reasonably available at the time of any previous investigation or inquest;

(iii) explains why any further investigation or duplication is essential and proportionate, having regard in particular to—

(A) the passage of time;

(B) the age and health of any person likely to be investigated;

(C) the likelihood that the new evidence could realistically lead to information capable of being provided to a prosecutor; and

is published, subject only to national security and GDPR redactions.”

This amendment introduces a requirement that further investigations duplicating earlier proceedings may only be undertaken where material new evidence exists and a “New Evidence Certificate” has been issued.

Amendment 25, page 24, line 9, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 283, page 24, line 11, leave out “or a resumed inquest”.

Amendment 284, page 24, line 19, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Clause 30 stand part.

Amendment 125, in clause 31, page 25, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of that investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in the Directors’ view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before subsequent investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 26, page 25, line 33, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Clause 31 stand part.

Amendment 126, in clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) owing to material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43,”

This amendment requires investigations initiated by the Directors of Investigations on the basis of new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30.

Amendment 285, page 26, line 20, leave out from “proceedings” until the end of line 21.

Clauses 32 to 34 stand part.

Government amendments 190 and 191.

Clause 35 stand part.

Amendment 130, in clause 36, page 28, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) The Director must decide that the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation only where—

(a) material new evidence exists, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and

(b) such evidence is capable of demonstrating that the relevant conduct constituted an offence at the time it occurred; and

(c) there is a realistic prospect that the relevant prosecutorial authority would decide that it is in the public interest for a person to be prosecuted in respect of that conduct, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”

This amendment raises the threshold for conducting a criminal investigation by requiring material new evidence and a realistic prospect of prosecution. It is connected to Amendment 123.

Amendment 131, page 28, line 33, at end insert “, but may only do so where—

“(a) material new evidence exists in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and

(b) determining those facts is fair and proportionate, having regard in particular to the matters set out in sections 36(10) and 36(10A).”

This amendment limits non-criminal fact-finding investigations to cases where material new evidence exists and where such inquiries are fair and proportionate. It is connected to Amendment 123.

Amendment 127, page 29, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in the Director’s view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 27, page 29, line 9, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Government amendment 192.

Amendment 132, page 29, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) the conduct to which the investigation relates occurred, including the operational orders, briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time; and”.

This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the operational context in which the conduct occurred, including relevant orders, briefings and intelligence.

Amendment 133, page 29, line 21, at end insert—

“(10A) In carrying out an investigation, the Director must also have regard to—

(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;

(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and

(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry or questioning remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”

This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out an investigation.

Amendment 34, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”

Amendment 63, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) A ‘previous investigation’ refers solely to investigations which complied with the full requirements of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Clause 36 stand part.

Government amendment 193.

Clause 37 stand part.

Government amendment 194.

Amendment 121, in clause 38, page 30, line 33, at end insert—

“(6A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”

This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.

Clause 38 stand part.

Amendment 69, in clause 39, page 31, line 20, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert

“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”

Clauses 39 to 42 stand part.

Amendment 83, in clause 43, page 35, line 7, at end insert

“and no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”

This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.

Amendment 12, page 35, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 13, page 35, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 14, page 35, line 22, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Government amendments 195 and 196.

Amendment 15, page 35, line 33, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.

Amendment 44, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) No referral for prosecution is to be made for a person who served in—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),

(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

when the conduct under investigation arose as a result of that person acting in accordance with operational decisions.”

Amendment 47, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the referral for prosecution concerns a veteran of—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the Special Forces),

(b) the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Services or Government Communications Headquarters,

(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(d) the Police Service of Northern Ireland

the written permission of the relevant person as set out in subsection (6B) is required.

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), the relevant person is defined as follows—

(a) the Director of Service Prosecutions (in the case of paragraph (a)),

(b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom (in the case of paragraph (b)), or

(c) the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d)).

(6C) When determining whether to give the permission required under subsection (6A), the relevant person must consider whether prosecution would have a negative impact on the proposed defendant’s mental or physical health, giving particular attention to—

(a) the proposed defendant’s age and health;

(b) any trauma that the proposed defendant suffered as a result of their service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles;

(c) any medical evidence from the practising doctor; and

(d) the number of times that the individual has been previously investigated or given evidence to an investigation.”

Amendment 140, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 43 to 48 stand part.

Government amendment 197.

Clause 49 stand part.

Amendment 278, in clause 50, page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) This section applies to a death caused directly by conduct forming part of the Troubles if—

(a) the Secretary of State gives a direction to the senior judicial panel member in relation to the death;

(b) an inquest relating to that death had been initiated, including where such inquests had not yet been allocated to a coroner, before 1 May 2024, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.”

Clause 50 stand part.

Government amendments 198 and 199.

Amendment 128, in clause 51, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that they do not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in their view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before inquisitorial proceedings may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 28, page 40, line 17, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 279, page 40, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) For the purpose of subsection (3), in taking into account previous investigations, the relevant judicial panel member must consider any evidence that was presented before those investigations before requiring a witness to give evidence at inquisitorial proceedings.”

Amendment 134, page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) The relevant judicial panel member must ensure that, in the carrying out of the proceedings, regard is had to—

(a) the context in which the conduct examined in the course of the proceedings occurred, including—

(i) operational orders given to personnel; and

(ii) briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time.

(b) any earlier criminal investigation of that conduct occurred.”

This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the operational context in inquisitorial proceedings.

Amendment 35, page 40, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of this section, “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”

Amendment 135, page 40, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) In carrying out the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member must also have regard to—

(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;

(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and

(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”

This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out judicial proceedings.

Government amendments 200 to 202.

Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.

Amendment 76, in clause 54, page 41, line 32, after “person” insert

“who is not a veteran”.

This amendment together with Amendment 78 provides that a person who is a veteran, as defined in Amendment 79, will not be required to give evidence in person to an inquisitorial proceeding, unless the Director of Investigations demonstrates it is strictly essential for them to do so.

Amendment 29, page 41, line 35, after “given)” insert

“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 78, page 41, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) Where a veteran is required to give evidence in inquisitorial proceedings, the judicial panel member must give permission for such evidence to be given through a live audio or live video link, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, unless the Director or Directors of Investigations can demonstrate that there is a clear and specific reason, recorded in writing, which makes it strictly essential for the veteran in question to give evidence in person.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 76.

Government amendment 203.

Clause 54 stand part.

Government amendment 204.

Clause 55 stand part.

Government amendment 205.

Amendment 108, in clause 56, page 43, line 8, at end insert

“unless such restrictions would lead to the concealment of the involvement of a state agent in rape or other sexual offences.”

This amendment would ensure that the restrictions on public access provided in this section may not be imposed if they would result in the concealment of information about state actors who were involved in rape or other sexual offences.

Government amendments 206 to 208.

Amendment 30, page 43, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) Restrictions under this section may be imposed if the individual subject to, or participating in, inquisitorial proceedings is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Government amendment 209.

Clause 56 stand part

Government amendments 210 to 221.

Clauses 57 and 58 stand part.

Government amendment 222.

Clause 59 stand part.

Government amendment 223.

Clause 60 stand part.

Amendment 84, in clause 61, page 46, line 37, at end insert

“and no referral to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”

This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.

Amendment 16, page 47, line 1, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 17, page 47, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 18, page 47, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 26, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.

Amendment 141, page 48, line 10, at end insert—

“(10) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clause 61 stand part.

Government amendment 224.

Amendment 122, in clause 62, page 48, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”

This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.

Clause 62 stand part.

Amendment 71, in clause 63, page 49, line 16, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert

“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”

Clauses 63 to 66 stand part.

Government amendments 225 and 226.

Clauses 67 and 68 stand part.

Amendment 136, in clause 69, page 54, line 23, leave out “have regard to the” and insert

“not take any decisions which will, or are likely to, unreasonably impact the”.

Amendment 31, page 54, line 25, after “proceedings” insert

“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”.

Amendment 137, page 54, line 25, at end insert—

“(3) In determining reasonableness in this section, the relevant Directors of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must have specific regard to—

(a) the number of prior investigations or interviews the individual giving evidence or participating in the investigation or proceedings has participated in;

(b) the intrusiveness of the step;

(c) the availability of less intrusive means by which to obtain the evidence or benefit of the individual’s participation in proceedings; and

(d) the importance of the individual’s participation or evidence in the investigation as a whole.”

This amendment prohibits investigative steps that would unreasonably impact the health or welfare of a person, and sets out factors relevant to determining reasonableness.

Clause 69 stand part.

Government amendment 227.

Clause 70 stand part.

Government amendments 228 to 231.

Clause 71 stand part.

Government new clause 32—Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces.

Government new clause 33—Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Government new clause 34—Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Government new clause 35—Duty to avoid unnecessary costs.

Government new clause 36—Inspections of the Legacy Commission.

Government new clause 37—Powers of inspection.

Government new clause 38—Reports following inspections.

Government new clause 39—Disclosure of sensitive or protected international information by the Inspectorate.

Government new clause 40—Assistance agreements.

Government new clause 41—Effect, pending determination, of application for restriction order.

Government new clause 42—Information for registrar of deaths following inquisitorial proceedings.

Government new clause 43—Time limit for applying for judicial review.

Government new clause 44—Intercepted communications etc.

Government new clause 45—Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses.

Government new clause 46—Initial contact with police officers.

Government new clause 47—Working with prosecutors: policy statement.

Government new clause 48—Defamation.

New clause 1—Legacy Commission: Transparency of resourcing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, each financial year, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the resources allocated to the Legacy Commission.

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the resources made available to the Commission; and

(b) the allocation of resources to investigations relating to—

(i) state actors, and

(ii) non-state actors.

(3) Within two months of the publication of a report made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on the report.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each financial year which sets out the resources made available to the Commission and the allocation of resources to investigations relating to state and to non-state actors.

New clause 2—Disqualification from appointment of Persons with Terrorist Associations—

“(1) A person (X) is disqualified from being appointed, or from continuing to serve, as—

(a) a Commissioner of the Legacy Commission,

(b) a Director of Investigations,

(c) a member of the judicial panel,

(d) an officer of the Legacy Commission, or

(e) a member of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group,

if subsection (2) applies to that person.

(2) This subsection applies where person (X)—

(a) is, or has been, convicted of a terrorist offence within the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000;

(b) is, or has been, a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of section 3 of that Act; or

(c) has publicly advocated for, justified, or glorified the commission of acts of terrorism connected with the Troubles

(3) The Secretary of State must, before confirming any appointment under this Act, require candidates to declare any matter that would fall within subsection (2).

(4) The Secretary of State must terminate the appointment of any person who becomes disqualified under this section.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section prevents the appointment of a person whose only connection to the Troubles was as an innocent victim or survivor.”

New clause 3—Lack of legal effect for “comfort letters” or assurances—

“(1) For the avoidance of doubt no “comfort letter” or other assurance of no police investigation or prosecution provided at any time to any person can have any lawful effect.

(2) This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”

New clause 4—Principles when examining activities of veterans of armed forces or police service—

“In evaluating the actions or omissions of any person under investigation while serving in the armed forces or the police there shall be a rebuttable presumption that there was no criminal mens rea involved.”

New clause 5—Support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—

“The Secretary of State must ensure, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, that an equivalent package of practical and financial support and assistance is provided to former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, facing investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under the provisions of this Act, as is provided by the Ministry of Defence to former members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

New clause 6—Requirement to not make remedial orders in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—

“(1) No remedial order may be made by the Secretary of State under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of any part of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

(2) Any remedial order in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that was made prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent is to be regarded as having no legal effect.

(3) If a remedial order had been made in relation to the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must, within a month of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament regulations to repeal the remedial order.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

New clause 8—Relevant authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: Legacy Commission—

“(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 31, subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(ab) The Legacy Commission.’

(3) In Section 32, subsection (6), after paragraph (n) insert—

‘(o) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(4) In Section 33, after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4AZA) The Legacy Commission shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance except on an application made by the Director(s) of Investigation.’

(5) In Section 33, subsection (5A), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) The Legacy Commission.’

(6) In Section 34, subsection (4), after paragraph (m) insert—

‘(n) a person is entitled to act for the Legacy Commission if they are the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(7) In Section 51, subsection (2), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, the Legacy Commission’.

(8) In Section 51, subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) in the case of a direction by the Legacy Commission, except by or with the permission of the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(9) In Section 51, subsection (3), after ‘the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert—

‘, the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission’.

(10) In Section 55, subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(zba) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(11) In Section 56, subsection (1), after paragraph (ha) insert—

‘(hab) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(12) In Section 75, subsection (5), after “Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary” insert—

‘, or the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(13) In Section 75, subsection (6), after paragraph (ee) insert—

‘(ef) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(14) In Schedule 1, Part A1 (Relevant Authorities for the Purposes of ss. 28, 29 and 29B), after paragraph (A1A) insert—

‘(A1B) The Legacy Commission.’

(15) In Schedule 2, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission.’

(16) In Schedule 2, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (5), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission;’.”

This new clause is consequential to Amendment 55 and would bring the powers of the Legacy Commission and the Director(s) of Investigation in line with those afforded to Chief Constables and equivalent investigatory bodies in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

New clause 9—“On the runs”: no immunity from prosecution—

“It is recognised that the “on the runs” administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution.”

This new clause reaffirms the conclusions of Lady Justice Hallett’s 2014 report into the “On the Run” administrative scheme.

New clause 13—Tort, delict and fatal accident actions—

“(1) A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force.

(2) A relevant Troubles-related civil action may not be brought on or after the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) For the purposes of this section an action is a “relevant Troubles-related civil action” if conditions A, B and C are met.

(4) Condition A: the action is to determine a claim arising out of conduct forming part of the Troubles.

(5) Condition B: the action is founded on—

(a) tort or delict,

(b) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation, or

(c) a cause of action arising under the law of any other jurisdiction that corresponds to—

(i) tort or delict, or

(ii) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation.

(6) Condition C: the time limit for bringing the action was, or would be (in the absence of this section), given in—

(a) the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11)),

(b) the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/754 (N.I. 5)),

(c) the Limitation Act 1980,

(d) the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984,

(e) the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, or

(f) section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;

(including where a court has permitted the action to be brought outside such a time limit).

(7) Subsection (1) does not stop a relevant Troubles-related civil action from being continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force, if the court of first instance has given a final judgment on, or otherwise finally determined, the matter in dispute before that day (including by a default judgment or a consent order or, in Scotland, by a decree in absence, decree by default or summary decree).

(8) Where subsection (1) or (2) stops an action from being continued, or brought, on or after the day on which this section comes into force, that subsection—

(a) does not stop costs proceedings from being continued or begun on or after that day; but

(b) otherwise stops the proceedings in the action, and any other related proceedings, from being continued or begun on or after that day.

(9) In this section—

“costs proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings to determine or recover costs (in Northern Ireland or England and Wales) or expenses (in Scotland) of the action;

“fatal accidents legislation” means—

(a) the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)),

(b) the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or

(c) section 4 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 7);

“matter in dispute” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means the claim (referred to in subsection (4)) which arises out of conduct forming part of the Troubles and which the action is to determine;

“other jurisdiction” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means a jurisdiction (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) other than the jurisdiction in which that action is, or would be, brought;

“other related proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings which relate to, or arise out of the action (including any enforcement action and any appeal), except for costs proceedings;

“2008 Mediation Directive” means Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.”

New clause 14—Investigations: ability to accept referrals for conduct after 10 April 1998—

“(1) The Legacy Commission may accept any request for an investigation into conduct which would be considered conduct “forming part of the Troubles” had it occurred between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998 where that conduct caused—

(a) a person’s death, or

(b) a person to suffer serious mental or physical harm,

and where an investigation had previously occurred but was subsequently found to not be compliant with Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) The Legacy Commission may accept such a request notwithstanding the conduct in question occurring after the time period specified in Section 2 of this Act, provided that the Commission is satisfied that the conduct in question was related to the Troubles.”

New clause 15—Inquisitorial Proceedings: ability to make a finding of state collusion—

“(1) This section applies where inquisitorial proceedings have been carried out.

(2) In producing a final report on the findings of the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member may, if satisfied that they have received clear evidence that “state actors” were involved in the breach of an individual’s rights under Articles 2 or 3 (or both) of the European Convention of Human Rights, make a finding of collusion between the UK Government and paramilitary organisations.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), “state actors” includes members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, security or police services.”

New clause 16—Independent reviewer of the safeguards for veterans under this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer to monitor the application of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.

(2) Within a year of their appointment, and every year thereafter, the Independent Reviewer must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.

(3) In producing the reports specified in subsection (2), the Independent Reviewer may make any such recommendations for the reform of the safeguards as they deem appropriate.

(4) The Independent Reviewer established under subsection (2) shall be appointed for a five-year term, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.

(5) In this section, "armed forces" has the meaning given by section 94.”

This new clause would create an Independent Reviewer of safeguards for veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, in the Act.

New clause 17—Protections for veterans involved in investigations or inquisitorial proceedings—

“(1) Where inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 involve a person who is a veteran, a restriction notice or restriction order made under section 56 must prohibit the identification of that person in any proceedings or publications, whether directly or indirectly, unless the Secretary of State determines that disclosure is necessary in the public interest.

(2) The Legacy Commission must not contact a veteran directly regarding an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and contact relating to such matters must be made through the relevant official channel.

(3) The “relevant official channel” for the purposes of subsection (2) is either the Ministry of Defence or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or such other body as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.

(4) If any contact is made with a veteran under subsection (2), the veteran must be provided with appropriate welfare and support in connection with that contact from the relevant official channel.

(5) In applying section 69 (Duty to have regard to welfare of witnesses etc.), the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must—

(a) not take any investigative step that would unreasonably impact the physical or mental health of a veteran, and

(b) have regard for the cumulative and longitudinal impact of any previous investigations or questioning of that veteran.”

This new clause provides that veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who are subject to inquisitorial proceedings will not be identified until that disclosure is necessary in the public interest, that any contact with veterans is made through an official channel with appropriate welfare support provided, and that the welfare of veterans is considered before investigative steps are taken.

New clause 18—The work of the Legacy Commission: Principles of restorative justice—

“(1) Within six months of commencement of this Act, the Legacy Commission must report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work.

(2) The report produced under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following—

(a) ways in which the Legacy Commission could facilitate or offer restorative justice processes as part of its work;

(b) ways in which restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—

(i) facilitating truth-telling;

(ii) supporting victims and survivors who wish to engage in non-adversarial processes; and

(iii) promoting acknowledgement, reconciliation, and understanding without displacing formal accountability mechanisms;

(c) any steps that it recommends the Government take to support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work.

(3) The report produced under subsection (1) must be made public.

(4) Within three months of the publication of the Legacy Commission’s report, the Government must lay a report of its response before Parliament.

(5) The Government response must include—

(a) any steps it will take to enable and support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work; and

(b) where it rejects the recommendations of the Legacy Commission, its reasons for doing so.”

This new clause requires the Legacy Commission to publish a report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work, and requires the government to respond to that report.

New clause 19—Referral to restorative justice procedures—

“(1) Where an investigation under Part 3 has been carried out and the relevant Director of Investigations considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual, whose identity is known to that Director, constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Director may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.

(2) Where an inquisitorial proceeding under Part 4 has been carried out and the relevant judicial panel member considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual whose identity is known to the judicial panel member constitutes an offence, the judicial panel member may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.

(3) No referral to a restorative justice process can be made without the consent of every party to the conduct who would be entitled to be a participant in the activity.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, “a restorative justice process” means an activity—

(a) where the participants consist of the individuals referred under subsection (1) or (2) and at least one victim or survivor of the relevant conduct;

(b) which aims to maximise awareness of the impact of the relevant conduct on the victims; and

(c) which gives an opportunity to victims and survivors to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the conduct and its impact.

(5) A person running an activity for the purposes of a restorative justice referral must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with such an activity.

(6) In this Act, “parties to the relevant conduct” means the offender and one or more of the victims or survivors of the relevant conduct.

(7) In this section, “relevant conduct” has the same meaning as given in section 43(7).”

This new clause provides a definition of restorative justice and requires that any referral to restorative justice requires the consent of every person who would be a participant in that activity.

New clause 20—Comfort letters: lack of validity—

“The “comfort letters” issued by the UK Government under the “on the run” administrative scheme do not have, nor have ever had, any lawful effect and do not provide immunity from prosecution, nor may they impede any future prosecution.”

New clause 21—Protection for conduct carried out in accordance with contemporaneous Rules of Engagement in respect of Troubles-related conduct—

“(1) No criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries shall be commenced in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland by—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),

(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

unless the condition in subsection (2) has been met.

(2) The condition is that—

(a) there is new and compelling evidence, that was not available at the time of the conduct in question; and

(b) the evidence has been certified as “new and compelling” by a Supreme Court Judge.

(3) In any legal proceedings, it is to be presumed that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness of the Rules of Engagement and orders they received, unless—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) has been met; and

(b) the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.

(4) No civil action against any party identified in subsection (1) shall be commenced, unless in a prior criminal case related to the conduct in question—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) was met; and

(b) a criminal conviction against that specific party in relation to conduct in question was obtained.

(5) Where it can be shown that the operational directives or Rules of Engagement given to a party listed in subsection (1) were unlawful under the domestic law that was in force at the time of the conduct in question, criminal or disciplinary investigations, or proceedings, may only be commenced, or continued, against those individuals who authorised, or approved, the Rules of Engagement or directives, and not against individual service members who acted in good faith in following those directives.”

New clause 23—Provision of legal advice and support for veterans and former police officers—

(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that any person who—

(a) is a former member of the armed forces, or

(b) is a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

and who is subject to an investigation, review, inquest or legal proceedings relating to conduct forming part of the Troubles, has access to appropriate legal advice and support, and that such advice or support should be provided at no cost to the person in question.

(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include—

(a) access to independent legal representation,

(b) support in connection with inquests, investigations and any related proceedings, and

(c) such further assistance as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the provision of free legal advice and support to veterans and former police officers who are subject to investigations, inquests or legal proceedings relating to the Troubles.

New clause 24—Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld—

“(1) Where information relevant to an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 is not disclosed by virtue of—

(a) section 17(2);

(b) a restriction notice or restriction order under section 56; or

(c) any other enactment or rule of law,

the relevant decision-maker must determine whether, in the absence of that information, the investigation or proceedings can properly and fairly continue with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) In making a determination under subsection (1), the relevant decision-maker must consider—

(a) the need to ensure that any investigation or proceedings are conducted consistently with the principles set out in section 11;

(b) the need to secure public confidence in the work of the Legacy Commission; and

(c) whether the evidence available is sufficient to justify continuation.

(3) If the relevant decision-maker determines that the investigation or proceedings cannot properly and fairly continue, they must not take further steps in relation to the investigation or proceedings.

(4) In this section “relevant decision-maker” means—

(a) the relevant Director of Investigations; or

(b) the relevant judicial panel member.”

This new clause requires a determination of whether investigations or proceedings can fairly continue where relevant information is withheld, having regard to Article 6 ECHR.

New clause 25—Cold-calling protocol—

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a protocol (“the cold-calling protocol”) to ensure that any contact with a veteran, in connection with any matter arising under or by virtue of this Act, is made only through channels supported by the Ministry of Defence.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) prohibit direct or unsolicited approaches to a veteran by or on behalf of the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, or any other body exercising functions under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with the cold-calling protocol;

(b) provide that any permitted contact with a veteran is to be made only—

(i) with the knowledge and support of the Ministry of Defence, and

(ii) through a representative authorised for that purpose by the Ministry of Defence;

(c) secure that, from the first point of contact, the veteran is afforded access to advice and assistance arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence; and

(d) make provision for the recording and oversight of contacts made in accordance with the protocol.

(3) Regulations made under this section (1) are subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a cold-calling protocol governing contact with veterans, including provision for contact to be made only through Ministry of Defence-supported channels.

New clause 26—Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards—

“(1) The Secretary of State must also appoint a person (“the Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards”) to monitor the operation and effectiveness of—

(a) the cold-calling protocol made under section [Cold Calling Protocol], and

(b) any other arrangements made under or by virtue of this Act for the protection of veterans.

(2) The Independent Reviewer must, in particular—

(a) keep under review the implementation of the cold-calling protocol by the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, and any other body exercising functions under this Act;

(b) assess the adequacy of the steps taken by those bodies, and by the Ministry of Defence, to ensure compliance with that protocol; and

(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State about any remedial or preventive action that appears to the Reviewer to be necessary or desirable.

(3) The Independent Reviewer must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of the Reviewer’s functions during that year.

(4) The Secretary of State must—

(a) lay a copy of each report given under subsection (3) before Parliament, and

(b) publish each report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to, or in respect of, the Independent Reviewer in connection with the performance of the Reviewer’s functions.”

This new clause provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the operation and effectiveness of safeguards for veterans under the Act.

New clause 27—Presumption against prosecuting veterans—

“In determining whether to institute, or continue, criminal proceedings in respect of conduct forming part of the Troubles, the relevant prosecutorial authority must have regard to the principle that it is to be exceptional for such proceedings to be brought or continued against a veteran, unless the evidential threshold is satisfied by material new evidence and it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”

New clause 28—Duty to have regard to age and health of witnesses—

“(1) This section applies where an investigation under Part 3 of this Act, or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act, are being carried out.

(2) The Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members must, in exercising their functions in relation to investigations or inquisitorial proceedings, have specific regard to—

(a) the age and operational experience of any person at the time of the events being examined; and

(b) their current age, health and wellbeing when determining whether to compel participation or evidence.”

New clause 29—Presumption of anonymity for veterans—

“(1) A Veteran is entitled to anonymity in relation to—

(a) any investigation under Part 3,

(b) any inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and

(c) any publication, report or disclosure made under, or by virtue of, this Act, unless the Secretary of State determines that the disclosure of the veteran’s name or identity is necessary in the public interest.

(2) In determining whether disclosure is necessary in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to—

(a) the significance of disclosing the information to public understanding of the conduct or event to which it relates;

(b) the extent to which non-disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice; and

(c) the degree of risk to the veteran’s safety, welfare or private life that disclosure would be likely to cause.”

New clause 55—Transfer of Troubles-related Coroners inquests to the Legacy Commission—

“Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Presiding Coroner for Northern Ireland must—

(a) identify, and notify the Legacy Commission of, all inquests which had been initiated, including where a coroner had not yet been allocated, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern (Ireland) 1959;

(b) transfer to the Legacy Commission all relevant records relating to the inquests specified in subsection (a); and

(c) notify families and affected participants of the transfer of these cases from the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland to the Legacy Commission.”

New clause 56—Inquisitorial proceedings: duty of candour and assistance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that any duty of candour and assistance which is contained in any Act of Parliament which results from the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026-27, applies to inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act.

(2) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 79, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—

“‘veteran’ is a person who—

(a) has served for at least one day in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, whether as a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces,

(b) has served as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary,

(c) has served as a prison officer, including service in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, or

(d) has served in a police support, reserve, or auxiliary role connected with the maintenance of security during the Troubles, as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

but has not at any time been a member of, or acted in support of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000, or knowingly taken part in, assisted, or enabled the carrying out of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”

This amendment provides a definition of “veteran” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 276, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—

“‘veteran’ means a former member of—

(a) the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown; or

(b) the police services who by reason of service was present, deployed, or acting in connection with Troubles-related operations, this excludes any person who—

(i) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(ii) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;

‘victim’ means a person who has suffered physical or psychological injury, loss or harm directly caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles, whether such harm arose from an act of violence, threat, intimidation, or other conflict-related event, this excludes any person who—

(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;

‘survivor’ means a person who has experienced or continues to experience psychological injury, trauma, or other lasting harm arising directly or indirectly from conduct forming part of the Troubles, this excludes any person who—

(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”

This amendment inserts definitions of “veteran”, “victim” and “survivor” for the purposes of the Act.

[Chris Bryant]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. Today, we will debate parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of those tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including those that amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the Bill.

First, I want to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow. That is important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers. It is important that the Bill is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background and whoever the probable perpetrator. It is important, too, that it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice. That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country.

The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including Government amendment 143—the first amendment we are considering—which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to matters raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other hon. Members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with those more substantive matters under three main headings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place.

We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as

“a direct threat to national security.”

General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I want to finish, because many Members wish to speak.

This is unquestionably the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. Those who signed that extraordinary document knew that this issue had to be dealt with, and knew that it could not be done at the time. However, it is 12 years since the Stormont House agreement, and people think, “Right, we might be moving forward now.” Everyone is getting older, and sadly people are dying. The trauma is being passed from generation to generation. Is the legislation perfect? Of course it is not, but if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this. Now is the time to take forward this legislation, so that the families who still wait patiently for answers, after all these years, finally have the chance to find them.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It has been more than a year since the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was introduced to this House. In spite of the valiant efforts of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), to deal with the legacy left by the Conservatives, I fear that the Bill still does not achieve the admittedly difficult task of squaring the circle of enabling victims to find answers, while providing veterans with the protections that they need and deserve.

It is important to begin by recognising the impact that the protracted gestation of this Bill has had on those who fought bravely, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to uphold the rule of law and save lives during Operation Banner. It has been more than a year of anxiety, uncertainty and anguish for former service members who feared being dragged back to Northern Ireland for further investigation. It has been more than a year in which veterans have found no solace in the vague, uncertain promises of improved protection through recognition of the reality of the circumstances in which they served.

The issues that we face are by no means all the fault of the current Government. If the Conservatives had enacted a legacy Act that was fit for purpose and delivered a suitable mechanism for historical inquiries, this Bill would not have been necessary. Sadly, the Tories opted for a barely conditional immunity principle that drew an abhorrent equivalence between those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to exploit sectarian division to murder, maim and intimidate.

The Tory legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations to international human rights law under the European convention on human rights, the very convention that was so important to our soldiers—challenging inadequate equipment, unjust LGBT exclusion, and investigating sexual assault, bulling and welfare failures. At the time, that was just collateral damage: a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ cavalier attitude to the rule of law and to our international obligations, but it has now become central to their ill-conceived plans to leave the ECHR, thereby fatally undermining the Good Friday agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman]

Order. I note that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) expressed disappointment about his amendments not being selected for a separate decision. May I remind him that selection decisions are a matter for the Chair and should not be questioned on the Floor of the House? I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his work on the Bill and for the way in which he engaged with our Committee, especially during our inquiry into the legacy of the troubles. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have heard at first hand from families whose lives were changed forever by the troubles and who decades later are still searching for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is why it is so important that we get the legislation right for all those who continue to carry the legacy of the past.

Amendment 286 reflects a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee following our extensive inquiry into the legacy of the troubles and speaks to the very heart of an issue we heard about time and again. Throughout our inquiry, victims, survivors and families spoke of the frustration of delay. Many have waited decades for answers, so we should be looking to remove obstacles to information recovery and not to create new ones. I pay tribute to Joe McVey, the Victims and Survivors Commissioner, who is in the Gallery, for the work he has done and for working with our Committee.

The Bill as drafted requires organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland to assess and classify material as “sensitive or prejudicial” before it can be transferred to the legacy commission. The Committee concluded that that requirement may be unnecessary and risks creating a substantial administrative burden. On a matter of principle, an independent commission should be trusted to make its own judgments about the handling and disclosure of information. If Parliament is establishing a body to investigate the past, that body should have direct access to the records it needs to do that work.

There is also a practical case for the amendment: much of the material needed for legacy investigations is actually held by the PSNI, often in records more than 30 years old and spread across multiple systems and archives. The chief constable has warned that locating, reviewing and disclosing such material is already a resource-intensive task, yet the Bill places further obligations on the PSNI to carry out sensitivity assessments before information can even reach the commission. Those concerns are not new. During our inquiry, the PSNI argued that direct access for the commission would be far more effective, pointing to Operation Kenova, which operated without such a requirement.

The chief constable recently wrote to the Government again to voice those concerns, warning that without dedicated capacity there is a material risk of delay and damage to confidence in the wider legacy process. Critically, no additional funding has been identified for the work, which creates a risk that resources are diverted from present-day policing to administer the past. The amendment would not remove safeguards for sensitive information. It would simply place responsibility where it belongs: with the independent commission.

Victims and families are not asking for additional bureaucracy; they are asking for answers, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out. If we are serious about delivering those answers, about building confidence in the process and about using public resources effectively, we should remove this unnecessary hurdle. I encourage the Government and the Secretary of State to reflect on the substance of amendment 286.

Northern Ireland Office

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, lamented the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to agree a budget; indeed, for any of the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive to even agree with their own party on a budget. That, clearly, is a difficulty in terms of providing the services for the people of Northern Ireland.

It would do this House well to ask more probing questions on how, not for the first time, the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to agree a budget. Are there political influences at stake? Sinn Féin controls the Department of Finance. Sinn Féin does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, so is it really any great surprise that when it is in charge of the Department of Finance there is a stand-off about agreeing a budget? For Sinn Féin, the default position is always to blame the Brits, demand more money and turn that into a political campaign on how Northern Ireland is being treated unfairly. Even if it had all the money imaginable, Sinn Féin would not seek to make Northern Ireland work. It cannot make it work and then say, “But none the less, we need the fundamental constitutional change” which is its raison d’être and what it demands. There are at play bigger issues than a mere failure to balance the books.

On balancing the books, many of the parties that form the Northern Ireland Executive bear much responsibility themselves. When devolution was down and coming back at the beginning of 2024, there were parties now in the Executive who had no interest in getting a durable financial settlement. They had such a stampede mindset that they just wanted back into government. They did not support negotiations to enhance what could have been the ongoing sustaining financially of the Northern Ireland Executive. There were others who just wanted back into the Executive for the very sake of power and preferred to lie about what they had achieved in terms of safeguarding the Union. This was an Executive restored on the basis of the biggest lie for generations in Northern Ireland: that the Irish sea border had been removed. It patently has not been removed. There was much that should have been done by the Northern Ireland Executive parties at the time of going back into devolution to extract the financial settlement that was needed.

Now we have reached the situation where overspend is the norm in Northern Ireland. That overspend is built on an expectation that in due course there will be a bail-out. That has been the pattern throughout the years and that is the expectation of this Executive: in due course, there will be a bail-out or a writing-off of the moneys that have been overspent. It has happened before and that is the essence of the demand again. Are the Government going to do that once more? We have had occasions when past Governments have said to the Northern Ireland Executive, “If we’re going to bail you out, you have to transform and do all sorts of things to save money. Maybe you have to raise some money yourself.” None of that has happened. The absence of that engendered a belief that yet again they can produce the begging bowl and have the overspends written off. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how clear he is about whether or not that will yet happen again.

Reference has also been made to policing. Yes, policing is grossly short of funding and it is a scandal that, in my constituency and others, if you can muster together three or four community constables you are doing well for a town and multiple villages. It is a scandal, but it does bring one back to the absolute folly of ever having devolved policing and justice. The Government’s attitude today is, “Policing and justice is devolved, so you find the money.” The allocations are wholly inadequate. If policing and justice had never been devolved, the Secretary of State would have had no escape route in terms of finding the money to give policing to the citizens of Northern Ireland. It was a moment of folly, just over 10 years ago, to devolve policing and justice.

There is a real burden that I wanted to come to, and it is this. The Northern Ireland Office’s promotional website states that the Northern Ireland Office has three priorities, and within the second priority are the wonderful words,

“protecting the UK internal market”.

That, of course, is the one thing that this Government have lamentably failed to do. Instead of protecting the UK internal market, this Government have wrecked it, because we now have an internal market that is partitioned by a full international customs border down the Irish sea, courtesy of the very lies I referred to earlier and the Windsor framework. Far from protecting the UK internal market, the Northern Ireland Office has gleefully presided over the sabotaging of the UK internal market.

In a recent survey, the Federation of Small Businesses found that 38% of GB businesses that used to supply Northern Ireland have stopped supplying it. Why? Because of the unbearable paperwork and burdens that are put on businesses in order for them to trade with Northern Ireland. Far from protecting the UK internal market, we have a UK internal market that has been riven by this Government’s actions.

When we look at the small print in these accounts, we see that the Government are going to give the mighty sum of £2.25 million over three years to a body called Intertrade UK, the purpose of which, as the name suggests, is to promote trade within the United Kingdom—and the Government are giving it £750,000 per annum to do so. Intertrade UK has no staff and no offices—nothing. Let me contrast that with InterTradeIreland: InterTradeIreland exists for the correlative purpose of promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis. It gets £5 million a year of British taxpayers’ money. It also gets southern Government money. It has over 40 staff, plush offices and a real programme of work. Contrast that with Intertrade UK—the Secretary of State thinks it is adequate to give that organisation no staff, no offices and £750,000 a year.

Intertrade UK is seeking to promote trade within an economy of 70 million people, and it gets £750,000 to do it. InterTradeIreland is supposed to be promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis for a population of 7 million, and it gets millions upon millions, 40 members of staff, and more. Where is the logic? Other than the logic of wanting to do down inter-UK trade, where is the logic of being so abundantly miserly with Intertrade UK in comparison to the funds being given to InterTradeIreland? When I read that the Government’s second priority in this area is this idea of “protecting the UK internal market”, I see it as a joke—not just a joke, but a very sick joke—because the very opposite has been done to my part of the United Kingdom.

I use this debate to draw attention to those facts and to say to this Government—more in hope than expectation—that one day they will realise that they are the Government of the United Kingdom, and that means promoting the United Kingdom, not promoting the partitioning of it. It means promoting the growth not of an all-Ireland economy, but of an all-UK economy. Sadly, this Government, deliberately and consciously, are failing in that fundamental mission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know this is an interesting debate and topic, but Members would be best to keep speeches 100% within scope.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.

Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.

I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?

[Alex Easton]

I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.

Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.

The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.

I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.

The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.

Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.

We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,

“it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]

I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.

Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received

“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should

“get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,

and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

“to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”

It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.

I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask those on the Front Benches to keep their opening statements short, because it eats into the time for contributions from Back-Bench Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.

Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.

In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that

“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”

When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Foster]

I am almost done.

Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

My family has served in the Army for many generations, including myself in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and indeed my son is serving now. We have seen and deeply admired the Army’s core values of courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Would my hon. Friend accept that the retired generals and the many serving friends of my son make an extremely pertinent point when they say that the Bill will negatively impact retention and recruitment in the British Army, and at a time when we are desperate to bolster our armed forces?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Kohler resumes his speech, let me say that we must keep interventions short. Many Members wish to contribute.

[Mr Kohler]

I absolutely agree. The Bill will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly with respect to our special forces. That is why it must go further.

With more than 10% of the Lib Dem Benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks that veterans talk about and the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made. Our concern is fairness, not shielding wrongdoing.

Under this Bill, many veterans will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgment and scrutiny of sensitive personal data and service records. That concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. The actions of veterans were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. That results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is noteworthy that while the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State’s discretion over the handling of sensitive information, the Bill gives veterans no such safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.

What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.

What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. How many times do I have to remind colleagues about the use of “you” and “your”? There is not much time left.

[Colum Eastwood]

Why are those Members supporting people who, by their own admission, murdered innocent civilians—civilians who should be seen by anybody in this House as citizens of the United Kingdom? Everybody can see the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place many times. I know that many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well, there are lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and they are sick, sore and tired of this. If this legislation has any chance of giving people some truth and justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with the Bill. We have issues around the national security parts of it and around sensitive information, and we will table amendments in that regard in the process, but we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance, and all this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Tom Tugendhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I want to thank all the military servicemen and women who served on Operation Banner. It was not just the military. On every visit to a police station in Northern Ireland, I saw the long lists of officers who were lost. I pay tribute to members and family members of the RUC and to our security services, agents and staff. I also pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues past and present who served in Operation Banner.

I condemn utterly the mindless and needless violence of the IRA, who were, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois),

“one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 46WH.]

I also pay tribute to innocent victims of the troubles. The list of atrocities is long, and the IRA principally is responsible for the vast majority of them, along with loyalist paramilitary groups. Neighbours, sons, daughters, husbands—thousands of families were impacted in this smallest part of the United Kingdom.

Given that broader legislation on legacy has been so long awaited, it is important to emphasise the regulations I brought in as Secretary of State on behalf of the last Conservative Government on victims’ payments, which were the first stage of the legacy process. Many people have applied successfully for those payments, but I urge the Secretary of State to promote them to military and other victims and veterans, because I understand that many more people could apply for them. I also urge him to consider what could be put in place for the bereaved, using some of the principles that we adopted to exclude anybody who was injured by their own hand.

I would like to make a number of observations. I pay tribute to those on the shadow Front Bench for representing and standing up for our soldiers and for articulating the clear dangers of lawfare and the rewriting of history. Perhaps our party and this House should have listened earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when his inquiry presented the option of a statute of limitations, but that would have had to be done as part of a much bigger reconciliation process.

We need to be so careful, when debating the issue of amnesties, to recognise that these were often British citizens killed by the very limited number of armed forces who behaved badly. It was an amazing achievement for David Cameron to have his speech shown in the Museum of Bloody Sunday in Derry. He acknowledged through his tone the wrongs that were committed. They were limited, but they were committed, and we have to admit that that happened.

I urge the Secretary of State to look at further options during the passage of the Bill for strengthening protections for veterans. First, the noble Lord Caine has suggested amending the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 in order to deal with cases where a soldier thought they were acting in legitimate self-defence. Secondly, there are significantly larger volumes of legal aid paid out in Northern Ireland. Can that be looked at? The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised the roving mandate of many inquests. Can that be looked at, to focus those inquests that are coming back under this Bill?

On the commitments from Ireland, I worked very closely and positively with the Irish Government to restore Stormont in 2020 and in 2024, but I remain sceptical as to how far Ireland will go, or will be able to go, in the provision of information to families. Will the Irish Government really be able to open everything up on Omagh? We have to be frank that, given the political headwinds they face, there is limited incentive for them to do that. It would be useful to understand what commitments have been made. We also need to be honest about our security services; there are going to be limits to what they can release—we have to be honest with families about that.

There are various statutory commitments in the Bill, but none on funding. The Omagh inquiry will cost about £15 million, and Finucane about £20 million. There is a risk that day-to-day policing in Northern Ireland loses out in the absence of that funding. On memorialisation and reconciliation, the clauses from the previous legislation remain. Again, who will pay for this, and how will the impossible task of getting consent on these matters be achieved?

I know that many families in Northern Ireland and beyond still want answers, and will hope that they can get them through this Bill. The lack of closure for so many leaves the next generation taking on the baton of grief and grievance. The issue for them is that time has not healed matters, nor has it lessened their pain. I hope that they can be front of mind as the Bill is debated here and in the other place in the weeks and months ahead. I think of the many individuals and families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today, and I hope, in what is probably going to be the last piece of legacy legislation, that we can all bear those families and individuals in mind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Speaking limits have dropped to five minutes because too many Members want to contribute. I am doing my best to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have, unfortunately, run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it absolutely relevant right now?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me how, within the rules of order, I can draw attention to the way in which the junior Minister, in summing up and purportedly taking part in the debate that has just ended, refused to take any interventions for lack of time, yet finished his speech with two minutes left? Can you say anything that might encourage a Government with an unhealthily large majority to enter into the spirit of real debate? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will decide whether it is a point of order. I do not need interventions from the Front Bench.

Sir Julian Lewis, you are a Member of astounding experience, and you know better than most that that is most definitely not a point of order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to accept or decline an intervention, and the Minister declined yours most positively.

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process.

It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.

That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote:

“By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.”

They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said:

“highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.”

I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair.

It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south.

Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives.

When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.

Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.

Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process.

We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that,

“the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.”

The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter:

“make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the Secretary of State, let me give a short reminder that we should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings.

Privilege

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

My comments will be necessarily brief, given the role that I play as Chair of the Committee of Privileges. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for the comments he has made and the respect with which he is conveying this motion to the Committee.

The Committee stands ready to deal with this matter, should the House decide shortly to refer it to us. I note that the motion asks us to report our conclusions back to the House by the end of October. We stand ready to carefully consider any issues arising from the release of the unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland Committee’s 2009 inquiry. We should also wish to consider issues arising from the inclusion in the terms of reference of a public inquiry of a document that is—as has been acknowledged—rightfully the property of the House. The principle established in the Bill of Rights 1689 that proceedings of Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any place out of Parliament is potentially infringed by such a provision. I am mindful, however, that the solicitor to the Omagh bombing inquiry has very properly included in his petition to the House a respectful recognition of the constitutional principle involved, and is mindful of the privileges of the House. I put on record my gratitude to him for that consideration.

Finally, whatever the constitutional principles involved—and the Committee will take advice—it must be the case that we all wish the Omagh bombing inquiry well in its endeavour to establish whether anything could have been done to prevent a despicable terrorist act that killed 29 people—including a woman pregnant with twins, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said—and irrevocably affected the lives of many more. Our thoughts must ever be with the victims of that atrocious action, both living and dead. If it is within our power to be of aid to the inquiry, I am certain that my Committee and I would wish nothing other than to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

St Patrick’s Day and Northern Irish Affairs

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this very important debate. I am proud to be one of its supporters.

In Brent East, I think I have the largest Irish constituency in the whole of the UK, of which I am very proud. I do ensure that I go and have a Guinness every year, no matter where I am. I don’t particularly like Guinness, to be honest. [Laughter.] I know! Once, when I was in Ireland, I asked for blackcurrant in my Guinness, and they wanted to throw me out of the pub—it was like a cardinal sin. I learned my lesson there. I also found out that I might own a little part of Kilkenny castle, being from the Butler family. If anybody watching this debate wants me to claim part of Kilkenny castle, I will happily come along and do that.

When my father and mother talked about when they came to this country, they spoke about the coldness they felt when they arrived. They were not just talking about the weather. They were talking about what they encountered when they went to try to rent a property and saw signs that said, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs.” It was in the face of that kind of injustice that my parents formed very strong links with Irish friends. They were all faced with the same kind of discrimination, and from that, relationships grew. We see that relationship in Brent especially, which has a large West Indian community, too.

The West Indian and Irish communities are very close. They share a love of fairness, music and laughter. This year’s St Patrick’s day celebration in Brent was held at the Learie Constantine centre, and was celebrated with the Montserrat high commission—the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) also mentioned Montserrat. That celebration is probably still going on, to be honest. They were having such a good time. It does show that unity is strength, and that when we are the majority, the people who seek to divide us cannot win, no matter the rhetoric that they care to use. It is important that we stand together.

The Irish concentration in my constituency is around Cricklewood, Kilburn and Wembley. We have heard today from other Members of the House that lots of Irish women came here and worked in the hospitals, on the buses and in caring roles, and that was no different in my constituency. A lot of the Irish men who came here worked in the construction industry, and in Brent we have one of the largest building materials merchants in the world—MP Moran. It has been going for more than 50 years, since it was founded by Mick Moran. It is a very successful business, of which I am very proud.

We have other Irish people in Brent who make us very proud. Colum Moloney, who was there at the celebration last week, was Brent’s first Irish mayor—and boy, did we have a good time when he was mayor. I think he is the only mayor I found it a little hard to keep up with. We have Mike McGing, the director of the Brent Irish Advisory Service. The Irish World is actually based in Brent, and has been there for many years. We lost a wonderful businessman, Tony McGovern, who died last year. We had a nice visit last year from Ireland’s first female President, Mary Robinson, who came to Brent. If anyone has not got the message by now, Brent is the place to be. Our next mayor, Ryan Hack, will be one of our youngest, and he is also proud and Irish.

Some of my best memories especially in the trade union movement are of singing Irish songs that last forever and ever. It is a beautiful thing to sing an Irish folk song into the wee hours of the morning. One of my mentors, Mary Turner, was an Irish dinner lady in the GMB who spent her whole life talking about free school meals and making sure that children do not go hungry in schools. I know she will be looking down on us and feeling very proud that a Labour Government and Mayor of London have been able to support and deliver that.

I wish everybody listening a belated very happy St Patrick’s day. It is a chance for us all to recognise the history of our commonality and what makes us human, and to ensure that we continue to be united as a society.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Chamber seems empty without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I call the next-best Jim: Jim Allister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

I gently put it to the hon. and learned Member that he ought to correct himself slightly. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is also from Northern Ireland. A number of colleagues who represent Northern Irish constituencies have sent apologies for having had to go home, no doubt to tend to their constituents. I put it on the record that they have made that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in Westminster Hall this very minute. He has double-booked himself, as he would.

[Jim Allister]

I am aware that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in residence at his second home. I am, however, the only Member present who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, if that satisfies the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).

Of course, St Patrick is a very important figure historically. No doubt over the generations he has been even more greened than he ever was, but I do find it a little rich in irony that St Patrick, being a Brit, is celebrated with such enthusiasm by the Irish. I think it is important, in talking about St Patrick, to recognise and remember that his primary contribution was in bringing the Christian message: the message that fallen man needs reconciliation with God, and that can come only through the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ. That was his essential message to Ireland and elsewhere.

It is also right, of course, that there are many intertwining relationships between the various parts of Ireland and the various parts of Great Britain. One can think of some of the standout indications of that, not least in the currency of the second world war, when the ports of Northern Ireland were so vital to the battle in the Atlantic and to defending our freedoms. Indeed, Northern Ireland welcomed the first American soldiers to be encamped, and they ran to many, many thousands in those years.

At the same time, sadly, the Republic of Ireland held to a strategy of non-involvement and neutrality. Therefore, it is always right to remember that in Great Britain’s greatest hour of need—the United Kingdom’s greatest hour of need—it was in fact the people and country of Northern Ireland who came swiftest to its aid. Whereas the Government of the Irish Republic formally, and quite shockingly, expressed regret at the death of Hitler, it was from within Northern Ireland that the contribution was made that the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, so generously recognised.

Of course, the relationships are multifaceted and it is easy to be cosy and sentimental about those relationships, and there is a place for that, but I do have to say to this House that there is also a dark side to the relationship, because the undoubted source for much of the initiation, conduct and carrying forward of the brutal IRA terrorist campaign of the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s was the aid and assistance given from the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, the historical records show that the Provisional IRA was first armed by those associated with the Irish Republic—even in government. Those are factors that I, representing constituents who lost family members at the hands of the IRA, cannot easily forget, and nor should we.

We talk about co-operation, and co-operation is good, but it is also a salutary fact that at the peak of those terrorist campaigns we did not have the co-operation we needed. Between 1969 and 1981 there were 81 extradition applications for wanted terrorists in respect of terrorist deeds committed in Northern Ireland—81 applications to the Dublin authorities—and only one was granted. Of course, the truth was that many of the cross-border terrorist attacks were carried out from the Irish Republic, among them the most infamous, that of the greatest loss of military life: the attack at Warrenpoint, where the bomb that killed all those Parachute Regiment and other regiment soldiers, was triggered from the Irish Republic. That was but a reflection of what happened time and again. When co-operation was sought, there might have been nice words but there was very little action, as indicated in the matter of extradition. So I think we have to inject into our reflections upon that relationship some of the cold realities that cost the lives of British citizens in Northern Ireland. That cannot not be written out of our history.

If we are to debate Northern Ireland affairs properly, it is surely impossible to ignore the incredible constitutional situation that Northern Ireland is now in: namely, that although I stand in what is called the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, there are 300 areas of law pertaining to Northern Ireland in relation to which neither this Parliament nor the devolved Parliament can make the law, because those powers, covering much of our economy, have been surrendered to a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament.

In pursuit of that, we now have the obscenity of an Irish sea border, shortly to be reinforced with the insult of a parcels border. A granny cannot send her new grandchild in Northern Ireland a teddy bear without registering it through the processes of the Irish sea border. Businesses in my constituency—small engineering businesses or craft industries—depend on supplies that come by parcel from their age-long suppliers in GB, but those parcels will now be subject to the demands of the foreign EU border. Those that send them must be a member, at cost, of the trusted trader scheme; they must make a customs declaration; and they must record what is moving, where it came from and where it is going. And yet this is said to be a United Kingdom. It is a United Kingdom sadly partitioned by a border in the Irish sea.

The point I am coming to is that much of that is at the behest of the authorities in the Irish Republic. It was the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic who pushed, cajoled and forced the EU into its irrational demands. At the beginning of the protocol negotiations, the EU was prepared for—indeed, it originated the idea—mutual enforcement to control the movement of goods. Sadly, it was Taoiseach Varadkar who saw the opportunity of partitioning the United Kingdom and who insisted on the border being pushed to the Irish sea, where the IRA could never push it in its 30 years of terror. It was the Dublin Government that made those irrational demands and repudiated the very thing that made that unnecessary: namely, mutual enforcement.

So yes, there is lots of nice fuzzy sentiment about how the Irish Republic and the UK have good relations in many areas, but the reality is that there has also been a malevolence to the detriment of Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

They did, but they did not get Brexit—that is the fundamental issue. The question on the ballot paper was, “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave?” It was not, “Do you want GB to leave and to leave Northern Ireland behind?”, but that is what we got. We were left in the single market, under their customs code. Never forget that their customs code decrees that GB is foreign—a third country—so its goods must pass through the EU border because Northern Ireland is treated as EU territory. That was not on my ballot paper, and that was not what I voted for, but that is what the last Government left us, and that is what this Government seem unprepared to do anything about, even though it is not what they brought about.

So yes, let us celebrate the international relations that we would expect between neighbours, but let us not get so bleary-eyed that we do not recognise the realities and the legacy of the history. We are talking about the wonderful relationship with the Irish Republic, but who is taking the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights? It is the Government of the Irish Republic, over a legacy Act that this Government are not even pursuing. In any relationship, people look for two-way co-operation. They certainly do not look to try to exploit a situation to achieve the disassembly of part of the neighbouring country. Sadly, that is what is happening in respect of the Brexit negotiations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Liam Conlon to make the final Back-Bench contribution.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing the debate, and on all his efforts and leadership in championing the Irish in Britain and advocating for co-operative relationships with Northern Ireland for many years. Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh—happy St Patrick’s day.

St Patrick’s day is no longer a day but a season. It starts sometime in early March, around the time of my birthday, and carries on for a full month. I think today’s debate marks the end of it. I have “green fatigue” at this stage of the month, where I do not want to see any more St Patrick’s paraphernalia, and certainly no Guinness, for quite a while. However, it has once again been a fantastic season, celebrating the best of the Irish community in Britain.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the proud chair of the Labour Party Irish Society, and have been for the past five years. We represent the Irish community in Britain and champion strong co-operative relationships between Ireland and Britain, and Northern Ireland as well. Someone touched on the Good Friday agreement, and two years ago I was proud to open the Mo Mowlam film studio for cinematic arts at Ulster University in Derry. She was one of many great figures from our party who contributed to that peace agreement, which is in the DNA of the Labour party and I am very proud of that.

Many hon. Members have had a lot to say about Guinness as the sponsor of choice for St Patrick’s day refreshments, but Jameson is also available and Tayto crisps are worth noting. Tayto are more than a crisp: they are a way of educating people about Ireland and Irish politics. A lot of people do not know that there are two types of Tayto, one from Northern Ireland and one from the Republic of Ireland—or, as I call them, the Nordie Tayto and the Free Stayto. That is always a good way of explaining things to people.

As I said in my maiden speech, I am proud to be London-Irish. That is the community that I grew up in and the community I want to pay tribute to today. I am also proud to represent Beckenham and Penge, the only constituency in London with a Gaelic place name, as “penge” means “edge of the woods”. We have a fantastic Irish community. All four of my grandparents are from Ireland: two grannies from the south and two grandads from the north. One granny was particularly proud and I was wondering what she would have done if she had still been alive when I was elected. I know for a fact that she would have gone to 9 am mass and then to 10.30 am mass, to make sure that everyone knew that her grandson had been elected as an MP.

A couple of years ago there was an exhibition at the London Irish Centre curated by the national charity, Irish in Britain, that for the first time that I can remember really told the story of the London-Irish community over several generations. The London Irish did as much as any community to build this great city. Irish navvies dug the underground, and Irish construction workers rebuilt our city after the war. I know that we have a fantastic construction industry in London, with so many Irish people involved, and today we have the founder of and members from the London Irish Construction Network, including Sean Daly and Frank O’Hare, here to watch the debate.

As was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, waves of thousands of young Irish women came to staff our hospitals at the birth of the NHS in this country. Those women, known as the Angels of Mercy, were often overlooked but essential to the NHS. I spent a lot of time in NHS hospitals as a teenager, especially the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital. My Irish dad would often look after me, and we would often encounter an Irish nurse. Before I could get treated, they had to establish how they knew each other. It would begin with, “What county are you from?”, then, “What town are you from? Do you know so and so?” Once they had made that connection, we were free to get on with our day.

The Irish in Britain have maintained that relationship with the NHS ever since, and I am really proud that there are more Irish staff in the NHS today than staff from any other European country. Even if we think back more recently to the global health emergency of covid, it was an Irish woman, Professor Teresa Lambe, who co-developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. It was then Margaret Keenan, an Irish woman from Enniskillen living in Coventry and a former NHS nurse, who became the first person in the world to have the vaccine. The Irish connection to the NHS is really deep and strong, and our community is incredibly proud of it.

However, the exhibition also charted the history of how the Irish community was received here, which, as has been touched on, was not always easy. Alongside the Windrush generation and the West Indian community —it is important to remember that there has been a lot of solidarity between those communities—it was often treated with suspicion and subjected to discrimination, including through signs that read “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”.

However, the London Irish community and the Irish community across Britain today is a community transformed. It is confident in the contributions it makes to every aspect of life in Britain—economic, political, social and cultural. The Irish community help to make our country the great place it is to live. I extend that beyond London to the home counties as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), who is here today but cannot take part in the debate, has long been a champion of Irish contributions to Reading football club and to the Reading Irish Centre, which I have been to and which does incredible work to support the Irish community in Reading.

As well as celebrating the contributions of the Irish community in Britain, I will touch on a campaign I started in the last few weeks to secure justice for 13,000 survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes living in Britain. We often need to remember the reason why lots of people left Ireland and decided to come to Britain. For some, it was for work or to be with friends and family, but in the case of thousands of women who were sent to those homes for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside marriage, it was to escape those institutions and the stigma that often came with having been in one.

More than 13,000 survivors live in Britain today, both women and the children who were born into the institutions. They were subjected to some of the most horrific mistreatment and abuse in those homes. Women were used as unpaid labour, and their children were often forcibly adopted. I have named my Bill “Philomena’s law”, after Philomena Lee, who I felt brought that story to a global audience in the film “Philomena”, in which she is portrayed by Dame Judi Dench. We had an event on an evening two nights ago in a packed room in Parliament to which survivors came and told their stories. It was incredibly powerful to hear from them about the impact that that has on them many years later.

I hope the Government will listen to the proposals we are putting forward. At the moment, if the survivors accept the compensation payment they have been awarded by the Irish Government, but are in receipt of means-tested benefits, they will lose that compensation. I heard from survivors this week, and that has actually become an additional burden for many of these women, who are now often in their 80s or 90s, and some of them are very vulnerable.

I will go back to the Irish in Britain. We see the pride of the second-generation Irish community, of which I am part, and the growth of Irish culture and its importance right across Britain in the growth of the Gaelic Athletic Association. It is not just people of Irish heritage who get involved, but people from all communities and backgrounds who participate in GAA. There is also the Irish language; people are adopting Irish names. My cousin Jordan and his partner Annie had a baby a couple of weeks ago—a little girl—and I congratulate them. They have named her Fiáin, which is Irish for “wild” —I think she will take after her dad.

It is common that people are very proud of their heritage often several generations back. We have seen that in Irish music and culture, where for years the Irish community was subjected to discrimination. We are now in a period where we can turn on the TV on a Friday night and watch Graham Norton on BBC One and “Derry Girls” on Channel 4, which is a representation of how far the Irish community has come. We see it in trade unions and in the labour movement as well: there was a period a year or two ago when the general secretary of every single major trade union in this country was either first- generation or second-generation Irish.

There is no more visible transformation in the confidence of the London Irish community over time than in the growth of the Mayor of London’s St Patrick’s day parade. I was very proud to take part in that this month with our mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan. More than 50,000 people joined and participated in that parade, and London was awash with green.

To sum up, what makes the Irish community so special for me is that it is an inclusive and welcoming community. At the entrance to the exhibition at the London Irish Centre two years ago, there was a plaque that read:

“Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”,

which means “In the shelter of each other, the people live”. It is an Irish proverb that sums up what makes our community in Britain so special and sums up neatly the Irish contribution to making our country the great place it is to live. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for securing this debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part in it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank other hon. Members and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for what has been a really lovely debate. This is my first time participating in this debate, and I have been quite surprised by how genuinely lovely it has been and by the outpouring of love for the Irish community both across these isles and in the Republic of Ireland. That has been really lovely to hear.

I was slightly concerned that we would get through the debate without mentioning anything about Irish music, so when the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) started talking about Irish music I was frankly relieved. Music was such a big part of my life when I was growing up. I discovered Irish music largely in a bar in France over many, many late nights when I lived there for a while. It went on late, or maybe early—I do not know; it was 1 o’clock or sometimes 3 o’clock in the morning when it finished. The sound of the fiddle and the joyful music was really amazing, and I have kept up that love of Irish music. I thank Ireland for giving us that music and for making it so enjoyable.

I was also slightly concerned because the debate is about Northern Irish affairs as well as the wonderful things about St Patrick’s day—I also enjoy partaking of some Guinness. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) then spoke up and started saying something that I wanted to say. While there are some amazing things about Ireland and our relationship with it, there are also things that perhaps are not working quite as well as they could. In a debate about Northern Irish affairs, we should acknowledge that. In that spirit, without wishing to take away from some of the loveliness of this debate, I have a few things to say along those lines. I hope hon. Members will forgive me, but they are important to raise.

I will start by talking about something very current; it happened earlier on this week. I pay tribute to the police and to schools for their swift and professional response to a hoax that forced nine schools in Northern Ireland to close this week. Teachers, parents and pupils can frankly do without the disruption and anxiety that such hoaxes cause. They have other things that they need to concentrate on—the importance of education must never be underestimated—so I am glad that things were able to return to normal quickly.

Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union. Some 56% of its population wanted to stay, yet the decisions taken by the Conservative Government in implementing Brexit have caused nothing but problems, whether along the border, inside Stormont or with trade. While Northern Ireland enjoys access to the United Kingdom’s and the European Union’s markets, the Conservatives’ Brexit deal—a botched deal, I am afraid—has been a disaster for the economy, hitting small businesses, farmers and fishers particularly badly. Although we welcomed the agreement of the Windsor framework, that deal is just a sticking plaster—one that only exists to fix problems caused by the Conservative party. What is really needed is something much more comprehensive and stronger.

For Northern Ireland—as for Scotland, Wales and England—a closer relationship with our European allies will bring nothing but positives, but in our opinion, the Labour Government are failing to take a pragmatic approach to the UK’s relationship with the EU. An easy step forward would be alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary standards and securing a veterinary agreement, which the Liberal Democrats are calling for as part of our plan to fix what we believe is the UK’s broken relationship with Europe. As such, we call on the UK Government to take the following two steps: to use the provisions within the UK-EU trade agreement to secure a veterinary agreement, and to enshrine alignment with EU SPS standards in domestic law. The EU already has two veterinary agreements in place, one with New Zealand and one with Switzerland. Such agreements are not particularly novel and certainly not impossible to achieve, so it is difficult to understand what is holding the Labour Government back.

Fixing our relationship with Europe is the most important way to boost our economy and accordingly provide funding to fix public services, yet Labour continues to rule out even simple steps, such as those I have outlined or, indeed, a youth mobility scheme. Such a scheme would not be a return to free movement, as the Prime Minister has suggested; it would be a way to support our young people to develop the skills and experiences they need to help grow the UK economy as a whole. Ulster University’s economic policy centre has published a report that looks at what future skills employers will need, and at the potential supply gaps. Northern Ireland needs more than 5,000 additional workers a year in order to grow its economy, so a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU is the perfect way to fix that problem. These proposals would go a long way towards reducing the friction caused by the Brexit deal. In a world in which the Labour Government talk endlessly about the tough choices they need to take, a youth mobility scheme feels like an open goal—we just need Labour to lace up its boots and kick the ball into it.

However, we are also calling on the Government to negotiate a new trade deal with the UK with a new customs union at its heart, which would tear down red tape and boost our economy. Boosting the economies of both Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK means more revenue to fix public services that desperately need fixing, especially in the context of power sharing only having been restored just over a year ago, following two years without a functioning Executive during a cost of living crisis. The Liberal Democrats’ four-step road map provides a path for the UK to rebuild its ties of trust and trade with our European neighbours. Ultimately, Liberal Democrats want to see the UK back at the heart of Europe once more, setting the agenda from within rather than battling the constraints from without.

Turning to the welfare cuts that were announced last week and deepened further yesterday, it is hard to overstate how strongly opposed Liberal Democrat Members are to those cuts and, importantly, how concerned we are about what they mean practically for those impacted. We agree that we have to bring the welfare bill down and support more people into work—it is right for people and for our economy—but the emphasis should be on supporting people into work. We will not achieve that by slashing support for disabled people, some of whom will never be able to work, while others need the personal independence payment precisely so that they can continue to work.

These cuts will have a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland, and particularly on those still living with the legacy of the troubles, including victims with catastrophic injuries and those suffering from trauma-related mental health issues. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) has been highly vocal on this issue, describing the cuts as “cruel and cowardly” and highlighting that balancing the books should not come at the expense of the most vulnerable. Limiting the eligibility of these people will do nothing to get more people into employment.

Liberal Democrats have long said that the best way to bring down benefit spending is to fix health and social care, and fix it quickly. That involves investing in preventive health measures by properly funding mental health support, especially for young people, and reforming social care—surely that should be the priority. However, when it comes to healthcare reform in Northern Ireland, the spanner in the works remains political instability. Since devolution began in its most recent form 25 years ago, Stormont has been without a functioning Government for almost 40% of the time. It has had prolonged collapses—in 2000, from 2002 to 2007, from 2017 to 2020, and most recently from 2022 to 2024. It is the people of Northern Ireland, no matter what community they are from, who bear the brunt of a malfunctioning Government. This never-ending cycle prevents the transformative action that is necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order.

There is also the cost of maintaining a divided society, estimated in 2016 to be at least £833 million annually. That cost stems from duplicated services, additional policing and security expenses, and missed opportunities for investment and tourism. Those unnecessary costs are a drain on the Executive’s already stretched budget; it would be far better to spend that money on improved healthcare, easing the pressures caused by the cost of living, and essential services.

Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley held a Westminster Hall debate on the reform of political institutions in Northern Ireland, in which she outlined the ways in which reforming those institutions will allow Northern Ireland to become more prosperous. Addressing the financial burden of division could unlock substantial funding for public services. We echo her calls for an updated assessment of the societal and financial costs of division, and a commitment from all parties to tackling those costs. That would ensure that money is spent where it is needed most, and that we could deliver a more inclusive, united and integrated community for everyone. Northern Ireland cannot afford to keep paying for a divided system in which essential services struggle.

In closing, I underline that the Liberal Democrats are entirely committed to fairness, sustainability, and a shared future for Northern Ireland. We call for real action on welfare support, movement back towards our European neighbours, and a focus on tackling division and addressing issues in political institutions in order to boost public spending. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have a positive vision for a more prosperous, inclusive and forward-looking Northern Ireland—a vision that I hope all Members of this House will share, regardless of their views about how to get there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took that intervention because it was a powerful point, and I am grateful for your latitude.

I am delighted that the Minister is here this evening. I hope that she responds positively. I hope that she recognises the pain and the anguish, as she herself has met individuals in Northern Ireland. There is a long way to go on providing the answers, the truth and the justice. We will not be found wanting, and I hope the Labour Government will not either.

Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman takes the intervention, I know that he was anxious about getting through his speech, but, because the Adjournment debate started early, he does have until 7.30 pm. [Laughter.] I believe he was about to take an intervention—does he want to continue with that?

[Jim Allister]

I will give way.