(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I also ask you to be mindful about issues of sub judice; we have been given some flexibility by the Speaker, but I urge you to err on the side of caution when referring to ongoing cases.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716.
It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for the debate. We launched our inquiry in December 2024, and it stretched across 2025, culminating in the publication of our report shortly before Christmas. Alongside receiving almost 80 pieces of written evidence, we held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, we visited Northern Ireland several times to hear at first hand from people directly and indirectly affected by the troubles.
As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising our concerns with a unified voice. As I said during my statement on the Floor of the House when we published this report, I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. It is a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging meaningfully with all communities and demonstrating a strong cross-party consensus on outstanding issues of concern and specific provisions in the Bill that require amendment. Our hope is that the level of detail contained in our report will help to shape and inform the parameters of debate in this House and beyond across a wide range of issues. Although the Government provided a detailed response at the end of January, for which we are grateful, a number of important matters remain outstanding, and this debate offers an opportunity to explore some of those further.
I will start with resourcing. Beginning with the very foundation of the legacy process, my Committee repeatedly heard serious concerns about resourcing, which we set out in detail in the report. Put simply, no amount of reform, good will or political momentum will deliver truth or justice if the necessary funding is not in place for investigative bodies or those responsible for information disclosure. Even the current legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, pointed to concerns about sustainable financing going forward, given the increase in demand for its services—an increase that we hope will only continue under the new legacy commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland also needs to be considered, given the new demands on them to retrieve and categorise their records.
However, the Government’s response does not fully address the concerns we raised. Despite the commission being given new responsibilities through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the Government have not updated the initial funding allocation of £250 million following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. We put that to the Secretary of State when he appeared before my Committee earlier this month, and he acknowledged that further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury about the funding of the commission. Those conversations need to happen now.
Moreover, the Government state that funding for the PSNI is a matter for the Department of Justice and that it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to consider how and where they allocate funding. However, the Chief Constable of the PSNI told us in January:
“I get sent by the Secretary of State to the Executive, and by the Executive to the Secretary of State. The Executive will say, ‘This is Westminster-related’ and Westminster will say, ‘We give a significant grant to the Executive. It is for them to pay for this.’ I am caught between the two”.
That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.
On the requirement for bodies such as the PSNI to classify documents as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring them to the legacy commission, the Chief Constable also told us that, alongside that being logistically and financially burdensome, there are severe implications for trust and confidence in the PSNI. Again, the Government told us that the question of funding for the PSNI and other devolved organisations is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and that those organisations are best placed to identify sensitive material. However, Operation Kenova did not undertake such a predetermined assessment of legacy materials. I therefore reiterate our call for the Government to reassess the current financial envelope and to consider the wider implications of their reforms, particularly the substantial and currently underfunded administrative burdens they place on organisations such as the PSNI, which are already under significant pressure to deliver core services in the present, while also addressing the past.
On victims, financial resourcing may form the foundation of the legacy process, but victims and survivors unquestionably sit at its heart. We heard a range of concerns about how the new approach will operate in practice for them. For instance, on the proposed victims and survivors advisory group under the proposed legacy commission, questions have been raised about its membership, the method of appointment to it and the risk of it duplicating the important work already undertaken by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government commit to complementing the work of existing groups, but we await further information regarding the composition and operation of this new group.
The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Joe McVey, recently expressed concerns that the debate on legacy legislation had been reduced to a false dichotomy of “veterans versus victims”. His warning is important, and I encourage us all to bear it firmly in mind as we move forward.
On veterans, as I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives throughout our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, whom we heard from twice, told us late last year that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but said that the proposals were not really “protections” for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections, rather than as safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in this process among the very groups—veterans and others—in which they hope to instil confidence.
In response to us, the Government acknowledge the concerns that measures may not go far enough for many. They add that they are in active consultation with veterans on further steps, emphasising that any additional proposals must be “practically deliverable” and compliant with human rights obligations. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening, but we still await the detail of further measures before we can make a proper assessment.
On the structures proposed to address legacy, our report highlights several areas of concern. Owing to time, I will concentrate on some overarching ones, namely investigations, inquests, and information disclosure. On investigations and the question of who may request one, we heard from many stakeholders that the Bill’s narrow definition of a close family member risks excluding relatives who have often been central to pursuing answers, sometimes for decades after the events in question. Because the trauma is often carried from one generation to the next, our legislation must be designed with an awareness of these long-term and cross-generational effects.
Organisations including the ICRIR have urged the Government to broaden the definition of a close family member. In response to our report, however, the Government maintain that their current approach is “balanced”. None the less, they acknowledge that views differ on the matter, and have committed to continued engagement and careful consideration of those perspectives. Again, I gently encourage the Government to revisit the definition. We heard similar concerns regarding the rigidity and exclusivity of the list in the Bill stipulating what is considered
“serious physical or mental harm”.
On inquests, the Government’s plan for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission is seen by some as an improvement on the system introduced by the 2023 Act, but concerns persist, including regarding why judges are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. The Government reject the call for appointments to be routed through the commission, arguing that their approach is consistent with that for appointing inquiry chairs under the Inquiries Act 2005 and making many other public appointments.
Information disclosure has been and remains one of the more significant issues with legacy policy. The troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act or with Operation Kenova. Our report highlights concerns about trust, appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice. It is clear from the Government’s response that the proposals on information disclosure will not be revisited. That is likely to concern those who argue that retaining the so-called ministerial veto over what is disclosed presents a serious challenge to the Bill’s overall architecture and risks undermining trust and confidence.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Member for all her efforts on behalf of victims of the troubles and others. This is a chance to put in place accountability mechanisms that we should have put in place decades ago, particularly for those who do not have a judicial pathway. Families in Derry know what happened in their city on Bloody Sunday, regardless of a verdict. IRA victims know what directing terrorism looks like—the explaining away, the casualness with life—regardless of a judicial process.
Does the hon. Member agree that legislation alone will not get us to truth and a reconciled future, and that this must be an opportunity for those who created victims to step forward, bravely, to give that long overdue accountability: for the UK Government to accept that they compromised key human rights protections and at times colluded with paramilitaries; for loyalist paramilitaries to accept that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the IRA to step up and acknowledge their decades of coercion of communities, and their casualness with human lives—in seeking to achieve an outcome that could never have been achieved in any way other than democratically?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for the work she does and the perspective she brings to the Committee, and I agree that this is a matter of building trust and confidence and building a better future across these islands. That requires everybody to step up.
We noted a range of concerns in our report regarding the role of the Irish Government, including in relation to the timeline for equivalent legislation and information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. The Government response offers some welcome clarification. It confirms that the legacy unit is now operational and that the Irish Government intend to publish the necessary legislation to facilitate co-operation in either April or May this year. However, actions will matter far more than assurances, and we now await the practical outworkings of those commitments.
Finally, we know and respect the fact that, for some, reconciliation may be impossible. For others, it could be the basis of a better future. My Committee will soon begin an inquiry that explores that in detail. The Government’s response did not fully address the concerns we set out in that section of our report, particularly those relating to part 4 of the 2023 Act. We will use our forthcoming inquiry into reconciliation to continue pressing these questions.
We await the next stage of the troubles Bill, when we will all have the opportunity to put those who carry the legacy of the past at the heart of a new approach for the future. We owe it to them to get it right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would like to start by referring to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sadly no longer in her place. She talked about people stepping forward and speaking the truth. I believe that the Government’s new approach makes that less, rather than more, likely to happen. In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government speak in disparaging terms about the immunity provisions that the previous Conservative Government laid down; those immunity provisions are described as an affront to democracy. I do not believe that is true at all. It is not true any more than claiming that what happened in South Africa, when Nelson Mandela sought to heal that society, was an affront to their new democracy.
Sir Julian Lewis
I would like to make a little progress first, then I certainly will. I chaired the Defence Committee when we produced a report that recommended the combination of a statute of limitation with a truth recovery process as the best way to proceed. That report took evidence, as I have mentioned many times, from four eminent professors of law. They pointed out that that recommendation was a perfectly legal way to proceed, provided that, if immunities were introduced, they would be brought in for everybody, and provided that the matters concerned would be properly investigated. That investigation could consist of a truth recovery process; it did not have to involve prosecuting people after the investigations had taken place. Some of us have been very concerned about the malicious and vexatious prosecution of service personnel.
If the idea is, on the one hand, to rule out the vexatious pursuit of service personnel and, on the other hand, to heal society by allowing people who suffered in the troubles to find out the truth, then the package of a statute of limitation coupled with a truth recovery process seemed ideal. I cannot quite understand why the Government, and those who support their approach of reopening all those investigations, seem to think that their approach will lead to effective truth recovery. How much more likely is it that people will come forward and tell the truth when they know that they could be incriminating themselves because the Government have reopened that lethal can of worms? That compares with a situation inherent in the original package: by giving everybody immunity, people could then come forward and tell the truth without any fear of adverse consequences to themselves.
The other objection that is made, which I see spelled out explicitly in the Government’s response to the report, is that it is insulting to put everybody on the same level—that it is putting terrorists, service personnel and security forces on the same level. I have pointed out on countless occasions—and never heard a convincing refutation of this—that that ship has already sailed. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 laid down that if anyone is convicted, even of the most appalling atrocities—murders, tortures, rape, you name it—in relation to the troubles, they will not actually serve more than two years in jail. Why does it say that for everyone? Because the law has to be impartial. Just because the law applies impartially to service personnel and terrorists alike does not mean that it draws a moral equivalence between them, and neither did the package here. Its purpose was to give immunity to stop vexatious prosecutions and to enable the truth recovery process to allow the victims to find out what had happened.
A third point that has been put forward is: “Well, they want justice.” But in order to get justice, there has to be a realistic prospect of securing convictions. Even in the case of Bloody Sunday, where we would have thought there was the maximum chance of securing convictions, no conviction was secured. So why do people want to reopen all the prosecutions of service personnel? The answer is that it is not because they expect to get convictions, but because they want to rewrite history and put service personnel through the trauma of being tried, investigated and pursued, even though it is overwhelmingly unlikely that they will be convicted of anything. As has been said before, and deserves to be said again, the punishment is the process, not the actual conviction at the end of that process, which would not be obtained.
I appreciate that the Government have a mandate to try this approach, and I have to respect that. I hope that they will be proven right, and that we on the Opposition Benches will be proven wrong, but somehow I do not think so. It does not help for the Government to insult those of us who tried genuinely to put forward a combination of measures that we were told was legal by four professors of law—a package with immunity for everyone on the one hand, and a truth recovery process to fulfil the obligation to investigate on the other. That package would have been far more likely to lead to reconciliation and the recovery of truth, and to avoid the vexatious pursuit of brave service and security personnel. The Government cannot say that they have not been warned.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain; I wish you a happy St Patrick’s day. I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for securing this debate and choosing this topic, and I commend her and the Committee for their solid work. Their useful report brings together many different aspects of the Government’s work on this issue, and gave a platform to so many victims, organisations and voices that are often not heard in this place to talk about the impact it has on them, what they think about the current work and what they hope for in future.
This Friday is the anniversary of the 1993 Warrington bombing, when Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball—two children—were killed and 54 people were injured. Not a week goes by, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, when we do not remember the victims. They are the people we should have in our minds when we talk about the troubles, and about legacy and reconciliation. Secretary of States do not often come to Westminster Hall, so I welcome the presence of the Secretary of State, who I know has taken a personal interest in righting the wrongs of the previous Government’s legislation, and in what that can do for society in Northern Ireland, both now and for future generations.
It is important to remember what this is fundamentally about; I could see that it was on the minds of all Committee members throughout the inquiry. More than 3,500 people, across Northern Ireland and in towns, cities and military barracks across England, died in the troubles. They included nearly 2,000 civilians and more than 1,100 members of our security forces. Nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved, and a great many victims and families, some of whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was a Minister, are still seeking answers. Their questions remain with me. I will never forget sitting in the WAVE Trauma Centre in Belfast and talking to victims, who, so many years later, have so many questions and just want to know what happened to their loved ones.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is delivering an excellent speech. Does she recognise the fact that there are also 200 service families among those victims who are seeking answers, and that the Bill will help to address that issue at the same time?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a very good point: this also includes service families. No matter what family someone comes from, it is a huge loss. These are people missing from family tables, about whom there are still questions, and it is a trauma not to know what happened—that is what this legacy legislation aims to resolve. We are so many years on, and there is so much investigating yet to do. I understand that many people simply want to know how their loved ones died.
The ICRIR is taking forward 100 investigations, some of which Peter Sheridan listed in his evidence to the Committee. Those include the deaths of Alexander Millar in 1975; Seamus Bradley, a 19-year-old; Rory O’Kelly in 1977; Kathleen O’Hagan in August 1994, who was seven months’ pregnant, and her baby also died in that attack; James and Ellen Sefton in 1990; and Judge Rory Conaghan in 1974. Those are just some of the people who died—their families have questions, and they are being investigated by the ICRIR.
The commission’s caseload also includes the 1974 Guildford pub bombings, the 1974 M62 coach bombing, the 1976 Kingsmill massacre, and the 1979 Warrenpoint massacre, which was the deadliest attack on British forces during the troubles. We must ensure that those investigations can progress and deliver answers for families, and that all communities can have confidence in the commission, as trust was also a key element of the evidence given in the report.
The last Government’s legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland, and it is clear why that was the case. It shut down the right of individuals to pursue a civil case, whether against the state or perpetrators of terrorism. It cruelly stopped a number of inquests midway through, and it ended over 1,000 police investigations in Northern Ireland and England, including those into the deaths of more than 200 UK service personnel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) highlighted.
The Act was also widely opposed in Northern Ireland by political parties and victims and families. In November 2025, Sandra Peake—the chief executive of the WAVE Trauma Centre—wrote to all MPs, and she also gave very powerful evidence to the Committee for the report. In her letter to MPs, Sandra said:
“The then Government wanted to draw a veil over the past but there isn’t a veil thick enough to hide the blood and bones of murdered loved ones or to muffle the cries of their families.”
The arbitrary ending of troubles-related inquests, and closing the civil action route to justice, confirmed the belief that the interests of victims were not only not on the agenda, but had not even made it into “Any other business”.
Leigh Ingham
I, too, met victims at the WAVE centre when I was on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. When I read the letter that my hon. Friend just mentioned, this comment really resonated with me:
“Whatever the then Government’s intention, the result would have been that terrorists who carried out the most egregious crimes imaginable would be able to walk free if they told their story”.
They felt like that was too much, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are right to address this issue for victims who have come forward?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree; it was just too much even to ask or encourage more people to come forward—if they did come forward, there would be no justice. The families of victims often see those people in their local supermarket; they are living in their communities, but the families know that there is no hope of them ever having justice. That is too painful to contemplate.
Like the report, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a very different approach. I know that the Secretary of State engaged widely on the drafting of the Bill with victims’ groups, families, veterans and other affected parties, and I was pleased to play a part in those discussions. The troubles Bill will restore civil cases and enable the resumption of halted inquests. It will mean that legacy cases are dealt with sensitively and efficiently through a reformed legacy commission, with the fullest possible disclosure of information to families. Rather than making false promises to our veterans, as the legacy Act did, the Bill will put in place six genuine protections for any veteran who is asked to give information, and nobody who carried out acts of terrorism will be given immunity.
We should be clear that it was terrorists—the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Defence Association—who were responsible for the vast majority of deaths during the troubles. It is right that where there is evidence of criminality by anyone, those responsible should be held to account. Frankly, it is shocking that many Opposition Members disagree and would prefer to grant immunity to those who carried out the most heinous acts of terrorism on UK soil.
The Government agreed information-sharing commitments with the Irish authorities under the joint framework announced in September. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee visited Ireland before and during the compilation of the report. The agreement is unprecedented and could be hugely significant in enabling answers to be found for families once the new legacy commission is established.
I am glad that the report highlights the powers of the Secretary of State, the definition of a family member, and the need to listen to victims, listen again and keep listening. These are people who have lost trust in the system. Slowly but surely—through the Government’s actions and the actions of organisations such as the South East Fermanagh Foundation, WAVE and so many others working in mental health across Northern Ireland—the trust of families has been built up. But they will need to see good outcomes.
I welcome the increased funding for the commission and the PSNI, and the reiteration of the need for speed in this work. As has been pointed out many times, many of the family members are now elderly. They are seeing out the end of their days and just want the answers they seek in time.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she was an excellent Minister in her own right. Will she join me in paying tribute to Councillor Tommy Judge, who has been the Labour councillor for Sharston ward in my constituency for many years, and who was a victim of the 1974 bus bomb? He is standing down after many years of public service, but he will carry that with him, in his retirement, to the end.
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Tommy Judge, the work he has done and all that he has lived with throughout his life. My hon. Friend and I have met many other people across England who are working to support victims and survivors in Great Britain, as well as in Northern Ireland.
The report ends on a cliffhanger. It ends by talking about wider reconciliation, which is very important, because the legacy legislation is just part of a piece of wider work that needs to be done that is important for reconciliation. When I have been to Northern Ireland, I have asked many times: “What is reconciliation? What does it mean? What will be the outcome? What will it look like?” It means different things to different people. Some people do not want reconciliation; for some people, reconciliation means answers; for some people, it means the ability to live together in a community peacefully; and for some people, it means good jobs, education and opportunities, and hope for the future.
With the world watching the peace process in Northern Ireland, this work could not be more important. It is a beacon of hope for people in other conflicts around the world, who look to Northern Ireland and say, “It has been possible in Northern Ireland,” and who look to the ways in which we continue to build that peace, bit by bit. It is hard, and we are seeing how hard it is, but the ultimate aim must be for communities to be able to live and thrive peacefully together, and to reduce the generational trauma—to reduce the amount that is passed down to future generations.
I hope that future Select Committee reports will look at other aspects of reconciliation, including integrated education, which is an absolutely necessary part of bringing together communities, especially young for people. Just living and working together in a school all the time is so important, as has been reiterated to me so many times by parents and peacemakers in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Committee will consider that aspect too.
Having made that recommendation for future reports, I congratulate the Committee on the report we are debating, on the work the Committee has done, and on how influential I am sure the report will be on the work done not only by the Government but by many organisations and people across Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on bringing forward the report, and the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the way she has stewarded the debate and taken evidence from so many groups. Bringing forward a unanimous report on such a delicate issue in Northern Ireland is testament to all those who were involved and to those who gave evidence. It is a very difficult issue, because it is still very raw in Northern Ireland.
On this day in 1988, two British Army corporals, Derek Wood and David Howes, were attacked, beaten, abused and then shot because they happened to drive into the middle of a Provisional IRA funeral in Belfast. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember watching the reports on television and the brutality of the attack—the seemingly unwarranted deaths of two serving officers in Northern Ireland. That is where the troubles Bill does a disservice to some of our veterans with regard to how they served in Northern Ireland and how they are now being treated.
The concerns of veterans have been touched on many times and are referenced in the report, especially in the six promised protections for Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State knows well that we have had many debates in which those specific protections have been highlighted and exposed as being there for all, not specifically for veterans, as detailed in the wording of the Bill. Words are fine, but unless they are on the face of the legislation, they can be lost, misinterpreted, repealed or even weakened in the interpretation as the Bill goes forward, and even through the judiciary.
I thank the House for allowing this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s reflections on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, because we have not yet had the opportunity to do so in the main Chamber. When the remedial order came before the House earlier this year, we were given the impression that the troubles Bill was only days or weeks away. Yet the Leader of the House today gave indications of next week’s business, and we still have no sight of when the Bill will reach Committee stage, so that the Committee of the whole House can delve into what it will mean for victims, veterans and Northern Ireland society alike. That is why this debate is important. In that regard, I am disappointed by the absence of some Northern Ireland MPs, because we asked for this opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and they have not taken the opportunity to be here today. I understand that others have other commitments.
A remedial order—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said it is an unusual type of legislation, seldom used—was brought forward in January.
Alex Ballinger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so sensitive in his speech. He mentions the remedial order that does away with the immunity scheme set up by the last Government; does he accept that that scheme was never actually in place, because it was struck down by the courts in Northern Ireland? The remedial order is really just a tidying-up exercise, rather than changing anything while the new Bill goes through Parliament.
Robin Swann
I do accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to my contribution in that debate at the end of January, he will see that I made that same point, because I could not understand why the Government were in such a rush to bring forward a piece of legislation that was not actually necessary, as he indicated.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am not an expert on the more recent developments, but I think I remember correctly that the previous Government were appealing that particular court decision, and this Government took a deliberate decision to discontinue the appeal.
Robin Swann
The right hon. Member is correct. That appeal was being heard at the time, and I remember those issues being raised.
I am conscious that this debate is on the Select Committee report, and I want to congratulate the work that has been done, and its sensitivity in balancing victims and veterans. Over the past number of weeks and months, concerns have been raised that the debate over here has focused on veterans and is doing a disservice to victims of the troubles. I think that is an inaccurate portrayal of the work done by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by those who take an active interest what the Bill is about.
I want to concentrate on one recommendation for the Bill that my party introduced, on the inclusion of sexual crimes in the types of crimes and incidents that can be looked at. It has been mentioned that the biggest objection to the previous Government’s legacy Act was that no Northern Ireland Executive party supported it. The Northern Ireland Assembly has debated the issue of sexual crimes, and there was cross-party support for a motion that said that the Assembly
“accepts that crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse, have a particularly insidious effect on society and have a long-lasting physical and psychological impact on the victim and their wider family”.
The motion called on the UK Government
“to ensure that victims of Troubles-related sexual violence can seek a legacy investigation as part of the proposed Legacy Commission and that crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, are included as a separate qualifying criteria alongside serious injury and death”.
I mention that because have tabled an amendment on the issue, and I am thankful to other Members for their support for it, but the Secretary of State’s response to date has been lacking. He said that the legacy commission can
“investigate Troubles-related sexual offences which are connected to a death or serious injury or that cause such injury”,
but that leaves out some cases.
Máiría Cahill, a young woman from a prominent republican family who was raped by a senior member of the IRA in west Belfast, has asked that such cases be included. Paudie McGahon, who was 17 at the time, was raped by an IRA man who had been moved to safehouse in the Irish Republic, but instead of facing justice for rape, the rapist was exiled. The Secretary of State has said in correspondence that these cases can now be investigated by the police. The reason why they were not brought to the police at the time was the threat of paramilitary reaction to the individuals and their families.
Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls. I encourage anyone who does not serve on that Committee to listen to her evidence, because it relates to the type of abuse that happened during the troubles. That coercion, power and control is seen in abuse elsewhere, so I wanted to highlight that recommendation put forward by my party in its response to the inquiry.
A number of Members have raised the issue of trust and confidence in the Government and the new process. What worries me, as the Government move on with their changes and what they see as adaptations to the previous institutions, is a loss of trust and confidence. A lot of work has been done by key members of the ICRIR to engage with all sections of the community to make sure that those who in the past never came forward to seek justice are now engaging.
What concerns me about the new commission is that we begin to lose some of the credibility and trust that has been built up by the likes of Sir Declan Morgan and Peter Sheridan, who have put a lot of time, energy, sweat and personal commitment into driving forward the work of the ICRIR. It is the small things, such as the creation of two directors of investigation rather than one, which could take away from the work that has already been done.
The Select Committee Chair raised the influence of the Irish Government, and the Secretary of State has heard me say many times that I think the Irish Government are missing in this process. They have not stepped up. They have used words of favour and encouragement about what they will do and what they will bring tomorrow, but they have not produced anything in relation to what the UK Government are currently doing. If they had been honest actors, the two pieces of legislation would have run concurrently and been delivered at the same time.
The Secretary of Secretary of State referred to legislation around the Omagh investigation; that is completely separate legislation. The two should not be equated. The Omagh legislation is a specific response to the Omagh inquiry, not to anything that is currently being done. I do have concerns about what the Irish will do. There has been talk of them producing legislation in April or May. The Irish Government, I think, and the Teachtaí Dála we engaged with at Committee level, talked about the publication of a heads of a Bill, which is completely different from what we do.
I put on the record again my and my party’s concerns that the Irish Government will not be honest actors in this matter. We have experienced that in the past. We experienced it when they promised the release of documentation and records in respect of Kingsmill. What they actually produced was a folder of newspaper cuttings, which left the families deeply disappointed.
I congratulate the Committee on the publication of the report and I thank those who have come to take part in the debate. I look forward to continual engagement with all those involved, so that we can see the outworkings of the Government’s proposed legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I apologise to the two Members who are standing; we have 12 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches, so that is six minutes each.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am planning on being brief today. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate and to the work that the Committee has done—the formal and informal evidence that we took and the people that we met. Even though I have friends who lost family members, it was exceptionally helpful to get that overall perspective.
It is clear that the troubles affected everybody who lived or served in Northern Ireland, particularly those who lived close to the border with the Irish Republic and those who lost loved ones in horrific circumstance, whether they were innocent civilians or members of the armed services. The bus tour that we took along the border with the South East Fermanagh Foundation will stay with me for the rest of my life. I know the Secretary of State and Minister have met with many of the same people that we did and the effects will be just as clear to them.
The report from the Select Committee about the action that needs to be taken is a recognition that this is probably the last opportunity we will get to try and do the right thing for those who lost loved ones, those who survived horrific attacks, and everybody who is still looking for answers.
I will concentrate on the recommendation to expand the definition of a close family member. In my mind, the current Bill and the response from the Government fail to recognise the issues about many of the service personnel who lost their lives in the troubles. Those who served on the frontline in our armed services were often young; they were in their late teens and early 20s. My constituent Donald Blair, who lost his life at Warrenpoint, was 23—others were 18 or 19. They had not settled down or started families, even at a time when people married much earlier than they do now. For somebody who was killed in 1971 at the age of 18, it is exceptionally unlikely that their parents will still be alive. In some parts of the country, it is increasingly unlikely that their siblings will still be alive, and they are also unlikely to have had children or grandchildren. Those victims are remembered by their cousins and more distant relations. Certainly, in cases that I know of, it is cousins who are the ones fighting for this information. They are fighting for enquiries for information that the legacy commission should be able to provide. We owe it to them not to bar them from getting answers; we owe it to them to expand definitions.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon—a brief Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Eight minutes of brevity, Dame Siobhain. I will try and squeeze it into eight minutes, but it will be difficult. I am very pleased to be here. I thank the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and particularly the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for her hard work on this topic, which is a complex issue with numerous concerns. I understand that it is impossible to please everyone, but we must always please the tenets of truth and justice. I do not believe that this has been achieved. I say that with great respect to the Committee and the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) has just reminded us of the murder of the two corporals. I remember where I was: it was Saturday, I was sitting watching the TV, and it felt like a film, but the brutality and violence of the despicable murder of those two soldiers was happening in real life.
My party has deep concerns that the Government have chosen to press ahead with their intent to restore provision for inquests without a fundamental appraisal of how the coronial system in Northern Ireland approaches troubles-related cases, specifically the actions of the security forces.
One need only to look at the disgraceful coroner’s report on the Clonoe inquest, where the coroner exceeded his remit by questioning the honest belief of ex-SAS soldiers during the 1992 ambush, where four IRA members were killed after attacking Coalisland Royal Ulster Constabulary station. That disgracefully politically motivated overreach of the coroner merely confirmed the view that those inquests are not designed to meet the obligations of truth and justice, but can ignore the actions of the terrorists and make victim-makers into victims.
The Government have taken no steps to rectify the system that allowed the Clonoe inquiry to report as it did, and therefore the right-thinking people of Northern Ireland—those who lived through the troubles: my generation and my parents’ generation—have no faith in the system, which they believe exists as a sop to terrorism, aiming to rewrite the evils we lived through as though they were understandable and excusable. Ask those burnt at La Mon, whose scars receive medical attention to this day, if they understand or excuse the bomb that murdered innocent people. If God spares me and I get home in time, I will be at the La Mon Hotel tonight, and it will be a reminder of what happened there.
The balance in the focus of investigations towards members of the security forces is in itself a barrier to fairness. Inquest proceedings have often enabled legal representatives to use high-profile public hearings to aggressively examine witnesses, including ageing veterans, and to push spurious and unchallenged narratives of the troubles.
The Democratic Unionist party does not agree that legal aid should be provided to the next of kin in an inquest —nor does it agree with the form of what Government have called “enhancing inquisitorial proceedings”, the bulk of which will focus on state involvement—but not to witnesses to those proceedings, or to those seeking answers and redress for their loved ones via legacy investigations. Many families bereaved through terrorism faced the ignominy of tick-box inquests, with little in the way of information provided and no state funded legal representation. That should not be compounded by sustaining a deep inequality in how inquests are dealt with going forward.
Subsequently, we cannot and will not support this approach, which gives power and funding to those who wish to paint blood on to the hands of RUC and service personnel who were held to account at the time and since, and yet allow republicans to be painted in glowing colours of glory. That is unbearable, and we will not ask our people to bear it. Neither can we allow to go unchallenged the repeated refusal of the Irish Government to admit their collusion, and continuing to be a haven of safety for republican terrorists, who knew they could skip across the border and not a question would be asked, not a car would be searched, and not a murderer of babies and women would be held to account.
I remember the murder of those two superintendents that the hon. Member for South Antrim referred to. Superintendents Breen and Buchanan were murdered by the IRA on the border. They had been at a meeting in the Republic of Ireland, when, coming back up north, the two of them were blown up at the border. This question has often been posed, and I pose it again today. The Garda Síochána had a mole who gave the information, the intelligence, to the IRA who then murdered those two guys at the border. The Republic of Ireland—forgive me for pointing the finger—has a case to answer in relation to those two men. They were murdered because they were RUC personnel, and yet the Garda Síochána never had an inquiry into the intelligence breakdown, or compassion for the families. I make that case.
I also make a case for Daniel McCormick and Kenneth Smyth—people might know that Kenneth Smyth was my cousin—murdered in December ’71. I also think of Lexie Cummings, murdered in Strabane. The people who murdered him escaped across the border. Where did the people who murdered Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever to be killed, go? Across the border. Why did they go to the border? Because they could get away with it. I want accountability, so let us make the Garda Síochána and the Republic of Ireland accountable in this process. We hear about collusion in the RUC and the armed forces, with spurious allegations put forward, and yet the truth that the dogs on the street know about the Garda Síochána and the Irish Government is their shelter of murderers, and that is left as just the way things are. Well, that is not for me, and not for anyone else.
I remind the Westminster Hall Chamber that my family knows at first hand about that collusion, and we understand it. We know about the future of Unionists in the Republic of Ireland—it is a dark, cold and unforgiving place for Unionists. I hope they are listening down in the Republic of Ireland, because that is how my people see it. That is how my family felt, who left there to go north, because that was where they had a future. There was no future for my family, for my mum and dad, and those others from the Republic of Ireland who came north.
That is why any form of Irish co-operation with any inquiries can only begin with sincere apologies. Let us get those apologies. Let the Republic of Ireland apologise to us for giving sanctuary, security and a haven to those murdering scum that they were. That is what I want to hear about. Any form of Irish co-operation with any inquiries can only begin when that happens, and when we get some information leading to the prosecution of murders. Until that day comes, there can be, and should be, no co-operation with those whose hands are as bloody as some, such as Gerry “I was never in the IRA, by the way” Adams—we know him, as he is the one.
I said at the outset of my comments that we cannot satisfy everyone, but we must satisfy truth and justice. My mother was about truth and justice, always about what is right. This approach does neither, and merely further alienates the true victims of the troubles. That is why we ask any right-thinking Member of this House to refuse to allow legislation to pass that lets the murder of two unborn children in Omagh be painted as part of a glorious cause. It was not—it was evil and wicked. We stood for many years against that evil in Northern Ireland, so I stand against it today, together with others in this House. It cannot be permitted. I ask all Members present to join me and others in satisfying truth and justice, which is what it is always about. Eight minutes is almost done, so thank you, Dame Siobhain, for giving me the chance to speak for that wee bit longer.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate. I begin by warmly acknowledging the men and women who served during Operation Banner.
Everyone knows—even the Tories, in their more candid moments—that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a profound mistake, granting immunity to terrorists, creating a shameful moral equivalence between paramilitaries hellbent on breaking the law and our brave veterans who risked, and in many cases lost, their lives upholding the very rule of law that the legacy Act undermined. In the Dillon case, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear: core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Yes, the new Government abandoned the appeal on that point in the Supreme Court, but with no faith in the position, they were right to do so.
That is why the remedial order mattered. It was a necessary step to bring the UK back within its legal obligations, and to restore a measure of trust for those who have waited decades for truth and accountability. The Conservatives, however, treated the order as a political opportunity, rather than as a moment for sober reflection. To use the plight of our veterans to rage against the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 and to play destructive party politics is something that has not gone unnoticed among the many veterans organisations with whom I have been working—[Interruption.] I will give way.
Mr Kohler
I will now move on to consider the Government’s response to the more salient recommendations made by the Select Committee. Turning first to the treatment of sexual offences, the Government acknowledge that the previous Act created a de facto bar on investigating sexual offences not linked to death or serious injury, but their proposed split model raises concerns. Clause 32 limits investigations to what is deemed necessary for ECHR compliance, which will result in the commission handling some cases while others fall to the police to investigate, creating potential confusion.
On the disclosure of reports, the commission is required to examine all circumstances while also considering specific family questions, but it is unclear how those duties will be balanced or the commission’s findings reported. When I visited the WAVE Trauma Centre, concerns were expressed that, by answering sometimes deeply personal questions, published reports could reveal issues and concerns that victims would not want made public. The chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, has assured me that the commission will act with sensitivity in such circumstances, but victims’ families want something more tangible than that.
That leads directly to the role and powers of the commission. The proposal to grant powers through established statutory procedures rather than enshrining them in the Bill risks opacity and reduced accountability. While a “small number of cases” where current powers fall short are acknowledged, it is far from clear how or if those gaps will be addressed. Alongside the topic of powers sits the question of resources. While the Government’s commitment to a £250 million total funding envelope for legacy mechanisms is welcome, there is widespread agreement that that is not enough. The PSNI chief constable, Jon Boutcher, has given compelling testimony that he has insufficient funding to address his legacy responsibilities. The Government suggest that PSNI funding is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Executive. However, the costs of legacy, arising as they did under what occurred during direct rule, must surely be borne by the British state, not out of funds provided by the Province’s normal funding formula.
The thorniest issue is, of course, the safeguards afforded to veterans. The Secretary of State has been at pains to stress the centrality of his six protections, but as he acknowledges, in their current form they
“do not go far enough”.
I know he has been in discussion with many veterans’ groups, and I have heard from many of them their gratitude for the time and consideration that he has given them. A date for the Bill Committee has still not been published, which I assume means that discussions within the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence are still ongoing. While I have no desire to unduly rush the Secretary of State on this issue, I respectfully remind him that the many veterans’ groups to which he has been talking are anxious to know what extra safeguards will be included in the promised Government amendments to the Bill.
Closely connected to victims’ safeguards is the question of disclosure and national security. A major concern is the Government’s refusal to introduce a merits-based appeal against ministerial denials of disclosure, and the reliance instead on judicial review, which considers procedural correctness rather than the merits of a decision. While the Government cite the primacy of the Executive, that principle does not sit comfortably within a legacy process that is aimed at restoring public trust and transparency. I have consequently tabled an amendment to the Bill that would require any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would ensure proper scrutiny and accountability to Parliament.
Our goal is reconciliation. Whenever I ask about reconciliation, I am directed to part 4 of the legacy Act, which is not going to be repealed. Part 4 focuses on oral history and memorialisation. Those have an important role to play, but it is striking how little attention appears to be given to restorative justice in any meaningful sense, because reconciliation cannot be addressed through reports and archives alone. My primary concern is that justice is still being mediated through the narrow lens of lawyers, with criminal or civil actions given too great a prominence in the process. I have personally participated in the restorative justice process, and I know that it begins with the questions that many victims of the troubles are asking: “Why me?” or “Why my loved ones?”
Restorative justice creates a space for answers, acknowledgment, and some form of resolution. The current Bill offers no meaningful avenue for restorative justice, which is why I have tabled amendments to incorporate that formally into the process, ensuring that victims and veterans have a voluntary, structured mechanism with which to engage and seek meaningful reconciliation. Without that, reconciliation risks being misconceived and incomplete.
At its core, this process will command confidence only if victims feel heard, veterans are treated fairly, and the system delivers answers that are credible and transparent. Broad commitments alone are not enough. The Government must address the gaps highlighted by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Without doing so, the process risks failing those who it is intended to serve, undermining trust and leaving decades of questions unanswered.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for its work. The Committee is always incredibly thoughtful and diligent in the prosecution of its duties, and the report has been very interesting. I will try to resist the opportunity to re-litigate the whole troubles Bill and the argument around the legacy Act in the next 10 minutes, rather than focus on the report. However, it is important that hon. Members remember how the legacy Act came to be, and how the previous Labour Government treated the whole issue of the peace process.
The idea of immunity was good enough for the Labour Government in 1998—indeed, it was fundamental to the legislation that fell within the peace process. I think of the two-year limit on sentences that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) referred to, but also of the legislation regarding bodies that had been buried, and about the destruction of weapons where forensic evidence was destroyed. Those were all forms of immunity, and it is why—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—an appeal to the Supreme Court could easily have been successful. Very experienced legal advice shows that that would have been the case, so it was wrong of the Government to drop it.
The Government have decided that they are opposed to immunity, but they were not opposed to immunity in 1998. They were not opposed to immunity in 2005, when Peter Hain brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity only to former terrorists. Only under enormous pressure from the House, which decided that it would have to introduce immunity for soldiers as well, was that measure dropped under pressure from Sinn Féin. The Labour party has a very selective memory on those issues.
Fleur Anderson
In 1998 immunity was in the Good Friday agreement, and the whole population got to vote on that, and on whether or not they agreed with that immunity—it was very controversial. There was no vote on whether the population agreed with immunity in the legacy Act. In fact, all the democratically elected parties lined up to oppose that immunity.
Alex Burghart
It applied to only one side, and over time that one-sidedness became apparent to lots of people, including veterans. That is why it was important. In 2005, there was no democratic mandate for what the Labour Government tried to do to give immunity to terrorists. What we are trying to do, and what we tried to do in our legacy Act, is rebalance the argument, and in so doing bring about the sort of process that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East spoke so powerfully about. The adversarial system will not bring about proper truth and reconciliation, and it will not encourage people to come forward with new information. Instead, it will reopen old wounds and allow for the continuation of the troubles by other means. For that very important reason of principle, we cannot support the legislation.
To return to the report issued by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I will quickly pick up on four areas. On the consideration of the ICRIR, I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan, who has been an excellent head. Every time that I have heard people question the ICRIR’s independence, I have felt the need to come to Sir Declan’s defence. Anyone who has met him and seen his work will know that he is thoroughly independent, and woe betide any politician who tried to lean on him.
The argument that the ICRIR has struggled to build the trust and authority needed to operate effectively is already outdated. As of 30 November 2025, 231 requesting individuals had approached the commission, 245 cases were recorded, and 110 investigations had been opened into a total of 188 deaths and five cases of serious harm. Those numbers were growing every month. Indeed, the more time that the ICRIR was given, the more public trust it gained and the more its work was flourishing. Now, just as it is getting going, it is going to be cut off at the knees. I was pleased that the report mentioned the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal finding in 2024, which said,
“we find that these arrangements do not of themselves offend the principle of independence given the fact that ICRIR is ultimately made up and staffed by independent investigators and decision makers including the commissioners.”
I would much rather that the ICRIR was being given time.
It is clear that there are no explicit or particular protections for veterans in the Government’s legislation, and I was pleased that the Committee said that the Government were overselling that claim—indeed they are. No armed forces bodies believe that these protections are sufficient. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said, many veterans’ groups are concerned that the Government are moving away from the policies established by the Conservative party in power.
On the subject of Ireland, there were very powerful contributions from the hon. Members for South Antrim and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We all want this element of the Government’s arrangements to work, but we must remain sceptical, not least because of the Republic’s long-standing failure to produce the goods in this area. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee outlined on page 85 of its report, equivalent legislation structures are not expected. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) used a wonderful phrase, stating that there is a lack of “practical outworkings” in this area, and indeed there is. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, it was a dreadful missed opportunity that the framework did not include a commitment from the Republic to start its own Omagh inquiry. That was the most wicked attack of the whole troubles, and it is shameful that there are only investigations into what the British state could have done to prevent it, rather than investigations into the people who committed that dreadful atrocity.
I was pleased that the Committee referred to costs, as did several other hon. Members. The PSNI estimates that it will need an extra £1 billion over the next 10 years to cope with the new caseload. The legacy commission is seriously underfunded for the additional caseload that it will acquire as it transitions from being the ICRIR. Without that money, there will be a huge backlog in the caseload of the legacy commission, and there will also be a reduction in frontline policing in Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. We strongly disagree with what the Government are doing, but if they are going to do it, they must make the money available to ensure that public services and institutions in Northern Ireland function properly. Finally, I ask the Secretary of State one quick question: when will we see the Bill again?
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee with such distinction, on securing the debate. I thank the members of the Select Committee who have come today, including those who I know have made a very special effort to be present. The Government have published their response to the report. I will not rehearse all those arguments and details today, but I will do my best, in the limited time I have, to respond to many of the points that have been made.
As we have heard, not least from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the legacy of the troubles still affects the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. We need to get this right. We know how we got here: the previous piece of legislation, whatever its intentions, did not work, and that is why we have the troubles Bill before us. I am confident that the provisions contained in the Bill will bring about the necessary reform to the commission. I think it is fair to say that it had a reasonably positive response from victims and survivors and others in Northern Ireland, although there is still a deep lack of trust in what has happened.
We undoubtedly owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt. I will be clear: there will be no rewriting of history. The Bill is not going to change the way in which people view the troubles. As we have hard, terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. There was always an alternative, and there never was—never will be—any equivalent between our brave armed forces and those who set out to kill their fellow citizens.
The Bill includes strong safeguards for veterans that were not in the legacy Act. They have been introduced to try to ensure that veterans have fair treatment, but I am, with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Armed Forces Minister, looking at what more we can do to build greater confidence. The House will see the result of those considerations in Committee, and the date will be set in the normal way. I have to be frank in this debate, however, that we are not going to accept any proposals that seek to reintroduce the immunity provisions. The Government disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and there is no support in Northern Ireland. Equally, there is no question of anyone who followed the rules being prosecuted.
To respond to the points raised, on funding, as I said to the Select Committee, there will need to be further discussions as the caseload of the commission unfolds. The victims and survivors advisory group has a very specific role. I made it clear that I am looking to ensure veteran representation on it. I agree with what Joe McVey said about the nature of some of our debate, but I think we have had a more balanced debate this afternoon.
On close family members, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), we have to strike a balance. Clearly, if there are no close family members, other family members—for example, grandchildren—can bring cases, but the House needs to think about what happens if one family member says, “I want it investigated,” and another says, “I do not.”
On the appointment of judges, the point was made that Ministers appoint judges to public inquiries and I do not hear people saying, “That means the judges are not independent,” but of course the holder of this office will take advice from judicial experts. On disclosure, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), we are making two changes: there will be a duty to conduct a balancing exercise and to give reasons where possible, and it will be open to anyone to judicially review.
On the point about the Irish commitments that many Members have raised, the Irish Government have said that once our legislation is in place, they will give the fullest possible co-operation to the legacy commission. They had already established by the end of December the Garda Síochána unit and it will pursue potential investigative opportunities. I was in Dublin to discuss that earlier this month. The Irish Government have now published the legislation to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh inquiry. I take the point about the separation, but I think that shows good faith because I have no doubt in my mind that the legislation to give effect to that fullest possible co-operation will appear soon.
I have great respect for the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I do not think I have ever insulted anyone in any debate about legacy, and I respect the point that he advances. However, with respect, there are no vexatious prosecutions—please can we not use that phrase? If we go down that road, it says something about independent prosecutors that I think is not justified by the evidence. I would draw to his attention and that of the House the protected disclosure arrangements under the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval that the troubles Bill will introduce, which were negotiated by the last Government under the Stormont House agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made a powerful point about investigations that were shut down. I say to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) that the protections were designed for veterans—that is why they are in the legislation—but they apply to all, mostly for the reasons that the right hon. Member for New Forest East set out: we have to treat people fairly under the law.
On sexual crimes, the Bill will deal with the gap that the legacy Act created, because there will be no alleged sexual offences that occurred during the period of the troubles that cannot be investigated, and that is extremely important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, who serves on the Select Committee, that this is probably our last best chance to get this right. No Member of the House shows more clearly the effect that the troubles have had on individuals and families than the hon. Member for Strangford. I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that victims need to feel heard.
I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for whom I also have enormous respect, that it is not a case of reopening old wounds. The wounds have never healed, which is why so many people are still searching for answers. I agree that attitudes towards the ICRIR are beginning to change; the growing caseload is a sign of that. I would, however, suggest that the fact that there will be further changes to the way it works—I took the decision not to abolish it, because I have confidence in Sir Declan, as the hon. Gentleman does—gives people greater confidence in coming forward, because that is what this is all about.
Given the wide range of views held by so many people, it will not be possible—let us be honest—to give everybody everything they are looking for. As I have said before, if dealing with legacy were easy, we would not be sitting here this afternoon debating it; it would have been done a long time ago. It is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement, and we have to find a balance.
I pledge to the House that I will continue listening to everyone who has views to express, including the Select Committee, because every single one of us is only too conscious of the passage of time. For families, time is running out and they still do not have the answers. That is why the Government are determined to sort this out and build the trust that has been so absent for victims, survivors, those who serve and wider society in Northern Ireland. We really must make every effort we can to get this right, above all for the families who have waited far too long for answers.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Secretary of State for his response to our report. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I know it is very important that we work collaboratively. I am a Welsh Member of Parliament, and many members of the Committee do not have Northern Ireland seats, but we have all been touched by the troubles. My constituent Private Robert Davies was shot in Lichfield station in 1990. He would have been my age if he were still alive today. The troubles touch the lives of everybody across the country and across the world, but particularly those in Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who made an excellent speech. I thank our friends in Northern Ireland and everybody who has worked with us.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Clerk of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Stephen Habberley, who will be moving on after five years of work with us. His team, his leadership and the help that I and other Committee members have been given should be noted in Hansard.
I thank everybody for their contributions. This debate has been handled with such sensitivity by everybody in the Chamber. I hope that we can continue with our piece of work on reconciliation in the same manner, and that we can have the same constructive dialogue with the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716.