Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
Stuart Anderson Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Jones
I say to anybody who signed the petition or is here today because they fear the raking over of every firefight, weapon discharge or contact from 50 years ago: that fear is false. I say again: it is complete scaremongering spread by people who are at best naive—perhaps they do not know the details of the legislation or are ill informed on the content.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have just been outside with a load of veterans who, like me, served on Op Banner. Is the hon. Lady saying that they are naive and misunderstand this?
Louise Jones
I have said—the hon. Gentleman can read back—that scaremongering has been spread by people who should know better. They know fully the details of the legislation and the context of Northern Ireland and have gone out to these veterans and said, “There’s going to be lots of malicious lawfare against you if this Act is repealed”, when everybody here knows that is not the case at all. They are pushing a cynical political agenda.
I and my colleagues who are veterans are vehemently opposed to spurious prosecution, to dragging people through the courts where there is absolutely no case to answer and to malicious lawfare. I cannot repeat that enough. I do not want to see a single veteran who has not committed a crime in any sense being hounded. Op Banner was an incredibly complex campaign. I find abhorrent the idea that any veteran should be at risk of malicious lawfare simply for doing their job on a very difficult operation. I call on the Secretary of State to explain how we will protect any veteran who is accused of any wrongdoing in Northern Ireland.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
Like many other Members present, I was proud to have served my country. In my case, it was with the Royal Marines in 2006, when I deployed to Afghanistan shortly after basic training. I was a very young and green marine, and it was quite unexpected to go into a hostile and unknown environment. I see many colleagues in the Gallery who may have done something similar several years earlier.
In preparation, we did all that we would normally expect to do as a young marine or soldier: we practised troop attacks, battle casualty evacuations, mine clearances and everything else we might do on the battlefield. But we also spent a long time studying the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement. I know that the people we were fighting against in Afghanistan—the Taliban—had no qualms about the rules of engagement or the law of armed conflict. Back in the generation before me, my colleagues were fighting an enemy—the IRA and others—that had no qualms about the rules of engagement or the law of armed conflict. It must have been terrifying to go into that situation. But I am proud to say that, as with my generation, there were many hundreds and thousands of people who served on Op Banner with distinction, bravery and real integrity.
Under the legacy Act introduced by the last Government, groups such as the IRA, the UVF and the other terrorist paramilitaries we have heard about have been given immunity. I do not believe it is acceptable that people who have committed crimes and been involved in the killing of thousands of civilians and veterans on our side of the table should be given such immunity. It is unacceptable, and we cannot let such an unlawful and unacceptable Act stand.
My granddad is from Belfast, and when I was in the city earlier this year, I was honoured to meet survivors of the troubles at the Wave trauma centre. We met people who had been targeted or caught up as collateral damage in republican terror attacks—victims whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They deserve the right to seek justice and the opportunity to receive answers. One of them was Máiría Cahill, who was the target of years of sexual abuse at the hands of the IRA. This is what she said about the Conservatives’ legacy Act:
“This bill is, quite simply, disgraceful. The Government say they take sexual violence seriously. Yet they are prepared to grant amnesty to those accused of conflict related sexual offences…in NI or England. It is an affront to victims, to justice and is gross hypocrisy.”
Of course, she is completely right.
The legacy Act has given immunity to those who targeted servicemen and women. Families of the Hyde Park and Regent’s Park bombings, where 11 British soldiers were killed by the IRA, were unhappy. One family member said:
“People deserve justice, and their hurt will never heal until that happens.”
The challenge is that the legacy Act has created a moral equivalence, on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Those who have committed crimes—the terrorists—are given the same immunities as those who bravely served in our armed forces.
As well as failing the test of victims, the legacy Act has failed the legal test. The Belfast High Court found the legacy Act unlawful. After a challenge from Martina Dillon, whose husband was killed in 1997, the Court found the immunity offered to members of the Loyalist Volunteer Force to be in breach of her human rights. Of course it was in breach of her human rights. She deserves to get the justice and the answers that she pursues.
The Conservatives’ legacy Act has allowed blanket amnesty to terrorists and the perpetrators of offences including murder and torture. The terrorists responsible for 90% of troubles-related deaths have been given a free pass. This is a travesty of justice. The Government have no choice but to amend the Act.
Alex Ballinger
We will hear later from the Secretary of State about some of the protections afforded to veterans, but it is also important to note that in the last 13 years only one veteran has been prosecuted and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), he received a suspended sentence. So the chance of any veterans who served in Northern Ireland being pulled over the coals again and being sent to prison is vanishingly small, and we need to be realistic about that. We need to be honest with those who signed the petition.
Fred Thomas
To clarify, I said there are 500 veterans in Plymouth Moor View who signed the petition, so I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Member because I did not meet with them recently to talk about this issue. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that veterans themselves are naive.
Fred Thomas
I have just taken an intervention, so I will not.
Context is king. We have had peace for a generation. Hon. Members have passionately laid out the wrongs, ills and evils of the IRA, going through operational detail, which I appreciate. No one is suggesting that any of those things were justified—that is not the argument that anyone is making—but we are discussing a piece of legislation that, in order to buy the protection of veterans, allows for the protection of terrorists. We are saying, “I don’t think that’s correct.” We need to be able to go after those terrorists. There is a bigger context, isn’t there?
Fred Thomas
Not quite yet. The bigger context is that the world is extremely insecure at the moment. We all hope and pray that this country never has to go to war again. Personally, I think we might have to in the foreseeable future. We hope that does not happen, but when and if it does we need the moral, legal and total legitimacy to go in with extreme force and do what needs to be done. If we pass laws, as we did a year and a half ago, that nibble away at our international reputation for having a lawful and professional military, we are going to struggle in years to come. That is the bigger context that we need to keep in mind.
Stuart Anderson
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, for which I sat on the Bill Committee, covered that. I also sat on the Bill Committee that considered the Northern Ireland legacy Act, and I saw the months of trying to agree something that we could get through the House to protect veterans. We mentioned naivety; people might be doing things for the right reason, but if we adjust and change that Act, our veterans will face prosecution. I defy anybody who thinks otherwise.
Fred Thomas
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on those Bill Committees. I do not agree with what he said, but that is the nature of this debate, and I am willing to have it.
To close, it has been alluded to that we are yet to see from the Government what the safeguards will be for veterans. I will say this openly: I need to see those. We all need to see those. I ask Opposition Members, and all hon. Members of the House, to bear in mind the big bits of context that I hope I have introduced: peace for a generation, a very threatening world picture, and the need for moral legitimacy.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all the residents of South Shropshire who signed the petition or came to see me, and all the veterans who have come down today. My dad was one of the first SAS troops to serve in Northern Ireland in the ’70s, and I served 18 months during the troubles on Op Banner, so I have first-hand experience of that. How do I share some of that experience to set out the reality of what it is like to be a soldier on operations?
I was a teenager when I deployed on my first tour to Belfast. I had little understanding of the big political situation, but I knew everything I needed to do, what I could and could not do, and all the rules of engagement, and everybody on the tour followed those. Our pre-deployment training, which the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) mentioned, was extensive. For months we covered every possible scenario that we could face when in Northern Ireland on operations. I was a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion the Royal Green Jackets. They were tough soldiers, but professional and knew what they could and could not do.
Let us throw a little context on what it can be like on operations in Northern Ireland. Let us imagine patrolling what could be a normal housing estate in the UK—some areas would be more rundown than others, but the structure is the same. When we walk past somebody, we do not know if that person is going to buy something from a shop, pick up their children, or plan to kill us. We do not know what their intentions are. When a car speeds around the corner, as we see every day on our streets, we do not know if that person is late to pick something up, going to an event, a joyrider, or somebody driving past to kill me and my colleagues in a drive-by shooting. We do not know that, but these things happen all the time. We never really knew anybody’s intention.
In 1996, in the middle of my tour, there was a decision not to allow a march to go through Drumcree, and what was a semi-stable environment turned within a matter of hours into complete carnage, with rioting and people being burned out of houses up and down the whole area. All of a sudden, law and order—the whole rule of law—had completely broken down. In about four days, I believe some 750 RUC were injured, of whom four were shot on patrol with us in one night. So whatever people thought it was like, when discussing this many years later people have to add the extreme pressure, the mental pressure, that we faced as we looked under the vehicle every single day to see whether it was a car bomb.
When we were in the riots and somebody goes to throw a brick or a stone, we have a split second to react: is that a grenade? Is it an improvised weapon? Every one of those is designed to cause harm and some are designed to kill. We have a split second to decide whether to open fire—or do me and my colleagues get killed? We do not know. There is pressure. We might have been out for many hours with very little sleep, but we knew what we had to do.
Many soldiers who served in Northern Ireland spend every day remembering their colleagues who did not return, trying to forget what they saw and what they witnessed, and are woken at night by screams. That has not left many people. We asked them to do the most extreme things in the most difficult conditions.
I was proud when the previous Government—too late, in my mind at least—introduced the legacy Act. I sat on the Bill Committee. The Act meant protection for our veterans, which is what I had campaigned for. I had spoken about that many times before, and I had seen new colleagues who were facing prosecution, or the threat of prosecution, for their time. I believe the whole veteran community at the moment sees the repealing of the legislation as a body blow. I do not think the Government realise the anger that the community will feel.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
My son is a serving soldier, and he tells me that many are leaving the forces because of this issue. We are tens of thousands below our recruitment level. Does the hon. Member think he is right and that this is damaging our ability to defend our country?
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Member’s son for his service. Mine joins in two months at the age of 16. I hope that 30 years down the line, when he has defended his country as the hon. Member’s son has, they do not go through this, because morale is at rock bottom. There is no naivety among veterans.
Louise Jones
The hon. Member is welcome to check Hansard after the debate, but I was referring specifically to people—we all know they exist—who are scaremongering without knowing the details of the Bill and naively making up things that are not based on evidence. At no point did I say that any veteran is naive, and I know that he has too much respect for our procedures and for colleagues to keep repeating that when it is not true.
Stuart Anderson
I think that all the veterans in this room believe that the Government’s current route is wrong—are they misguided, or are they naive? If we go down the route of changing the law in this way, I can guarantee that our veterans will face prosecution for the service that they gave their country for many years.
David Davis
Our veterans do not need to read the Bill; they just need to look at the outcome of the Clonoe inquiry—four potential manslaughter prosecutions.
Stuart Anderson
As I said, we asked our veterans to defend us and to do the hardest things while others slept soundly in their beds at night. I hope that we never face more conflicts in the future, but I believe we will, and we must have a moral compass that means we protect those who protect us. I demand that the Government set out that the route they are taking will ensure that no prosecution of our veterans happens. The Secretary of State has even heard from Members of his own party that they are not reassured about that. We need to see that no veterans are thrown to the wolves, and we need to protect those who have served their country with the utmost pride.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for allowing me to contribute to today’s petition debate; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will not take any interventions, and I will be as short as I can to allow as many Members as possible to speak.
I start by reminding everyone once again that I am a proud retired Royal Engineer. Although I did not serve in Op Banner, many colleagues and friends did. The Op Banner veterans did their duty in exceptionally challenging circumstances, and I commend them all—each and every one of them. I would also point out to colleagues that, despite not serving in Op Banner, I was in Quebec barracks in Osnabrück in Germany when it was attacked by the IRA in June 1996. I get it, I really do.
What is of the utmost importance is that we deal in facts, and facts alone. Fact one: the previous Conservative Government pushed through the legacy Act in 2023. The Act created one route for dealing with the past, through the creation of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. It received almost unanimous condemnation from victims groups and the political parties in Northern Ireland, for differing reasons, as has been said.
Fact two: the previous Conservative Government publicly stated at the time, despite numerous challenges, that the Act would be fully compliant with the European convention on human rights, the Windsor framework and the Good Friday agreement, and they knew that that most certainly was not the case. In February ’24, the Northern Ireland High Court found that the Act was in fact incompatible with the European convention on human rights, specifically articles 2, 3 and 6, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework, and that it should therefore be disapplied. If the previous Government knew that this was the case, they should never have proceeded in pushing the legacy Act through Parliament. It was a deliberate and wholly irresponsible course of action.
Mr Foster
No, I am making progress.
Fact three: in January 2024, the Irish Government launched an inter-state application against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of the legacy Act violating articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the convention. This case against the United Kingdom Government is still live.
These are indisputable facts. If an Act of Parliament is found to be unlawful, the Government must act. However, the repealing of the legacy Act is not a simple exercise—we all understand that—and any changes introduced must offer the protections that our veterans, victims and impacted families all deserve. My deep concern is that, with any new legislation, we must ensure a wholly comprehensive approach to dealing with the past in Northern Ireland that recognises the unique position our Op Banner veterans find themselves in. They deserve our continued and unwavering support.
I am also profoundly concerned at the continued politicisation of our veterans, and at the misinformation being continually spouted by Conservative Members of Parliament, who should know better. This is an issue that Members of all political persuasions should be working on together, not using to seek political gain with inaccurate and misleading statements.
The unlawful legacy Act made false and undeliverable promises to our veterans about immunity, and—I say again—it has been repeatedly ruled unlawful. It generated false expectations, legal uncertainty, and delays for victims, survivors and veterans alike. It was opposed by many, including armed forces families who lost relatives serving in Northern Ireland. It gives immunity to terrorists who murdered British soldiers. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans are working tirelessly to put in place protections for our veterans, and to ensure that legacy mechanisms are fair, lawful and proportionate.
The Minister for Veterans has met hundreds of veterans and veteran organisations since taking office, including the Royal British Legion and representatives from all major military associations with Northern Ireland service experience, listening to their concerns and incorporating their feedback into the new approach. These are not new arguments, and we have had alternative solutions before, which have just not worked.
This is a hugely complex and emotive issue. All Members of Parliament should be working as one to bring about a lawful solution, supporting Ministers and veterans alike, not spreading a fake narrative. Our veterans will continue to receive the full support of this Government, and any new legislation must be carefully considered. I give my word that it will be.
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue of trust, and the lack of trust in multiple constituencies that have an interest in this question, which applies to communities in Northern Ireland as much as it does to veterans. I hope that what this Government do in pursuing a repeal and replace approach will be, at the very least, an attempt to try to rebuild trust in this process.
Despite the opposition, the legacy Act passed, leaving families in limbo, irrespective of their religious or cultural identity. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the legal necessity to repeal and replace the Act, I have serious doubt about the Government’s commitment to meaningful consultation with those who they should be listening to most closely. On visits to Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have spoken to survivors and families from across Northern Ireland communities. Victims made it clear to me that they do not seek prosecutions; what they want is honest, truthful information about how and why their loved ones died.
If the Government are serious about making progress, they must act swiftly to restore faith in the investigatory process, which has been diminished by the creation of the ICRIR as a product of the legacy Act. The Liberal Democrats support the creation of a new independent, ECHR-compliant information retrieval body, to be established in consultation with victims and survivors. That would include meaningful participation from next of kin, as proposed by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Such a body should have statutory powers to compel disclosure, backed by robust oversight. Victims must have access to records, with exemptions limited to tightly defined national security grounds.
If such a body worked properly, it could deliver long-awaited answers, support societal reconciliation and offer some reassurance to British veterans, by establishing the truth without the perceived necessity to pursue a prosecutorial pathway. However, that will only be possible with genuine cross-border co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and, importantly, the Irish Government, who have been remarkably reluctant to participate in such processes up to now. All stakeholders must contribute to a clear and credible record of the past.
Let me now directly address the concerns about and from British armed forces veterans. If the rule of law is to mean anything in this country, its application must be fair and equal for everyone across all parts of the United Kingdom. The UK armed forces proudly operate within the law, and that culture is instilled from day one of training for officers and soldiers alike. We do no honour to their service by weakening or suspending the legal standards under which they serve. Supporting our forces means applying the law fairly, not shielding wrongdoing or applying unequal scrutiny.
Many paramilitary actions were never formally recorded and now depend on memory. By contrast, British forces left extensive records, making them more visible and sometimes more vulnerable to investigation. That imbalance has created the perception of unfairness and injustice. Between 1998 and 2022, six members of the UK armed forces were charged with troubles-related offences out of more than 250,000 personnel who served during Operation Banner. That is 0.003% of the serving population.
Stuart Anderson
It is not just about the final prosecution, but about what people have had to go through over all these years. Will the hon. Member say how many people have actually had the knock at the door, or the call, or had to give evidence? That is the issue that is really hurting people?
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I call Al Pinkerton, who I assume is coming to the end of his contribution.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Stuart Anderson ExcerptsTuesday 24th May 2022
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the intervention. I have some understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; I was studying for my doctorate in South Africa while it was running and I followed it very closely.
The figures who the hon. Lady mentioned were not just involved in running the commission; they were all also involved in conceiving it. The figures who lead communities in Northern Ireland—some in the House today, some not—were not involved in this Bill or consulted for it. The only process that did that was the Stormont House agreement, which has been jettisoned by the current approach. Sadly, the key learnings from it have not made it into the current Bill.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making about moral and political leadership. In South Africa, there was a huge, concerted effort to bring forward support from all communities, but what we are discussing is coming from Westminster into Northern Ireland. The provisions should be birthed in Northern Ireland and come through to Westminster.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I do not want to pre-empt the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—it is vital that victims groups should be at the heart of this process. I think he is going to come on to this, but I am just checking: what about the veterans? They play a key part and should surely be at the heart as well.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indeed pre-empting the remaining parts of my speech, which I will get on to as quickly as I can. He is free to catch my eye at that point, as he raises an incredibly important point.
What we needed from the Government in the run-up to this process was empathy. That requires listening and real care in the face of the most terrible tragedies. Let us take the case of John Molloy. John was walking home in north Belfast in 1996 when he was stabbed to death in a brutal sectarian attack. He was just 18 years old. John’s mother Linda wanted me to put her response to the Bill on the record:
“Why is John’s sectarian murder in Belfast different from a racially motivated murder in London? If this legislation gets through whoever murdered John could simply get away with it. It is just wrong that perpetrators will be able to get on with their lives officially, given amnesty by the state, while we are left to cope with the devastation. We brought our children up to believe in law and order and it is so wrong that the rule of law can be overridden in this way. The hurt never goes away.”
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am honoured to speak in the debate and I understand the sensitivities, the emotion and the hurt that many people in the Chamber feel, given their personal experiences and those of loved ones. I shall try to temper what I say in my speech as a result.
I served for 18 months at the back end of the troubles, so I am one of the youngest of those who served there. My father served in Northern Ireland in the early days of the 1970s with the SAS. I grew up in Hereford watching my dad search under cars. I would ask, “Why are you looking under the car, Dad? What have you dropped?” We grew up with that—I lived two or three roads from the SAS camp. The fathers of many of the kids I went to school with served in Northern Ireland and were family friends. The whole community felt it, and we would regularly have bomb threats near the camp.
On a lighter note, some of my friends realised that if they called in a hoax bomb threat to the school, we would be sent home for the day. After three days of hoax threats, the school said that we would have to go in at the weekend, so the bomb threats stopped—at least, the hoaxes did.
In my community, we grew up understanding all that; it was always there. We would see it on the news when I was at school throughout the early ’80s. When I left school, I joined the Army and the Royal Green Jackets, which as a regiment probably lost among the most soldiers throughout the troubles. If we put it with The Rifles and the Light Infantry, they would without a doubt have lost more than anybody else. Every single loss of life in that experience is a tragedy.
When I joined, all our instructors at the depot were Northern Ireland veterans—they could not have been instructors without having gone through that—and we knew that, within a few years of passing out from the depot, we would be going to serve in Northern Ireland. Everything was geared around that. Twelve months after getting out of the depot, getting shot and recovering, I went on Northern Ireland training. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who did not look to enjoy it, I could not wait to go to Northern Ireland. I was looking forward to it and could not wait to serve my country over there.
I had had extensive training; I knew right from wrong; I knew my rules of engagement. I knew, in no uncertain terms, what I could and could not do. I and all my colleagues were tested to breaking point on the ranges in scenarios over and over again for several months. We took the experience from those who had served many times before. I know that quite a few hon. Members served over there. During the process, we were shown what had happened to some of our colleagues who sadly never returned. We saw, in graphic detail, the loss of life from car bombs and murders. We saw videos. We knew that, if it was to go wrong for us, it would really go wrong. We knew what that was like.
When I was deployed, I remember getting to Belfast—we were in big, armoured trucks—and, as I looked out of a gap, I could see what looked like my home area. I saw streets, not a war zone as I had thought. It looked like a normal area. I am not afraid to admit that I was afraid. I was nervous and did not know what to expect. I was a teenager on an operational tour. Most of my colleagues had not been there before—I think that only the corporals and above had—so we were very wary.
Initially, there was a ceasefire, but the Canary Wharf bomb going off at the beginning of 1996 changed what was happening. I was in Drumcree in the summer of 1996 when we stopped the marching, and the whole Province erupted. Several RUC, who were always outstanding in operating with us, were shot. I think that four were shot in one night. There were multiple attacks, with people getting burned out of houses. We were in riot, and we were being full-on attacked left, right and centre. That went on for a long time. After about three or four days, we realised that we had not slept. We were tired. We were exhausted. We were getting bricked and people were getting shot at and petrol-bombed. That was going on and on, but we knew what we could and could not do.
We must weigh up how, in that scenario, every one of us had a split second to decide whether the person running round the corner with something in his hand was running away from someone trying to attack him or running towards us to attack us. At that very moment, we held life and death in our hands. If we took action, we took a life. If we did not take action, we died or our colleagues died. We were in that scenario.
I believe that, through all of my operational tours, people acted in the most professional manner. There have been mistakes that have happened, and there has been wrongdoing by people in unform. That is a stain on what the British Army represents. Those incidents are few and far between, but mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. Things do go wrong. I am 46 years of age, and I sometimes struggle to remember what I did last week, let alone 25 years ago—
Stuart Anderson
I know—my right hon. Friend served the year before I was born—but many people would not remember exactly what happened then. Everyone in my patrol would describe those incidents in a different way. Dragging soldiers through the courts for what has happened is a stain on what we had.
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was put in place in 1998. I can see why it has taken until now to get to where we are, because there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of reasons—people always have a reason for why something cannot be done—so I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for getting us here. We have heard that there will not be unanimous support for the Bill. We see that. I look to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that Democratic Unionist party Members do not agree with the Bill and do not support it, but want to make some reasonable changes as it goes through. I understand that this has a different impact on them and their communities. Many of us will be touched by these issues, but DUP Members still live in those communities. It will be decades before there is change. No Bill will change the impact of the lives that were lost or the impact on people who went and served over there. People are never the same afterwards.
I would like to think that I am quite a reasonable person and I tend to measure what I say, but those on the Labour Front Bench have put up one Back-Bench Member to debate the Bill, and I find that an absolute dishonour to this House. I find it an insult.
James Sunderland
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is the party of the armed forces?
Stuart Anderson
No, I certainly do not. As I said, I am trying to temper my remarks, but Labour is going to vote against the Bill for political reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) turns around to look. There is not one Labour Member there. [Interruption.] There have been a couple, I will give him that, but they could at least put forward an argument for why they are not supporting the Bill, and not just from the Front Bench. Labour Members will be voting against the Bill without having put forward a reasonable argument and that is completely unacceptable. Words have happened too much in this House; we need to see action now.
Sir Mike Penning
I think my hon. Friend is making the point on his own, but I extend the hand of friendship and emphasise that this is Second Reading. It is plainly obvious that amendments will be tabled in Committee and on Report—we have heard that from across the House—and surely on Second Reading the Opposition could support the Bill and then change it in debate in Committee. It will fundamentally change. There has been no debate from Labour Back Benchers really. This is Second Reading, and we should extend the hand of friendship across the House and agree that we can make amendments later on, but to vote against the Bill now is a slight not only against the victims, but against the veterans who served.
Stuart Anderson
As I wind up, I want to make clear that this is not a personal attack on the hon. Member for Hove. He is here, but nobody else from his party is here and that is not acceptable. They could at least have come and put forward a reasoned argument for why they are not supporting the Bill. I will leave that there. I will be supporting the Bill because it is the right thing to do moving forward.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Thank you for calling me for the graveyard shift, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There has been plenty of passion and emotion in this important debate, but I want to give my view, as a relatively new Member and, I hope, a pragmatist. Today is about the past, the present and the future, and it is about people, many of whom were terribly caught up in the troubles. It is already clear that the Bill will not be a panacea—far from it—but it does have defined outcomes that I believe to be broadly positive, for reasons that I shall explain. No one will pretend that this is at all easy, or that it is a formality.
Let me begin by commending the Secretary of State and his staff in the Northern Ireland Office for acting in good faith throughout. This process is very difficult legally, and very sensitive politically. It has required strategic patience and huge personal and professional resilience under pressure. Ultimately the Bill is a no-win statute, because it will not bring people back, and it will not bring solace to victims and their families, in that those whom we should be holding to account may now never be brought to justice. However, I believe that it will ultimately provide some solace and some closure, although not a lot. Despite all its imperfections, I believe that it will do what it says on the tin, as the least worst option.
This legislation has done the rounds. It has been through the Irish Government, veterans groups and victims groups, and it is probably the missing chapter of the Good Friday agreement of 24 years ago. It therefore comes as no surprise to anyone. It has, I believe, received due diligence. It has taken longer than expected, and yes, the Northern Ireland Office has received criticism—not least from Conservative Members—for the strategic pause that has been necessary, but it was a manifesto promise, it was in the Queen’s Speech, and it is finally being delivered. It is now deliverable as well, but it is also a heavy responsibility for the Government.
What I want to say about the Bill relates first to veterans, veterans groups and those who may still be serving. Do I think that the Bill is the right way to protect veterans from vexatious complaints? The simple answer is yes. Why? Because it breaks the cycle. It ends the misery, and it ends the knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. We owe it to these people, who served in good faith in Northern Ireland. I commend the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and the work of so many veterans groups. This has gone on for too long, and it needs to be killed now.
Of course, it is not possible to deliver legacy protection for veterans in isolation. It has to be able to withstand legal challenge. It has to be article 2 compliant. It has to get through Strasbourg and comply with the Human Rights Act. The principle of legal equivalence underpins that statute because it has to, and therefore the premise of conditional amnesty is rightly pivotal. It was right to move away from the original premise of what might be termed “new and compelling evidence”. Who decides that, and how does one draw the line in law? It is impossible: the bottom line is that one cannot. I therefore understand the logic of why a blanket statute of limitations has been introduced, and I think that is now the right thing to do.
What does the Bill actually do? We know that it establishes the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. In theory, it creates an environment of openness, which may give answers and some closure, but I appreciate the flaws in the argument. It will grant immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission. The important point is that legal equivalence does not mean moral equivalence, so it is absolutely right that conditional amnesty is dependent on engagement. The Bill will end troubles-based criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, which is the right thing to do, and it should mean the commissioning of a record of every troubles-related death from the ICRIR. The list goes on.
However, in the interests of balance, I should point out that the PSNI currently has a caseload of at least 900 unsolved cases. Op Kenova, which was mentioned earlier, has unfinished business for many, and victims and families will not get the resolution they seek. I am also acutely conscious of the concerns of those who believe that protagonists just will not engage. In my view, we have to give this a chance. It is important that we do that.
The Bill is divisive, as we have heard today, and we have to go forward as carefully as we can, mindful of the particular sensitivity of victims’ families. That is a given. But the time is now 24 years on from the Good Friday agreement, and we have no choice. We have to deliver on the promise that was made, not least to our veterans. Personally, I am bewildered and disappointed by Labour’s decision not to be in the Chamber today and to vote against the Bill. In addition to doing the right thing for our security services and our veterans, the Bill is ultimately about national politics, not party politics, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will do the right thing this afternoon.
Stuart Anderson
I certainly laboured that point, but it is a point that really needs labouring. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is not the party of veterans, and that its action tonight will be seen across the veteran community?
James Sunderland
My personal view is that we have to show the requisite support to our veterans, our armed forces and our security services. Today is ultimately about two things. It is about drawing a line under vexatious complaints and about hoping that Northern Ireland can emerge into a peaceful and prosperous future. I very much hope that that happens.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is an honour to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I want to make clear that we are not opposing the Bill for opposition’s sake. This is a flawed and damaging piece of legislation that does not serve victims and survivors. It does not heal the wounds of communities. It does not allow Northern Ireland to move on.
We know and understand how challenging this is for so many. To hear the emotion in the voice of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) really hits home. It is important that his voice as a victim and the voices of all victims are heard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, the Bill does not deliver justice for victims or veterans—many veterans are also victims. The Bill as it is, as we have heard throughout the debate, demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of the situation faced by families and communities affected by the troubles, and an off-handedness towards groups in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has not even been consulted on the proposals.
Victims and survivors often do not speak with one voice on these issues, but in this situation the Government have miscalculated. All the victims and survivor groups we have heard from are singing from the same songsheet: the Government have misjudged the mood. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said, he cannot find anyone, apart from those on the Conservative Benches, who wants the Bill to pass. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) spoke about those elected in Northern Ireland. They do not represent one single view on legacy. So when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) attacked the Labour party for not standing up for veterans, it was hurtful and, frankly, deplorable.
Stuart Anderson
The point I made is that, throughout the whole debate in the many hours we have been here, only one Labour Member spoke from the Back Benches. I think that is offensive. It will resonate throughout the veteran community that Labour has not put its views across in this debate and has not argued the point for veterans
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member needs to reflect on the fact that this is not about us today; it is about the people in Northern Ireland, and this is the start of a legislative process where we will all be represented. [Interruption.] It is not appropriate, and very hurtful, for hon. Members to continue to make sedentary remarks and chunter on. I would rather be able to make progress.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who spoke from the Government Benches, displayed the integrity and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland, which is precisely why the Government need to reframe the Bill. The Government say that they have learned lessons from South Africa, but there are significant differences between the two processes that will, in our opinion, not solve problems, but cause them in future.
First, on the independence of the entire process, the Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including to appoint people to the commission and over the process of the commission. Let us consider the following paragraph from clause 20, which is titled “Determining a request for immunity”. Subsection (8) states:
“The immunity requests panel must take account of any guidance given by the Secretary of State—
(a) when deciding in accordance with section 18(7) whether P should be granted—
(i) specific immunity from prosecution,
(ii) general immunity from prosecution, or
(iii) specific and general immunity from prosecution;”
The word “must” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. It is saying that the Secretary of State can make a judgment on whether a person can be granted immunity in specific cases or even in general. That comes on top of the guidance that the Secretary of State can give about whether conduct is “possible criminal conduct”. Those are not judgments that any Secretary of State should be making. The Government are leaving themselves wide open to legal challenges.
The Government will probably also be subject to legal challenges on the second difference between this model and the South African model—namely, the lack of conditionality on the amnesty. Whereas in South Africa the process was public and transparent, the system that the Government are trying to bring in is, as one commentator put it, “impunity repackaged”. Conditions on an amnesty are so low that they may as well not even exist.
The last difference between the South African system and what the Government are proposing is the running of the inquest system. Clause 33, which is called “No criminal investigations except through ICRIR reviews”, states:
“On and after the day on which this section comes into force, no criminal investigation of any Troubles-related offence may be continued or begun.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out, any future investigations will not be allowed to take place. That is a significant difference and, frankly, it is not a solution that builds trust or delivers for victims or survivors.
We have also heard from the Government and Government Members about the process being the punishment, but they failed to mention that the Bill removes any reference to investigation of crimes and that that has now been replaced with the word “review”. For victims and survivors, that is not good enough. We cannot keep retraumatising victims and survivors of the troubles.
In Belfast less than two weeks ago, I heard at first hand from numerous organisations, when discussing legacy, how frustrated they were that they had better working relationships with the former Secretary of State and architect of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset, than they do with the incumbent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is not good enough. The manner in which the Government have behaved at every stage of the process in bringing the Bill before the House has been the antithesis of the values that underpin our system of governance.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State enormous powers, but there has been no prelegislative work and no scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for North Dorset has eloquently made the point that the Bill addresses such a contentious and emotive subject that it deserves more time for debate and consideration. The Opposition would support an extension of time to discuss the Bill.
We would also welcome a full consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. A consultation on the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill received 17,000 responses, with a clear message that there should be no amnesty for troubles-related abuses. Why are those voices now being ignored? Despite the clear support of the people of Northern Ireland for the Stormont House agreement, the UK Government released a written ministerial statement in March 2020 that signified a unilateral move away from it. That ran contrary to the Government’s commitments in the agreement and the expressed will of the Northern Irish people.
The Secretary of State says that he has consulted. Will he tell the House exactly whom he has consulted and what they have told him? There is such a lack of support for the Bill from organisations such as Amnesty International, which he refuses to meet, and from the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, so we need to know. Demands for meetings with, in some cases, less than 24 hours’ notice is not the way to show organisations respect.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State will know from seeing the visitors in the Gallery that victims of the troubles have made the journey to London today because they are so upset and angry that their voices have not been heard. Is it not one of the Secretary of State’s principal roles to listen to victims and their families, sit down and take note, consult fully, undertake due diligence and, above all, pay them the respect that they deserve?
No matter how the Bill is dressed up, it equates to a blanket amnesty. It undermines fundamental human rights enshrined in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and undermines the institutions established to uphold that monumental and historic agreement, which underpins peace in Northern Ireland. The Bill is solely a product of the UK Government. It does not arise from an agreement with the political parties of Northern Ireland or with the Government of Ireland; it does not have the democratic legitimacy that previous legislative change has had. Even though it purports to be about reconciliation in Northern Ireland, it does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Labour party is an honest broker. Having listened to the victims’ groups, the organisations and the political parties that want justice and truth, we cannot support the Bill today. It delivers for no one and does not address the issues in Northern Ireland that need to be resolved.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stuart Anderson Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Before we begin, I would like to make some brief remarks regarding the upcoming anniversary of Bloody Sunday. This Sunday marks the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. The killing of 14 people on that day began what was the most brutal and tragic year of the troubles in terms of lives lost. I echo the words of the then Prime Minister David Cameron, who, following the publication of the Saville report in 2010, stood at this Dispatch Box and apologised on behalf of the British Government, describing the events of Bloody Sunday, rightly, as “unjustified and unjustifiable.” It is important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but remember these difficult moments in our history, and come together to help build a better shared future for all the people of Northern Ireland. My thoughts this weekend will be with all those affected.
The Government collectively believe that any system for addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past must focus on delivering for those most impacted by the troubles, including victims, survivors and veterans. We were very clear when publishing the Command Paper that we would engage intensively and widely with stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland parties, before introducing legislation, and that is what we have done and what we are doing. We are reflecting carefully on what we have heard, and we remain committed to addressing the issue through legislation.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with what he says. It is important that we find a way forward that works for the people of Northern Ireland and, as I say, delivers for victims, survivors and veterans; has a lasting ability to move things forward; and ensures that those who still do not know the truth and do not have information about what happened to loved ones will have a chance to get to that truth in a reasonable timeframe.
Stuart Anderson
As a veteran who served in Op Banner, I welcome any legislation that comes forward on this issue. While we wait for that legislation, will the Secretary of State work with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to ensure that any Op Banner veterans have the support they need?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are unequivocal in our commitment to deliver for all those most impacted by the troubles, including those who served so bravely to protect life and country for people in Northern Ireland. As part of that process, I assure my hon. Friend that we will work closely—and we are working closely—with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans; in fact, we will be meeting this afternoon.