Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on bringing forward the report, and the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the way she has stewarded the debate and taken evidence from so many groups. Bringing forward a unanimous report on such a delicate issue in Northern Ireland is testament to all those who were involved and to those who gave evidence. It is a very difficult issue, because it is still very raw in Northern Ireland.

On this day in 1988, two British Army corporals, Derek Wood and David Howes, were attacked, beaten, abused and then shot because they happened to drive into the middle of a Provisional IRA funeral in Belfast. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember watching the reports on television and the brutality of the attack—the seemingly unwarranted deaths of two serving officers in Northern Ireland. That is where the troubles Bill does a disservice to some of our veterans with regard to how they served in Northern Ireland and how they are now being treated.

The concerns of veterans have been touched on many times and are referenced in the report, especially in the six promised protections for Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State knows well that we have had many debates in which those specific protections have been highlighted and exposed as being there for all, not specifically for veterans, as detailed in the wording of the Bill. Words are fine, but unless they are on the face of the legislation, they can be lost, misinterpreted, repealed or even weakened in the interpretation as the Bill goes forward, and even through the judiciary.

I thank the House for allowing this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s reflections on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, because we have not yet had the opportunity to do so in the main Chamber. When the remedial order came before the House earlier this year, we were given the impression that the troubles Bill was only days or weeks away. Yet the Leader of the House today gave indications of next week’s business, and we still have no sight of when the Bill will reach Committee stage, so that the Committee of the whole House can delve into what it will mean for victims, veterans and Northern Ireland society alike. That is why this debate is important. In that regard, I am disappointed by the absence of some Northern Ireland MPs, because we asked for this opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and they have not taken the opportunity to be here today. I understand that others have other commitments.

A remedial order—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said it is an unusual type of legislation, seldom used—was brought forward in January.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so sensitive in his speech. He mentions the remedial order that does away with the immunity scheme set up by the last Government; does he accept that that scheme was never actually in place, because it was struck down by the courts in Northern Ireland? The remedial order is really just a tidying-up exercise, rather than changing anything while the new Bill goes through Parliament.

[Robin Swann]

I do accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to my contribution in that debate at the end of January, he will see that I made that same point, because I could not understand why the Government were in such a rush to bring forward a piece of legislation that was not actually necessary, as he indicated.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am not an expert on the more recent developments, but I think I remember correctly that the previous Government were appealing that particular court decision, and this Government took a deliberate decision to discontinue the appeal.

[Robin Swann]

The right hon. Member is correct. That appeal was being heard at the time, and I remember those issues being raised.

I am conscious that this debate is on the Select Committee report, and I want to congratulate the work that has been done, and its sensitivity in balancing victims and veterans. Over the past number of weeks and months, concerns have been raised that the debate over here has focused on veterans and is doing a disservice to victims of the troubles. I think that is an inaccurate portrayal of the work done by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by those who take an active interest what the Bill is about.

I want to concentrate on one recommendation for the Bill that my party introduced, on the inclusion of sexual crimes in the types of crimes and incidents that can be looked at. It has been mentioned that the biggest objection to the previous Government’s legacy Act was that no Northern Ireland Executive party supported it. The Northern Ireland Assembly has debated the issue of sexual crimes, and there was cross-party support for a motion that said that the Assembly

“accepts that crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse, have a particularly insidious effect on society and have a long-lasting physical and psychological impact on the victim and their wider family”.

The motion called on the UK Government

“to ensure that victims of Troubles-related sexual violence can seek a legacy investigation as part of the proposed Legacy Commission and that crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, are included as a separate qualifying criteria alongside serious injury and death”.

I mention that because have tabled an amendment on the issue, and I am thankful to other Members for their support for it, but the Secretary of State’s response to date has been lacking. He said that the legacy commission can

“investigate Troubles-related sexual offences which are connected to a death or serious injury or that cause such injury”,

but that leaves out some cases.

Máiría Cahill, a young woman from a prominent republican family who was raped by a senior member of the IRA in west Belfast, has asked that such cases be included. Paudie McGahon, who was 17 at the time, was raped by an IRA man who had been moved to safehouse in the Irish Republic, but instead of facing justice for rape, the rapist was exiled. The Secretary of State has said in correspondence that these cases can now be investigated by the police. The reason why they were not brought to the police at the time was the threat of paramilitary reaction to the individuals and their families.

Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls. I encourage anyone who does not serve on that Committee to listen to her evidence, because it relates to the type of abuse that happened during the troubles. That coercion, power and control is seen in abuse elsewhere, so I wanted to highlight that recommendation put forward by my party in its response to the inquiry.

A number of Members have raised the issue of trust and confidence in the Government and the new process. What worries me, as the Government move on with their changes and what they see as adaptations to the previous institutions, is a loss of trust and confidence. A lot of work has been done by key members of the ICRIR to engage with all sections of the community to make sure that those who in the past never came forward to seek justice are now engaging.

What concerns me about the new commission is that we begin to lose some of the credibility and trust that has been built up by the likes of Sir Declan Morgan and Peter Sheridan, who have put a lot of time, energy, sweat and personal commitment into driving forward the work of the ICRIR. It is the small things, such as the creation of two directors of investigation rather than one, which could take away from the work that has already been done.

The Select Committee Chair raised the influence of the Irish Government, and the Secretary of State has heard me say many times that I think the Irish Government are missing in this process. They have not stepped up. They have used words of favour and encouragement about what they will do and what they will bring tomorrow, but they have not produced anything in relation to what the UK Government are currently doing. If they had been honest actors, the two pieces of legislation would have run concurrently and been delivered at the same time.

The Secretary of Secretary of State referred to legislation around the Omagh investigation; that is completely separate legislation. The two should not be equated. The Omagh legislation is a specific response to the Omagh inquiry, not to anything that is currently being done. I do have concerns about what the Irish will do. There has been talk of them producing legislation in April or May. The Irish Government, I think, and the Teachtaí Dála we engaged with at Committee level, talked about the publication of a heads of a Bill, which is completely different from what we do.

I put on the record again my and my party’s concerns that the Irish Government will not be honest actors in this matter. We have experienced that in the past. We experienced it when they promised the release of documentation and records in respect of Kingsmill. What they actually produced was a folder of newspaper cuttings, which left the families deeply disappointed.

I congratulate the Committee on the publication of the report and I thank those who have come to take part in the debate. I look forward to continual engagement with all those involved, so that we can see the outworkings of the Government’s proposed legislation.