Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I also ask you to be mindful about issues of sub judice; we have been given some flexibility by the Speaker, but I urge you to err on the side of caution when referring to ongoing cases.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716.

It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for the debate. We launched our inquiry in December 2024, and it stretched across 2025, culminating in the publication of our report shortly before Christmas. Alongside receiving almost 80 pieces of written evidence, we held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, we visited Northern Ireland several times to hear at first hand from people directly and indirectly affected by the troubles.

As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising our concerns with a unified voice. As I said during my statement on the Floor of the House when we published this report, I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. It is a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging meaningfully with all communities and demonstrating a strong cross-party consensus on outstanding issues of concern and specific provisions in the Bill that require amendment. Our hope is that the level of detail contained in our report will help to shape and inform the parameters of debate in this House and beyond across a wide range of issues. Although the Government provided a detailed response at the end of January, for which we are grateful, a number of important matters remain outstanding, and this debate offers an opportunity to explore some of those further.

I will start with resourcing. Beginning with the very foundation of the legacy process, my Committee repeatedly heard serious concerns about resourcing, which we set out in detail in the report. Put simply, no amount of reform, good will or political momentum will deliver truth or justice if the necessary funding is not in place for investigative bodies or those responsible for information disclosure. Even the current legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, pointed to concerns about sustainable financing going forward, given the increase in demand for its services—an increase that we hope will only continue under the new legacy commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland also needs to be considered, given the new demands on them to retrieve and categorise their records.

However, the Government’s response does not fully address the concerns we raised. Despite the commission being given new responsibilities through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the Government have not updated the initial funding allocation of £250 million following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. We put that to the Secretary of State when he appeared before my Committee earlier this month, and he acknowledged that further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury about the funding of the commission. Those conversations need to happen now.

Moreover, the Government state that funding for the PSNI is a matter for the Department of Justice and that it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to consider how and where they allocate funding. However, the Chief Constable of the PSNI told us in January:

“I get sent by the Secretary of State to the Executive, and by the Executive to the Secretary of State. The Executive will say, ‘This is Westminster-related’ and Westminster will say, ‘We give a significant grant to the Executive. It is for them to pay for this.’ I am caught between the two”.

That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.

On the requirement for bodies such as the PSNI to classify documents as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring them to the legacy commission, the Chief Constable also told us that, alongside that being logistically and financially burdensome, there are severe implications for trust and confidence in the PSNI. Again, the Government told us that the question of funding for the PSNI and other devolved organisations is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and that those organisations are best placed to identify sensitive material. However, Operation Kenova did not undertake such a predetermined assessment of legacy materials. I therefore reiterate our call for the Government to reassess the current financial envelope and to consider the wider implications of their reforms, particularly the substantial and currently underfunded administrative burdens they place on organisations such as the PSNI, which are already under significant pressure to deliver core services in the present, while also addressing the past.

On victims, financial resourcing may form the foundation of the legacy process, but victims and survivors unquestionably sit at its heart. We heard a range of concerns about how the new approach will operate in practice for them. For instance, on the proposed victims and survivors advisory group under the proposed legacy commission, questions have been raised about its membership, the method of appointment to it and the risk of it duplicating the important work already undertaken by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government commit to complementing the work of existing groups, but we await further information regarding the composition and operation of this new group.

The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Joe McVey, recently expressed concerns that the debate on legacy legislation had been reduced to a false dichotomy of “veterans versus victims”. His warning is important, and I encourage us all to bear it firmly in mind as we move forward.

On veterans, as I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives throughout our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, whom we heard from twice, told us late last year that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but said that the proposals were not really “protections” for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections, rather than as safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in this process among the very groups—veterans and others—in which they hope to instil confidence.

In response to us, the Government acknowledge the concerns that measures may not go far enough for many. They add that they are in active consultation with veterans on further steps, emphasising that any additional proposals must be “practically deliverable” and compliant with human rights obligations. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening, but we still await the detail of further measures before we can make a proper assessment.

On the structures proposed to address legacy, our report highlights several areas of concern. Owing to time, I will concentrate on some overarching ones, namely investigations, inquests, and information disclosure. On investigations and the question of who may request one, we heard from many stakeholders that the Bill’s narrow definition of a close family member risks excluding relatives who have often been central to pursuing answers, sometimes for decades after the events in question. Because the trauma is often carried from one generation to the next, our legislation must be designed with an awareness of these long-term and cross-generational effects.

Organisations including the ICRIR have urged the Government to broaden the definition of a close family member. In response to our report, however, the Government maintain that their current approach is “balanced”. None the less, they acknowledge that views differ on the matter, and have committed to continued engagement and careful consideration of those perspectives. Again, I gently encourage the Government to revisit the definition. We heard similar concerns regarding the rigidity and exclusivity of the list in the Bill stipulating what is considered

“serious physical or mental harm”.

On inquests, the Government’s plan for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission is seen by some as an improvement on the system introduced by the 2023 Act, but concerns persist, including regarding why judges are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. The Government reject the call for appointments to be routed through the commission, arguing that their approach is consistent with that for appointing inquiry chairs under the Inquiries Act 2005 and making many other public appointments.

Information disclosure has been and remains one of the more significant issues with legacy policy. The troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act or with Operation Kenova. Our report highlights concerns about trust, appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice. It is clear from the Government’s response that the proposals on information disclosure will not be revisited. That is likely to concern those who argue that retaining the so-called ministerial veto over what is disclosed presents a serious challenge to the Bill’s overall architecture and risks undermining trust and confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I apologise to the two Members who are standing; we have 12 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches, so that is six minutes each.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am planning on being brief today. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate and to the work that the Committee has done—the formal and informal evidence that we took and the people that we met. Even though I have friends who lost family members, it was exceptionally helpful to get that overall perspective.

It is clear that the troubles affected everybody who lived or served in Northern Ireland, particularly those who lived close to the border with the Irish Republic and those who lost loved ones in horrific circumstance, whether they were innocent civilians or members of the armed services. The bus tour that we took along the border with the South East Fermanagh Foundation will stay with me for the rest of my life. I know the Secretary of State and Minister have met with many of the same people that we did and the effects will be just as clear to them.

The report from the Select Committee about the action that needs to be taken is a recognition that this is probably the last opportunity we will get to try and do the right thing for those who lost loved ones, those who survived horrific attacks, and everybody who is still looking for answers.

I will concentrate on the recommendation to expand the definition of a close family member. In my mind, the current Bill and the response from the Government fail to recognise the issues about many of the service personnel who lost their lives in the troubles. Those who served on the frontline in our armed services were often young; they were in their late teens and early 20s. My constituent Donald Blair, who lost his life at Warrenpoint, was 23—others were 18 or 19. They had not settled down or started families, even at a time when people married much earlier than they do now. For somebody who was killed in 1971 at the age of 18, it is exceptionally unlikely that their parents will still be alive. In some parts of the country, it is increasingly unlikely that their siblings will still be alive, and they are also unlikely to have had children or grandchildren. Those victims are remembered by their cousins and more distant relations. Certainly, in cases that I know of, it is cousins who are the ones fighting for this information. They are fighting for enquiries for information that the legacy commission should be able to provide. We owe it to them not to bar them from getting answers; we owe it to them to expand definitions.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon—a brief Jim Shannon.