Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 373 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.
As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. This is a very long intervention. Many speakers wish to get in this afternoon, so I urge Members to keep interventions short.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.
It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.
Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.
David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:
“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”
And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.
The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it
“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”
That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?
Hilary Benn
It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.
We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
Hilary Benn
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.
Hilary Benn
If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I will make some progress.
We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.
I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?
Hilary Benn
It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.
The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.
Jim Allister
May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:
“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,
because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.
Hilary Benn
With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Lincoln Jopp
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.
Hilary Benn
I will continue.
I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Hilary Benn
Since it is my friend the hon. Member, I will give way one last time.
Jim Shannon
On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?
Hilary Benn
The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.
Hilary Benn
I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the
“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”
sufficiently
“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.
The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.
As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that
“peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”.
The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.
We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case.
The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.
On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005.
That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In essence, what my hon. Friend is talking about here with the agreements about the destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a sense, one way. There is no way on earth that the same process would have been allowed for soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. All evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction. When the Government talk about equivalence, they are wrong. It has never been about equivalence; it has been about one-way traffic.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.
When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.
We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.
David Davis
The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.
David Smith
We can talk about political parties and we can talk about the general population, but does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there is nearly universal opposition among victims of terrorism to the conditional immunity in the legacy Act?
Alex Burghart
No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened. Which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario in which people can be prosecuted on either side, and therefore have an incentive, if they are guilty, to conceal the truth, or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation introduced by our Government, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know that they will not be punished if they do so?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited.
That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.
David Davis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?
Alex Burghart
Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.
Lincoln Jopp
As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”
Alex Burghart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line.
If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Surely we are regrettably here because of our membership of a foreign court. Without our membership of the ECHR, we would not be in this mess or having this debate, and we could be moving on towards truth and reconciliation.
Alex Burghart
That is exactly one of the reasons why the next Conservative Government will leave the European convention on human rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Human Rights Act 1998 does not require the Government to take any action as a consequence of the decisions that were made in the courts; it is entirely a matter for this House. The Government have made a choice. They had a choice to pursue the change through primary legislation or through this remedial order. They made a choice, notwithstanding the fact that they have a Bill coming down the line. Frankly, I think that was a ridiculous decision by my Committee, but there it is. [Laughter.]
Alex Burghart
I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options.
The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait. On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say. In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.
Lincoln Jopp
I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.
Alex Burghart
Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—
Alex Burghart
Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend.
The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires.
Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.
Alex Burghart
I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”.
The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I cannot respond directly to the claim that the hon. Gentleman just made, because that would be breaching parliamentary privilege, which I would not want to do, I will simply put on the record that our Committee considered all the relevant evidence when we created not just our second report on this remedial order but our first too. We considered all the evidence in front of us, we made our reports and we stand by both of them.
Alex Burghart
I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it.
We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?
Alex Burghart
I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I think that many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry. Does the hon. Member agree that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both Governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his Government acting unilaterally when they announced theirs?
Alex Burghart
I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.
Jim Shannon
The reason we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear. It was a murder haven for years. Many people who committed murders, some of which we might hear about later, escaped across the border. How are we going to rebuild bridges without honesty about state collusion that included IRA terrorists and the Irish Government? Quite clearly, their hands are dirty. When it comes to the legislation, I want to see the same accountability for the Republic of Ireland Government, their Ministers and the Garda Síochána officers. My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.
Alex Burghart
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer.
The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.
David Davis
My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.
Alex Burghart
Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I would like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my Select Committee and particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led by those on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State should take a while to look through the recommendations contained in the Committee’s work on the troubles, take them Committee seriously and have productive conversations on how to move this matter forward.
Alex Burghart
I take everything the hon. Lady’s Committee does incredibly seriously. There is a good deal of experience on it and she always has interesting witnesses. I was very interested in the remarks made at her Committee the other day by experts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence.
I am afraid, though, that none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down the route of erasing the line we have attempted to draw under the troubles. I say to Labour Members that there is not just a moral risk; there is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts. Simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned 12 or 13 times—which is it? [Interruption.] Oh, 14 times—I lose track. There is every possibility that, just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people—because of representations that were made, I believe, by 60 Labour Back Benchers—so there is the opportunity to stop the Government in their tracks on this incredibly serious issue.
Lincoln Jopp
The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to put on the record. Sadly, there are not many Labour Back Benchers here to hear the debate. I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative. I do believe that if Labour Back Benchers were to mount significant pressure in private, the Government would think again. If they did, they would create the opportunity, once again, for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep peacefully at night.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This Government are erasing that line and in so doing dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. This continuation of the conflict by other means—by legal means—ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational cost. We know that because those who know most about military operations tell us it is so. General Sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall—both of whom have served our country at the very highest levels—write today in the Telegraph:
“Those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely. If lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later, confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer. Enemies and allies notice this as well.”
Let us remember the generals’ words.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the remedial order. It is a necessary and overdue step if the Government are to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that they are serious about justice, accountability and dealing honestly with the legacy of the troubles.
As several hon. and gallant Members have said from the Government Benches, those who served never wanted special protection, exemptions or immunity from the law. They wanted and expected exactly what the public expect: to be judged by the same universal standards of justice that apply to everyone else. Accountability does not weaken the armed forces but strengthens trust in them.
The remedial order recognises that basic principle. It removes the conditional immunity and de facto amnesty contained in the 2023 legacy Act—provisions that were found unlawful by the courts in the Dillon case in Belfast. The High Court and the Court of Appeal were clear that those provisions breached articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights and the Windsor framework. The Government accepted that judgment and rightly abandoned their appeal. Those immunity provisions never legally took effect, and it is right that they are now formally removed.
The order also restores access to civil claims, reopening an important route to truth and accountability that had been wrongly closed. These processes were never about witch hunts. Since the Good Friday agreement, only one former soldier has been convicted for a troubles-era killing, and he received a suspended sentence. That is not lawfare. What civil cases and inquests have done is to correct false records, expose wrongdoing and finally give families truthful answers after decades of official denial.
However, we must honest. The remedial order does not go far enough. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which blocks the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from investigating troubles-related police misconduct, remains unaddressed. The Court of Appeal found that to be incompatible with human rights, yet victims and families are still denied access to a fully independent investigative mechanism. That failure continues.
The Government are, of course, serious about a victim-centred approach to the past, and in pursuit of that further amendments are essential. National security must not be used as a smokescreen for secrecy. Families must have enforceable rights to truth, information and challenge, particularly when the Secretary of State retains wide powers over legacy bodies. That is especially important given the unresolved disagreements surrounding the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Lincoln Jopp
I am new in this place, but my sense of the hon. Member is that he a great parliamentarian, so I would like to understand how he has reconciled himself with this being the correct course for the Government to take—bringing in a remedial order that pulls a law out before we put a new one in?
Andy McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. There is an obligation on the Government under section 4 of the Human Rights Act: where they have been told by a court that legislation is incompatible with a convention right, they are duty-bound to remove that incompatibility. That is exactly what is being done here. [Interruption.] The hon. Member chunters from a sedentary position, but that is the legal position.
The remedial order is a positive correction, but it is only a first step. Justice delayed has already cost families decades. Justice diluted will cost confidence altogether. If we want reconciliation rooted in truth, the law must apply equally to all, and independent investigations must be fully restored.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I have listened carefully to those who have spoken before me, and while there are clear differences across the House, I hope there is a shared recognition of the gravity of the issues we are debating and the responsibility that rests on Parliament to approach them with care.
I will begin, as I have done previously in debates on this matter, by recognising the deep and enduring scars left by the troubles. For victims, survivors, veterans, families and communities across Northern Ireland and beyond, the issues we are considering reflect lived experience and demand seriousness and humility, not grandstanding. That does not preclude our making clear that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a failure—in fact, it requires it. It failed victims, it failed survivors and it failed veterans. That is not just the opinion of the Liberal Democrats; it is the view of every major party in Northern Ireland, as well as victims’ organisations, the vast majority of veterans I have met and, ultimately, the courts.
The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear in 2024 that core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Parliament cannot simply shrug its shoulders at that judgment, and there is no more apposite time than now to confirm that we are a country governed by the rule of law, not by wishful thinking or culture war rhetoric.
For that reason, the Liberal Democrats welcome the remedial order, and I remind the House that there is a greater percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party than in any other party in this House. Our gallant cohort would agree to nothing that will let down our veterans and believes that the remedial order is necessary because it removes the most egregious provisions of the Act, including immunity that extended to terrorists and bars on civil actions. Those measures were corrosive to trust and created an abhorrent moral equivalence between those who served the state and those who sought to destroy it. The remedial order must consequently be seen as a prerequisite to any credible legacy process, not as a concession to apologists and terrorists.
That is why it is difficult to understand those who argue that the House should vote against the remedial order. To do so would be to defend legislation that the courts have ruled to be unlawful and to prolong uncertainty for victims and veterans alike. It would leave us knowingly in breach of our international obligations and would further undermine confidence in the institutions tasked with dealing with the past. It is simply wrong, both in principle and in practice. To those who argue that the remedial order should be delayed until the judgment in the Dillon case is handed down, I would simply say that I concur with the Secretary of State. Put simply, notwithstanding paragraph 710 of the Court of Appeal judgment, the declaration of incompatibility will remain whether or not the Government win their appeal on article 2 of the Windsor framework.
Although the Secretary of State will doubtless welcome our support, I do not wish to lull him into a false sense of security. We welcome the remedial order, but that does not mean that we are declaring the job done. Serious deficiencies in the forthcoming Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remain, and they must be addressed if any new framework is to command confidence across communities. That is why my party has tabled constructive amendments and new clauses—not to wreck the legislation, but to save it.
In particular, we remain deeply concerned about protections for veterans. Veterans are not asking for immunity; they tell me repeatedly that they do not want immunity. They are asking for fairness, proportionality and an end to the fear that the process of investigation becomes an instrument of persecution.
Lincoln Jopp
I fear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may have misspoken earlier in his remarks. I will quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft:
“A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”
Mr Kohler
Yes, in other words, it is for our Government to stand up for our international obligations. Hon. Members should look about them; look at what is happening at the moment with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. It is a time for us to believe in the rule of law. There is a declaration of incompatibility and our Government should absolutely stand up for our international obligations.
David Davis
The point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act, which is the law in this country.
Mr Kohler
The Government have a choice to make: whether to stand up for our international obligations. That is the right thing to do. At this time, of all times, surely we should stand up for our international obligations.
Our amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seek to put clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards against disproportionate legal action, to provide a presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity and to establish independent oversight of how those safeguards operate in practice. Our approach is about recognising service, context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing.
The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legal mechanisms alone.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have seen a pattern forming. I hope the hon. Member did not misquote when he said that the Liberal Democrats have more veterans in their parliamentary party than anyone else, when they have eight and we have 17. I see that only one of theirs is here today, whereas many of ours are here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please sit down, Mr Kohler. The temperature needs to be lowered to allow the hon. Gentleman to deliver his remarks.
Mr Kohler
If we are serious about moving towards a shared and stable future for Northern Ireland, legacy processes must be connected to a broader reconciliation strategy. That is why we propose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish such a strategy, developed in consultation with victims, institutions and Parliament. Addressing the past and building the future must go hand in hand.
Finally, a word about the European convention on human rights. The remedial order arises precisely because ECHR compliance matters. The Good Friday agreement is built on it and, as such, peace in Northern Ireland depends on it. Those who casually call for withdrawal are playing fast and loose with our history, our rights, our futures and our very Union. We will support this remedial order, oppose those who would block it for self-serving reasons and continue to work constructively with Members from across the House to fashion an appropriate legacy process.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I felt that it was important that I speak today as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We had another member of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in the Chamber until recently. When he came over to speak to me just now, I was slightly worried that he was defecting. However, I was assured that he was just letting me know that, unfortunately, he was not able to stay for the rest of the debate.
I want to start by acknowledging that there were differences of opinion on this important issue. Nevertheless, the Committee carried out its constitutional role to scrutinise this remedial order, as the Standing Orders of both Houses set out we must. As it was mandated to do, the JCHR has produced two reports on this remedial order, and it has been clear and unambiguous in its recommendation that it be approved by the House. I should emphasise that the focus of the reports was on the remedial order in front of us today, not on the Bill. I, similarly, will focus my remarks squarely on the order.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out, this remedial order follows rulings by the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Appeal that declared a number of provisions within the previous Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible with our human rights obligations under the European convention on human rights.
The legacy Act prohibited any criminal investigations into troubles-related offences from being initiated or continued. It also prohibited any criminal enforcement action in relation to non-serious troubles-related offences. It ended troubles-related civil claims that began after the legacy Act’s First Reading, and prohibited new ones. It also obliged the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to give immunity from prosecution where certain conditions were met—and yes, this extended to giving immunity from prosecution to terrorists.
The legacy Act was a deeply flawed piece of legislation, a fact that has been reflected in the courts’ rulings on its incompatibilities with our human rights legislation. This order, alongside the Bill, seeks to remedy those incompatibilities.
Lincoln Jopp
As the hon. Member says, we are considering this order alongside the Bill. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits, for producing this very good report, but I would like to try to get an answer that I did not get earlier. How is he reconciled with the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his Government have put something else in place?
Peter Swallow
I am happy to jump forward in my speech to address the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I would just gently say that, by removing the incompatibilities, which the courts have put in legal limbo, this Government are quite rightly acting to correct those incompatibilities. That is good governance, not bad. Let me address his point more specifically. To say that it is unusual for any Government to introduce a remedial order and a Bill, both addressing incompatibilities, on the same day would be an understatement. Indeed, the Committee’s long-held view is that primary legislation is always preferable to address incompatibilities, where that is available—a view re-emphasised in our second report. But, importantly, we also recognise the unique complexities and sensitivities of this issue, and for that reason our recommendation was that this remedial order should be approved.
I acknowledge that this is an unusual remedial order, in that it is being presented at the same time as the Bill, as I have said. I welcome the Bill before the House as well. Unlike the legacy Act introduced by the previous Government, this Bill does not give immunity to terrorists. It recognises the rights of communities to access the justice that our legal framework affords to all. It also produces important safeguards for veterans, including protection from repeated investigations, the right to seek anonymity, the right not to be forced to travel to give evidence, protection in old age and protection from cold calling or unexpected letters.
Importantly, these safeguards include a right for veterans’ voices to be heard through the inclusion of veterans’ representatives in the statutory victims and survivors advisory group. These measures strike the balance between protecting those who served to keep the peace and protect life, and ensuring that terrorist acts are not granted immunity.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member is describing the Bill, but we are not here to debate the Bill; we are here to debate the remedial order. I asked him why he was comfortable with the fact that the Government are guillotining a piece of law without putting something else in place, and he has not answered that yet. He has answered that they can, but he has not told us why they should.
Peter Swallow
As the report sets out, the Government set forward their reasons for proceeding with the remedial order alongside a Bill, and the Secretary of State has shared those reasons today. It always behoves a Government, where an incompatibility has been identified, to choose the manner in which to address it. There are four options. The first option is to do nothing, which we very well could have done. However, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), eloquently pointed out, that would see us failing to comply with our international obligations, which I would not be comfortable with. The second option would be to introduce a remedial order that had to be approved urgently. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will forgive me if I do not remember the precise language while on my feet, but there is a route for a more rapid remedial order. That is not the route the Government decided to go down, and I welcome that as well, because it is important that we have the time to properly scrutinise anything on this most sensitive issue. The third option is the one that the Government have taken. The fourth option, of course, is to deal with it solely in primary legislation.
As the Secretary of State set out—he was very forthcoming in appearing before the Committee and providing additional correspondence to us—the decision he took was that the appropriate route was to address this with a remedial order. He did that because it was important to build trust in communities across Northern Ireland by more swiftly addressing the incompatibilities that have been identified. I hope that my fulsome response has addressed the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and that I can continue with my speech. [Interruption.] Fantastic. Thank you.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that he recognises that this is a sensitive Bill which seeks to address not only the lasting legacy of a highly emotive and contested period of our history, but the enduring lived reality of what that legacy means for communities across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK. For that reason, the Government have set out their grounds for seeking to use a remedial order. I referred to that in great detail.
I also emphasise that, given the nature of the Bill before the House, the legislation will take some time to progress as it is scrutinised by both Houses and, indeed, our Committee. [Interruption.] As you indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is more than enough from me in setting out the reasons why the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this remedial order be approved. I end by emphasising that, as a member of the JCHR, I stand by our reports, and our considered recommendation to approve is clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen the interest in the debate shown by the number of Members on their feet and will be aware of the short time available. I do not want to bring in a time limit at this moment, but I ask Members to keep their comments as brief as possible in order to help each other out.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis.
To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that
“it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”,
not by a remedial order.
Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating:
“It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.”
I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort.
What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to our report to advance his argument. Would he be so kind as to read the next sentence?
David Davis
I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee.
Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.
I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.
I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.
When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.
But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a classic example of what he is saying was the Shankill bomb? The perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist. He was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered, yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim, as opposed to those who he genuinely caused to be victims.
David Davis
That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he
“went out to blow up, not to kill”,
despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people.
I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
David Davis
Forgive me but I will not, as I want to get to the end of this. As we know, Gerry Adams is already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned during the troubles.
The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we are doing today. There will be some civil claims brought against IRA killers—the Secretary of State mentioned some of them—but they will be rather special circumstances. Omagh is one of those; I could explain why, but we do not have the time. There will be a few of those, but very few compared with thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. That is largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday agreement, not to allow decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. They also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. The families of people who have been murdered, where the body has been recovered, are not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. That is how this justice works. And, of course, there will be no witnesses to the IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I am afraid that anybody else will be taking their life in their hands.
I will finish by saying this: today’s remedial order will allow the IRA to further its campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state-sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes, neither of which is true.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I am happy to speak in support of the motion as set out on the Order Paper.
The wider context is straightforward: the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passed by the Conservatives attempted to replace long-standing legal routes with a new commission, ICRIR, and a conditional immunity scheme. However, that approach did not command support in Northern Ireland and it did not withstand legal scrutiny. Both the High Court and the Belfast Court of Appeal found key provisions in the Act were incompatible with UK human rights law, in particular where they undermined the state’s duties to investigate serious harm and where the Act shut victims, including the victims of terrorist attacks, out of court. This was entirely foreseeable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in 2022, when there was a majority of Conservative politicians on that Committee, that the Government’s approach risked
“widespread breaches of human rights law”
and would fail
“to meet the minimum standards required to ensure effective investigations.”
Victims of the troubles and their families, including British servicemen killed by terrorists, would have had their routes to justice shut down by the Conservative’s unlawful legacy Act. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead regardless, passing an Act that they knew would never be compatible with UK law, and therefore would never commence. False promises were made to our veterans and negligence was dressed up as decisiveness. So it is right that the Labour Government have committed to repeal and replace the previous Government’s failed Act through primary legislation, but today is about a necessary interim step: the remedial order before the House.
The remedial order will fix human rights breaches quickly, when the courts have found that Parliament’s work has cut across basic protections. What does it do? First, it removes the Act’s conditional immunity provisions—the quite outrageous provisions that allowed terrorists to secure immunity from prosecution by offering an account
“to the best of their knowledge and belief”.
Those provisions were never enacted as they were struck down by the courts, but their presence on the statute book has done real damage. It has fuelled mistrust, created uncertainty and offered a false promise of protection to veterans that could never be delivered.
Secondly, the remedial order removes the statutory bar on troubles-related civil claims. The 2023 Act sought to block citizens of the United Kingdom from pursuing justice for crimes that they faced during the troubles. I believe that was wrong in principle, and indeed it was found to be incompatible with article 6 of the convention.
Thirdly, it removes the exclusion of protected material gathered by ICRIR from being used in civil proceedings and certain other processes. In plain English, that stops victims who would have had their hands tied by the law from using evidence they would need to seek justice.
Much of the Opposition’s rhetoric has been directed at veterans, so as a veteran myself, let me address that head on. There never has been and never will be any moral equivalence between our armed forces, who served to uphold law and order, and terrorist organisations that targeted civilians.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has glossed over another thing that he will potentially be voting for today: allowing Gerry Adams to claim compensation on the basis that his internment was illegal because the Minister of State signed the order not the Secretary of State. Would he like to tell his veteran friends and the people of Halesowen why he is happy to walk through the Lobby to vote to give Gerry Adams that right?
Alex Ballinger
I am grateful to have the opportunity to gently correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When asked that question a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said categorically that we would not allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation. There are several civil cases that would be blocked, supporting the victims of IRA terrorism, including a case involving Gerry Adams, and this remedial order will help going forward. It is important that we think about the victims of those appalling terrorist paramilitary crimes.
Dr Murrison
I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. He is right to assert that there is no moral equivalence and there should be no legal equivalence between the perpetrators of terror and those sent out to do the state’s business in Northern Ireland. But can he understand the views of the great majority of veterans, many of whom I have the privilege to represent, who feel that what this Government are doing is undermining and holing below the water line legislation that, however imperfect and subject to appeal, was going some way towards giving them some comfort?
Alex Ballinger
I am a veteran, and I speak to many veterans, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are range of views on the issue. Those of us who served, in whichever service, did so to uphold the rule of law. It is beholden on us and those who served that if they are upholding the rule of law, they are accountable to that rule of law. Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said:
“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”
This is not happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Northern Ireland, where UK citizens are affected, so rule of law is vital.
Peter Swallow
Let me briefly recognise the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We cannot have immunity for one group and not another. The previous Government recognised that position—it was recognised in their Act—which is why their Act gave immunity to terrorists. Is that not the case?
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is right. It is important for everyone involved, including the many veterans concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west. The defective Act that led to more litigation, uncertainty and distress for victims and those who served on Op Banner should end.
Alex Ballinger
I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.
Sammy Wilson
It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.
Alex Ballinger
I do not have the statistics in front of me, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the overwhelming number of prosecutions that have happened in Northern Ireland have been of paramilitaries and terrorist groups. Only one serviceperson has been convicted since 2010, and that was on a suspended sentence. I am afraid that the threat is exaggerated for political effect by our opponents, which is not helpful in a very serious business that people are very concerned about.
It is important that we deal in facts, not scare stories. Claims that 800 civil cases will be reactivated and that this measure will drag veterans through the courts again are simply untrue. The reality is that almost 800 civil cases continued unaffected by the Conservatives’ 2023 legacy Act, as it was aimed at new claims. However, as the Act was rejected by the courts, it never provided any protection to veterans. We will go on to protections for veterans as part of Labour’s new Bill—I will not cover that now, because we will have another opportunity to do so.
This remedial order is a necessary correction. It removes discredited provisions, restores basic legal rights and helps to rebuild confidence in a process that must command legitimacy across Northern Ireland, and I will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members may wish to know that I will shortly bring in a three-minute time limit. Without a time limit, I call Gavin Robinson.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of agreement and positivity, may I thank the Leader of the House and the usual channels for agreeing that this motion should have three hours of debate? Had it arrested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all, which would be shameful.
Thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of my opportunity to speak without a time limit, because I will not be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any others who wish to participate.
The Secretary of State knows my position on this matter. I believe that he is bringing in this remedial order wrongly, and he is attaching a level of undue haste to these issues. I said to him on 17 December in this Chamber that, given that he knows that issues are still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait. Although he has abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has not. This Government have tried to indicate their support for and understanding of the concerns of veterans—the previous speaker made a valiant effort—yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court, and the Government cannot wait until these issues have been determined.
I say again to the Secretary of State that remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives, yet that is exactly what I believe he is doing in this regard. If I am wrong, surely it is incumbent on him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more, yet he only added one to this remedial order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has indicated that the remedial order should be approved, but has offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of the order. But I am going to raise them.
Civil cases were mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State has not explained why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases, nor did he take the opportunity to pursue that differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought that retrospective application was wrong and yet the Court of Appeal allowed civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. When I intervened on him, he posed a question to me about the principle of bringing civil cases. I agree with that principle, but it is not uncommon for the law to understand limitations, including through our limitations legislation. We need to understand that it is part of the sovereignty of this Parliament to be able to say, “Enough is enough. Time has moved on. You have exhausted your opportunity for a claim.” We know, as do veterans, the security services and the PSNI, about the unlimited quest through legal aid and lawfare to rewrite the past—to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland and to turn that which was bad into good—and we will always speak out against that.
The Secretary of State has chosen to leave the interim custody order issue out of his remedial order and attempt to deal with that issue in the troubles Bill, but clauses 89 and 90 of that Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams. Lord Kerr’s judgment—probably his final judgment before he retired from the Supreme Court and before his sad demise—indicates that that which the Secretary of State intends to introduce through clause 89 does not stand legally. Clause 90 deals with convictions that were quashed and remain quashed, but for which there can be no compensation. It is silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to obtain compensation, not for the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under an interim custody order in the first place. The Secretary of State has been deficient in what he has provided this House with. He has not chosen to deal with the incompatibility through this remedial order, nor do I believe he has dealt with it sufficiently through the path he has taken on primary legislation.
Returning to the issue of civil cases, the Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our budget—within our means—but he is expanding the scope of legacy investigations and the legacy commission exponentially through this remedial order and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he is going to increase the budget available to the legacy commission? No. It has been given £250 million over five years. Almost £100 million has already been spent. Is he going to pick up the tab for this raft of work that is going to befall us in Northern Ireland? No.
The decisions being made in this Chamber now, and those that will be made in future regarding the troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past, yet I hear no concern for that. I see that 800-odd civil claims will now be accompanied by an additional 200 claims. Who is to pick up the bill, Secretary of State? If it is the people of Northern Ireland—the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists—and the fledgling Executive, who are struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then that is something I have a responsibility to raise, and it is something the Secretary of State needs to wrestle with and deal with.
Most fundamentally of all, it has been suggested that this process was to provide a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, yet what do we hear? We hear that this Government are locked in a logjam between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence about the substance of amendments that may or may not be tabled.
Two weeks ago, the Government were maintaining the position that the safeguards in the Bill, which they call protections, were sufficient. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that those were insufficient and that he was going to have to bring forward amendments. That was shut down by a representative of the Irish Government some two hours later, who said that the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, I say. [Interruption.] It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and the Secretary of State well knows it. We will attest, and we will see the amendments that he brings forward.
I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this remedial order. I asked the Secretary of State on 17 December to wait, as the hearings concluded in October and the Supreme Court will issue a determination. He would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues, if he at least allowed the judicial process to conclude, but he chose not to—and with that, he loses our support.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Social Democratic and Labour party welcomes this remedial order, which goes some way to restoring the rule of law to legacy processes and in turn to the present day. The introduction by the previous Government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase, “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
This order is specifically about the troubles legacy Bill, but across these islands—in every jurisdiction, every day—we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time. We now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay, whether it is Hillsborough, infected blood, the Post Office scandal or the Magdalene laundries. There will not be a Member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. My ask is simply that Members think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way.
It is not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this House, and particularly today. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes—none of them have won. All of them have lost members of their family. It is not about people being able to draw a line under the past because MPs in London have told them to. MPs have called them IRA sympathisers.
The previous legislation, which this order undoes, was not about reconciliation or truth. The word “reconciliation” appeared in the title of the Bill and nowhere else. The Bill was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised. It was not just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I am not here to write a reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system, but these provisions and amnesties extended to the darkest corners—yes, of the security services, but also to those who directed the terrorism and who played God with people’s lives, and who should of course be held to the law.
The Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working, but inquests have worked. They were belated, yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. Those inquests have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with the most to hide. Those inquiries have also exposed truth and corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families; the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats. The 2021 inquest freed those families—freed people who had grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother, their father or their parish priest was a gunman, when it was entirely obvious that that was not true. They finally got accountability from a regiment that operated without it.
False narratives have been used by the security forces, by the IRA and by republican and loyalist terrorists to impugn and to add grievous insult to injury for so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre; an inquest less than two years ago rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack, where 10 Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. That was carried out by people who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood alongside. When people say that it is IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests, it is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black.
I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. We have had the Good Friday agreement and the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames-Bradley and Haass-O’Sullivan and the on-the-run letters, and all the other processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims. This legislation turns that around. However, it is just the beginning: we have to get the processes right if we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth, accountability and remembrance. This has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but also in human rights compliance, truth and justice. Today I again urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, where concerns exist about disclosure, ECHR compatibility and judicial independence, to ensure that we face down those vested interests, in or out of uniform, and show Britain as a democracy that upholds laws and rights.
Dealing with legacy will not be confined to the remedial order, the troubles Bill or the joint framework. As Members on both sides of the House know, it shapes our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other, and how we can best deliver a shared future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. The answers will not all be found in this order, or in the legislation that is to come. We have never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did: for the IRA to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2,000 of them, as collateral damage; for loyalists to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law.
I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently—did try to serve decently. I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many Members feel in the service given by them and by their loved ones. However, I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everyone in Northern Ireland had. Three hundred thousand soldiers served in Operation Banner, and fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of the time of victims’ families, and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. The Bill is the start of that, and I ask Members to approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. If Members limit their interventions, we can start with a four-minute time limit.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the limited time available, I shall try to address a few of the basic issues, including those on which I intervened earlier.
It became fairly obvious towards the end of the Secretary of State’s remarks, as a result of questioning from my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, that although there was much in his speech suggesting that he had to do what he is doing today, he is really doing it because he wants to do it. It was in the Government’s manifesto that they were going to repeal the legislation, and he is seizing the chance to strike it down at the first possible opportunity.
Sometimes one gets into a position of almost wondering about the futility of entering into a debate. Forty years ago, I used to debate against the same people again and again over the question of whether Britain should one-sidedly give up its nuclear weapons. I would often put forward an argument that countered something that they had said, they would have no answer to it, and then I would go into the next debate and they would say exactly the same thing over and over again, and I would have to put forward the same argument, and no one was getting anywhere. I feel like that over this point about the supposed equating of service personnel with IRA and other paramilitary terrorists. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, “There is no moral equivalence between these people.” Nobody in this debate is saying that there is any moral equivalence between these people. What we are saying is that everybody is equal before the law.
Let me remind the House what I said in Westminster Hall on 14 July last year—six months ago to the day last week—during a debate covering all these subjects. I pointed out that in April 2017 the Defence Committee had published a report, on a consensus and cross-party basis, entitled “Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel”—(HC1064).
In the inquiries that led up to the publication of that report, we took evidence on 7 March 2017 from four professors of law: Philippe Sands of University College London, Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, Kieran McEvoy of Queen’s University Belfast and Richard Ekins of Oxford University. All of those professors agreed that it was possible and legal—regardless of whether they wanted to do it or not—to have a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery mechanism. That is what the legacy Act, which is now being struck down, brought into effect.
The legacy Act has a very good chance of surviving further legal scrutiny. It is no argument to say that it has been discredited just because the Government and their supporters do not like it. The truth of the matter is that we have to give immunity to everyone or to no one. If the price of giving immunity to our servicemen is that we give it to terrorists too, then it is a price worth paying.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Today I am going to try to speak as freely as I can about something in which I believe passionately. I will explain why I believe in the principles that underpin the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is why I consider it necessary that we keep working on the specifics during its next phase in Parliament. I will try to explain some of the complexity and emotion, and why I find it despicable that some Members, on both sides of the Chamber, seek to gain political advantage from it. It is for this reason that I will be circumspect about accepting interventions.
I love this country. I am proudly British, and I am prepared to fight and die for the protection of the principles and fundamentals that define this country, the most important of which is the rule of law and the principle that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. These principles and fundamentals have been hard won, most recently during our deconstruction of our post-imperial self from 1945 to the late 1970s and early ’80s. I suggest that some people should reflect on that, because it was a time when our behaviour overseas, and the way that we behaved in places where we had sovereignty and where our legal situation was distinct from the law as exercised at home in the UK, was different.
That is important, because when the UK faced an internal crisis that was similar to the crises that it sought to manage elsewhere, it used military support to the civil authority to address it. In my opinion, it should have declared a state of emergency. Under such a state, the Government can enact powers that they are unable to enact during peacetime, the most important and pertinent of which is the ability to deploy their own military on their own streets in the protection of their own civilians. The issuance of such orders brings with it clear and defined parameters, under which those acting in the supplementary capacity of the police have the right and authority to use legal force on behalf of the state in an attempt to save lives.
That never happened. Instead, it was done through emergency legislation and security powers. What never happened was the creation of a coherent, unified legal framework that was equivalent to that of civilian policing. It is for this reason that those asked to act on behalf of the state have been left in turmoil, because the state inadequately defined the parameters under which its servants would act, and the protections and responsibilities that the state would provide for those actors if they acted in line with the law and the derivations provided to support them in the troubles.
Immunity from prosecution is not something that we are being asked to provide for our police officers. At no point have I heard those arguing for the maintenance of the failed legacy Act say that the police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be given similar immunity, because the context in which they were asked to act was known and the parameters for doing so were clearly defined. For our soldiers acting as police officers, the parameters were not clearly defined.
I was going to share some of my experiences as a military person and some of the things that have shaped my view of the world, but what I would say—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has reached the time limit.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate Members who have spoken, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He set out eloquently, in precise and excellent detail, exactly what is wrong with what is happening today and what will be wrong when the Government next bring forward their Bill. I still do not understand the reason for the rush to get the order through today. We have legislation coming before us, and surely it would have been reasonable to allow the courts to get on with their business and for us to legislate on the basis of what they bring forward. I simply say to the Government that it is badly done that we are rushing this order through and that the House is being forced to vote on it today.
The points I want to make are not about the legalities of this, because those have been raked over endlessly. As I said, the right hon. Member for Belfast East gave a brilliant exposition of them, and there is nothing I can add. I want to talk simply about what the previous Government were trying to do when they brought in the previous legislation. Back in about 1993 or 1994, I went out to South Africa with a delegation to look at how people there were trying to bring the country together again and clear themselves of the baggage of what had happened over those desperate years. During that time, many more men and women were killed in South Africa then we are dealing with in Northern Ireland, tragic though that was. It was the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa that persuaded me that something along those lines was vital for Northern Ireland.
I say that as somebody who served in Northern Ireland. I also say it as one of those who lost a good friend, whose name I have mentioned before—Captain Robert Nairac. The main point I am making is that I no longer wish to pursue the people involved. His parents have died, and the rest of the family do not want to pursue those people for justice; they want to find out what happened to Bob Nairac. Nobody knows, and no one will come forward with the possibility of prosecution hanging over their head. What happened was terrible, but we want to know what it was. That is the bit I feel strongly about: the knowing is important to end this and draw a line under it. I am afraid that the Bill will continue the pursuit of individuals, particularly those who are Northern Ireland veterans, as I am.
There is no help here in respect of Ireland and its pursuit. What are we going to do? There is nothing to say that Ireland will now agree to drop what it is doing and open its records. So much of what happened is in its records, because people fled there from their brutal crimes.
This is not about equivalence, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As have I said before, equivalence came about when a limitation was put on incarceration periods back in 1998. That brought equivalence to terrorism and to terrorists. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who is not in his place, made the point that the vast majority of prosecutions have been of terrorists, but over 3,000 of the deaths were down to terrorists and only about 300 had anything to do with the armed forces. So of course there have so far been more prosecutions of terrorists, but there will never be enough while we cannot get the records—they do not exist—of those who committed these foul acts. I again make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that it is a one-way street.
Time is limited, so I will finish simply by saying that I remember a conversation with Norman Tebbit, who died quite recently, during which I asked what was the worst thing that had happened to him. He said that it was not lying under the rubble or even believing that his wife had died as she lay next to him after the bombing. He said that the worst thing was when he had to swallow hard and watch the person who had set the bomb and blown his wife into a different future walk free. He said that that was the worst thing, but he understood why it was necessary. He swallowed it and determined against a prosecution. I was hoping that with the previous legislation, we could get to the truth of things, rather than have this ridiculous pursuit, which will never end, of those gallant veterans who, like me, served in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
This remedial order is just another step by this Government towards repealing and overriding the previous Government’s legacy Act. This Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer—who has, in the past, represented Gerry Adams—claim that the 2023 legacy Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights. There again, we have the ECHR wrongly being allowed to interfere in our justice system.
The legacy Act put a stop to lawfare. Although not perfect, it was a step in the right direction as it outlawed lawfare against veterans. However, it also prevented legal action against and the prosecution of terrorists. The Government want to reopen inquiries, leading to the return of years of misery and stress for, and the persecution of, our brave veterans in their retirement years, after they served this country so loyally during the troubles. In the meantime, on-the-run letters of comfort remain in place for IRA terrorists—letters sent by Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Adviser. The return of civil suits will lead to the return of slow justice and a cost of millions more to the taxpayer
This legislation will serve no purpose other than to pursue our brave veterans. This legislation is unfair and against their human rights. I will not vote in favour of the remedial order today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I rise as a proud Unionist from Northern Ireland, and as somebody who stands four-square with our veterans, innocent victims and their families. I have deep concerns about the remedial order and how this is going to operate. From the perspective of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland, the entire legacy framework is nothing short of deeply worrying. These are men and women, many of whom are now in their 70s and 80s, who put on the uniform of this country and operated under orders, rules, the law and unimaginable pressure to hold the line between democracy and terrorism.
What is the message that we are sending today? “Welcome to Labour’s Northern Ireland, where republicans run around with letters of comfort in their pockets while innocent soldiers like soldier F are hounded through the courts.” We are told that this order is about remedying and fixing deficiencies in the 2023 Act. It does nothing of the kind. The central obscenity remains: the effective closing down of routes to meaningful justice for hundreds of innocent families, while leaving entirely intact the pattern by which the vast majority of new investigatory energy is directed at former members of the security forces.
Let us be absolutely clear: our veterans did not start the troubles. They did not choose the battleground. They were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law, to protect both communities and to uphold the very democracy that allows some in this Chamber to denounce them today. To watch, in 2026, as the state bends over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of those who waged war against it, while putting elderly veterans back in the dock for split-second decisions made in the fog of conflict half a century ago, is to witness a profound moral failure.
For the victims of terrorism, whether Protestant, Catholic or neither, this framework still closes doors. It still moves them from a justice-based system to a process-based system, and from the possibility of accountability to the inevitability of managed disappointment. They are told to accept truth recovery with no guarantee of truth, reconciliation with no guarantee of remorse, and closure with no guarantee of justice.
For veterans, it is even worse. They see those who tried to murder them, or who murdered their comrades, sitting in government or appearing on TV, their pasts laundered and legitimised. At the same time, they see files reopened against them, headlines splashed against them, and their last years overshadowed by legal and political warfare. That is not equal treatment, or a “balanced” approach to the past; it is a calculated political accommodation with republicanism, paid for with the peace of mind of those who served this country.
I say this directly to Ministers: if they will not stand with the men and women who defended this kingdom, do not be surprised when they conclude that this kingdom is no longer standing with them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I welcome this move today by the Government, and I welcome the removal of the word “reconciliation”.
There is a lot that I would like to say about this matter, but we are short of time so I will just get to the point. I have heard some remarks today that are incredibly disturbing and distressing. I do not want to pick on anybody, but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—he will forgive me if I misrepresent him—“If the price of giving veterans an amnesty is that terrorists get the same, well then that is a price I am willing to pay.” Well, that is a price that I and the people of Lagan Valley, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, are simply not willing to pay.
We have had a conversation today about, “Oh, we all agree there is no moral equivalence.” Fair enough, but I do not know what on earth moral equivalence is unless it is a situation where terrorists and people who wore uniform are both given a carve-out from the rule of law. And by the way, none of us gets to speak for veterans en masse. I have veterans in my own house. I am proud of them. And do you know what? They never asked for immunity.
I agree with my colleagues from Northern Ireland whenever they say that there is a wholesale rewriting of history—absolutely, there is; it is already in progress—but I would simply ask them to stop, pause and think. There is a rewriting of history already going on, and there are those who are not present in this House today who will say, “See, told you so: they all needed a get-out-jail-free card, because we can’t guarantee that every single person who served in Northern Ireland did so honourably and lawfully.” Think what that will give them. I do not want that to happen—I do not want that to happen. And where there was wrongdoing, where there is a list of cases, some of the people who I know who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the UDR and the regular Army will be the first to say, “Where there is wrongdoing, let us put it right, because we do not want that to besmirch our reputation.”
Lastly, we are, arguably, already in a hybrid war and we are potentially considering future deployments. I do not want anybody representing the UK overseas to have this hanging over them. I am proud to be Northern Irish. I am proud to be British. I am also proud to be Irish. But most of all, I am proud to say that we should be able to stand by the rule of law, wherever we are deployed. We should not lower our standards because we worry about the standards of terrorists and the evidence available to them. We should maintain our rule of law. I will be supporting this order today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts.
I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is happening today, do so not because we do not wish people who did wrong to face justice, but because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just as the case against Soldier F failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said, the punishment is the process. People will be put through unnecessary hell before they are acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice.
Sammy Wilson
No, it has nothing to do with justice.
Although the Secretary of State and others today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any justice through this system, because it comes down to who holds the records. When cases go to the courts, there will be no documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and activities. Members should read the book written by Austin Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and who sought for 20 years to get justice. One line of the book that stands out is when Gerry Adams eventually took him to meet some of the IRA commanders, and in the car on the way there he said, “Don’t expect too much, because we don’t keep records.” That is the problem. The state kept records, but the IRA and the terrorists did not keep records, so the cases are going to be one-sided.
The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties.
If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong. It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad.
The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We have been unwavering in our opposition to the notion of immunity. There has never been a justification for arbitrarily closing down legal routes for innocent victims—not in 1998, not during the darkest days of the troubles, and certainly not today. While the Secretary of State and his party are perhaps late to this party, we do welcome his desire to remove the prospect of amnesty and, with it, the perverse equivalence drawn between those brave soldiers and police officers who acted within the law and the terrorists who were intent only on murder and destruction. That moral equivalence has poisoned legacy discourse for far too long.
When it comes to this debate, and the fact that the Government are pressing ahead prematurely with this remedial action, it is not just that we dispute the policy; the fact is that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of victims and will open the floodgates. It will not help one innocent victim, but it will open the floodgates against our brave soldiers—those who stood as human shields between good and evil. What is disputed is the reckless manner in which this Government are attempting to achieve this —and all to placate the Government in Dublin, whose approach has always been obstruction and concealment.
The fact that the Secretary of State is willing to pre-empt the outcome of an appeal to the highest court in the land sets a dangerous precedent. More importantly, it sends a message to the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—men and women who have already given more than enough—that its views and its stake in this process are dispensable.
It will come as no shock to the Secretary of State to hear that there are aspects of the draft remedial order that we have grave concerns about. It is clear that any benefit from reinstating civil cases will be accrued by a subset of victims whose claims are directed towards the security forces. Once again, the full weight of the state is being aimed not at terrorists but at those who stood against them. Where exactly does the right hon. Member suggest those who were bereaved at the hands of terrorists can seek compensation from the provisional IRA? It is an organisation that still refuses to disband, disarm fully and even acknowledge the scale and brutality of its crimes and murders.
Innocent victims and our brave ex-service personnel are crying out for fairness, not arrangements that aid and abet the rewriting of history—a history in which terrorists are daily being recast as victims, and soldiers as villains. The Secretary of State seems content to acquiesce to those who would use the courts to distort the truth of the past. This House should be under no illusion: this is not about justice; it is about narrative. We only have to think of Loughgall. Let us be absolutely clear about what Loughgall was: it was not a tragic accident or a miscarriage of justice, but the right and proper action on the part of brave soldiers to halt and take out an armed terrorist unit on the verge of carnage. Yet, decades later, the full machinery of the state is being turned against those who prevented a massacre, when the Secretary of State backs this latest inquest. Meanwhile, families devastated by IRA bombs and bullets continue to wait, many without answers, many without justice and many without even acknowledgment.
This is not about truth; it is about blurring the distinction between those who served the law and those who sought to destroy it. It is time for this Government to show the resolve needed to defend those who defended us. They must not do so with warm words or platitudes but with action. The remedial order fails in that aim; it weakens protections, emboldens lawfare and abandons veterans to endless legal jeopardy, and we cannot and will not support it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years since that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there —he was not. Last Sunday there was another commemoration, to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane.
The common denominator of victims and families such as those is that they not just feel but know that they are the forgotten ones. They know that they are not the priority of this Government, and they know that it is the country that gives shelter to the murderers of their loved ones that is the priority of this Government. Dress it up as he will, the Secretary of State’s remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only: appeasing the Government of the Irish Republic, who want to drag this United Kingdom before the Bar of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what this remedial order is about.
This remedial order is not about ceasing to implement laws with which the Government disagree, because those aspects of the legacy Act have already been removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the remedial order:
“Although the provisions declared incompatible with the ECHR by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied”—
they are gone!—
“the Government considers it important to remove all these provisions from the statute book swiftly.”
Why? The answer is the one that I have given: to appease the Dublin Government.
Indeed, the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when the remedial order goes through, it is his view that there would be no basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland’s action. That is the problem. We have a Secretary of State who is genuflecting to the Dublin Government. That is the feeling of innocent victims in our country. They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a Government that are interested primarily in facilitating those who give shelter to their killers.
There is no legal justification for this. It is quite clear under section 10 of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It is the issue of whether article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I demonstrated in my interventions, was used by the court to require the provisions to be disapplied, was a valid basis for disapplication. That is a live issue, therefore there is no legal justification—quite the reverse—for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the reason that I have said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Myself and my party, the DUP, stand squarely—[Interruption.]
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us will be very important. I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The door to justice must remain open. No equivalence can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrator. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved one, and there should be appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles investigations.
I am here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice. My family seeks justice, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks justice for his friend and comrade. It is for them that I underline the major flaws in this remedial order. It does not provide protection for service personnel. There is the recent history of members of the security forces being maligned and dragged through the courts as a result of vexatious allegations. Let us never forget that those stem from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelmingly about paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear: I talk about those with clean hands.
The announcement of the Irish Government’s role in the process, considering their perceived inaction on legacy issues within their own jurisdiction, which includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing, is yet more salt in the wound of those who watch murderers skip over the border with impunity. The reason that we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear and warranted: it was a murder haven for years.
Without information, there can be no Irish influence. Anything less is the gravest insult to the memory of those murdered and to the families who grieve them. The fact of the matter is that we can never equate the death of a terrorist killed when carrying out murder—[Interruption.]
David Smith
The hon. Gentleman will know the respect with which he is held in this Chamber for raising attention to the matters of terrorist atrocities over many years. On both sides of the House, we are keen to hear his stories, so we would just like him to take a moment and we look forward to hearing them.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. My cousin Kenneth Smyth and his good friend Daniel McCormick were murdered in an ambush on the way to work on 10 December 1971—54 years ago. There is no justice for my family and no justice for young Daniel McCormick. Their only crime was to wear the uniform of this nation, because they were in the Ulster Defence Regiment. They dared to cross the religious divide—Daniel was a Roman Catholic; my cousin Kenneth was a Protestant—and protect their communities from evil men. On 10 December they were slaughtered, leaving their wives and three young children behind. Those men escaped across the border to that murder haven in the Republic of Ireland.
Stuart Montgomery, 18 years old, was murdered by the IRA at Pomeroy. There was never any accountability for his family. Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA on 9 August 1971 while manning a checkpoint outside my aunt Isobel’s farm down at Clady. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun, they drove across the road, they cleared the bridge and where did they go? To the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether Raymond McCord is watching this. I am sure he is, back home. His son was murdered by the UVF because he stood up to them. He seeks justice as well. I seek justice for him, and I put that on record.
The Bill does nothing for those mourning families. It does nothing for the families of the Ballydugan Four. On 9 April 1990, near Ballydugan, Downpatrick, a Provisional IRA bomb blew up four men, three of whom I knew. I worked with Private Michael Adams in a butcher’s shop and I served with him in the Territorial Army. He joined the UDR. I remember the day Private John Birch was born. He died as well. I did not know Lance Corporal John Bradley from Dundalk, unfortunately, but he deserves justice. Then there was Private Steven Smart from Newtownards. I knew his dad and the family really well. The four men were killed. The explosion was massive, killing the four men in the second vehicle instantly and creating a crater some 50 feet long.
The point I want to make is that the Bill does not protect the RUC officer who shot the man who pushed the button and who blew up those four men. I will put it on record in this House that Colum Marks was the murdering scum of an IRA commander in Downpatrick who killed those four UDR men. Was he ever held accountable? No, he was not, but he did get held to account at one time. In Downpatrick, when he tried to set up a horizontal mortar bomb, he was shot by an RUC officer who was then taken and charged. The investigation found that he was not guilty, but the point I want to make is that we need protection. We need to make sure of that.
I am going to finish with this. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my tears. I find it very hard to express these things that have happened to people that I served with and knew. I am asking the Members of this House to ask themselves this: will this legislation do what the troubles legislation was intended for and provide justice? No, it will not. Will it help my cousin Shelley, my family and all the other families, including the family of Private Steven Smart, a lovely young boy, whose family I speak to down the street in Newtownards? No, it will not. Will this legislation enable the continued persecution of RUC, UDR and British Army veterans, many of whom have had their honourable service doubted and disputed, and who deserve better from this House? Will this Bill help to bring healing and comfort? The answer is no, it will not, and therefore I believe that tonight it must not pass.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Can I ask the House to pay tribute to and acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That emotion, that story and that heartfelt contribution to today’s debate are replicated across many houses across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this United Kingdom, in regard to those who have lost loved ones, both at the hands of terrorism and in other circumstances in Northern Ireland. That emotion is also felt by our veterans.
It is only when I came into this place that I realised, as a Northern Ireland politician, that when we speak of a Northern Ireland veteran, we speak of the RUC, the UDR, the home regiments and those who served, as well as the family and relatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and all those who contributed, including all those who went home at night not knowing if their colleague walking beside them was actually the individual who was passing information to the person who was planning their murder. But when I came here, I realised that the conversation is also about the Northern Ireland veterans from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve and to defend and protect what we believed was a democratic system in regard to our rights and our beliefs.
Let us remember that context in regard to that emotion and that service, and then look at what is being brought forward to this House and what is being asked of Members of this House and of members of the Government.
I have respect for many of them, but throughout this three-hour debate—no harm to the Government—their Benches were empty. When the bells ring, Government Members will come and do what they have been bid to do. That is in complete contrast with Monday evening. The question has been raised: why are we rushing this remedial order while there is no troubles Bill to replace it? Why the rush? On Monday evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), said on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill that
“we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 103.]
It is right to acknowledge that that is not a simple issue. The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward, which is why they took the decision to delay. If it was right for the Government to do that on Monday evening, it is right for this Secretary of State to delay this remedial order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regard to what is right and just, and then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward.
I want to refer to two contributions from Government Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who I have a lot of respect for from when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it is to use a remedial order, so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually reflect on what it is? In regard to those parts of the legislation that are being removed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) said that they have actually never taken effect, so why the rush to bring this remedial order?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I am deeply uneasy about this remedial order being brought in today. I will make no criticism of those who are here, but for major parts of this debate over the past three hours, the Government Back Benches were empty and yet 20-plus veterans have stayed in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings and see justice being done. I find it worrying. It is 6.57 pm on a Wednesday. There will be Members in the Tea Room and the bars, and Members working hard in their offices. The bells will ring, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) said, and they will come down and ask each other, “What are we voting on?” and they will say, “Oh, it’s a Northern Ireland thing.” What they will not realise is that this remedial order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.
Lincoln Jopp
I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way.
I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff.
But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.
Lincoln Jopp
I will not.
I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.
Hilary Benn
We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.
First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson
The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?
Hilary Benn
I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.
Hilary Benn
What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.
If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.
The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.
Gavin Robinson
I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?
Hilary Benn
We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.
What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.
It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.
Hilary Benn
No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.
The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.
We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.
Question put,
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks, but I place on record my appreciation for the agreement that this evening’s motion could be extended for double-time. Having praised the usual channels, the Government and Opposition Chief Whips and the Leader of the House, may I also pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for trying to ensure that everyone was accommodated. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is appreciated. As the Secretary of State knows, I do not appreciate the outcome, but I do appreciate that all Members were included.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
While that is not a point of order, it is very much appreciated and it is on the record.