Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of the carry-over extension. I remind the House that Mr Speaker granted an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historical troubles-related deaths.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.
This is a short motion, but it stands for a lot. Strictly speaking, all it does is allow the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which was introduced a year ago, to continue its passage through Parliament, but it is actually about far more than that. It is about families who lost loved ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable: daddies, mammies, brothers, sons and daughters—more than 3,500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It is about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief, families desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones—answers that might help them understand the how, the why and even the who, answers that might help provide some degree of comfort. We will be joined in a few moments in the Gallery by Mo, Pat, Jennifer and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers.
Let us not forget that more than 1,000 of those who were killed were members of our security forces, serving under Operation Banner or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England. Twenty-five per cent of the investigations involve victims from the military. A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I am determined that veterans’ families will get answers, too. The Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we are going to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. Fifty-five years ago, he was murdered. Alongside him was a man called Daniel McCormick. They were a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, but they both served in uniform. Nobody—in 55 years, this 10 December—has ever been made accountable. The three-man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen on that morning of 10 December ran across the border to sanctuary and safety. With great respect, Secretary of State, you tell me and my family that we can have justice—we do not see justice. We have been waiting 55 years for justice. I don’t believe it, Secretary of State. Can you talk to me honestly, for all the families? I could name many others who have had been murdered over the years. I think of the four UDR men; one person was made accountable, but no one was held accountable for the murders of those four UDR men at Ballydugan some 36 years ago. On behalf of the victims, my family and all the families, we need justice. I want justice for my family and for every one of those victims who served in uniform—RUC men, UDR men, British Army—and who gave their lives for this Province and this country.
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, because it is remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon and what I have heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. I met one man whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencer. It has not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. That is why it is so important that we get answers for people. The kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are families who lost loved ones who served.
I remember going to the RUC memorial garden. It is very, very touching because, for decade after decade, it has the names of RUC officers who were killed, and for decade after decade, it is three or four names, three or four, then six, then eight, and then dozens, dozens and dozens. Many of those families have never had an answer. If there is one thing I feel very strongly after all the communications and conversations I have had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there is not one set of people who are families and another set of people who are veterans; actually, the largest group of families are veterans’ families, and they deserve answers, too.
We went further in our manifesto: we committed to replace the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Why? Because it was legally flawed, it offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it did not carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government, for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to repair trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous legacy Act.
Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments. These can only be considered if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous Government’s immunity provisions, which were conditional, as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists. We will amend the Bill to bar the commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries.
Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers’ training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation. Those points were made in previous debates by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so I hope the amendments will gain cross-party support.
We have also listened to concerns raised by the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and others over the on-the-run letters. These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the Bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the commission’s work to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.
There is more we can do if this motion is allowed tonight. The men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm’s way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended. Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice, this commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved one’s death, which is what we will create through the legacy commission.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today because of a family situation. Since the Bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the Bill. Alongside the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for South Ribble (Mr Foster) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), she has argued for greater protections for individuals, to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. The first is a provision to ensure that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the commission or, crucially, by a coroner unless it is essential, which is a very high bar—much higher than in previous legislation; for instance, because there is new information or a new forensic process.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Member will know, the word used in the legacy Act is “necessary”, which is a much lower bar. “Essential” is traditionally a higher bar, and it is used in lots of legal judgments already. The kind of thing we are talking about is where there is a new forensic process that was not available 30 years ago—for instance, we might be able to examine a fingerprint on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than we could previously—or where there is literally a new piece of information, and it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.
Secondly, there is a new provision that the legacy commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers whether to request an individual to come as a witness.
Thirdly, there is another new provision that the legacy commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information.
Fourthly, the legislation will put the protection from cold calling into law and strengthen the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the commission’s work.
Fifthly, prosecutions in troubles-related cases are rare— I expect them to be rare— but to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute, any future prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General acting quasi-judicially. That will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of Government, and who rightly pointed out that there is precedence for this approach and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosectors’ independence in considering the evidence before them.
I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the legacy commission’s victims and survivors advisory group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented.
The legacy Act’s immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute via a remedial order. To enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round, we will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to whom I am grateful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?
Chris Bryant
I arrived in post a few months ago and I sat down with the Defence Secretary. We looked at some of the amendments that had already been drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, and we were convinced that we needed to go a little bit further than that. For instance, the amendment in relation to the Attorney General is a new amendment, as is the amendment in relation to compelling new evidence. I really want to proceed as much as I possibly can in a consensual way with Members from across the House. That is why I have provided as many opportunities as possible to take Opposition Members and Members from other political parties through the details of all the amendments.
Sometimes we need time to get our legislation right. One problem was that we had a long period—some of these amendments could have been dealt with several months ago and we might have got to a better place sooner, and then we would not have needed the carry-over motion either. However, there is not much point in crying over spilt milk; it is much better just to try and get the Bill right, which is precisely what I am trying to do.
Importantly, I should say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), all of the amendments that we have tabled are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations and the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?
Chris Bryant
Whether this was the right route to go down was obviously a material consideration for us, for all the obvious reasons that other hon. Members may adduce in the debate later on. However, many in the veterans community keenly felt that it would be much better if this decision were not being made just by the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and that it would be better if it were made here. Obviously the standard prosecutorial question does not change at all—in other words, is there a more than 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction, and is it in the public interest? The Attorney General will act in a quasi-judicial function, as she is very keen to point out.
I have heard back from large numbers of veterans that this measure provides a degree of confidence and reassurance to those who have been worrying about this issue. For instance, it applies equally to anybody who might be prosecuted for being involved in the M62 bomb or the Guildford pub bombing. I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) makes, but that was one of the things that was asked for. Where possible, I have tried to make the argument as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of veterans to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Who will make the final decision on who goes on to the commission advisory board? While it is good to know that no paramilitaries will be allowed on that board, can the Secretary of State assure me that members of a political party that supported violence and those paramilitaries—Sinn Féin—will not be allowed on to the board?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—indeed, he also made it to me yesterday. The Secretary of State makes the decision about who sits on the advisory group, which is a key distinction of the legacy commission. One of the things I have repeatedly heard loud and clear is that this whole process needs to be focused on the families and the victims, and the only way we can secure that is if we have an effective advisory group. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there should be no one in the group who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. Ensuring that will be one of the Secretary of State’s key responsibilities. The advisory group can have between three and seven members, and we are saying that at least one of them must be a veteran, a former member of the police or one of their representatives, although the number may be more than that.
Co-operation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities may be the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and who was responsible. That may meet the point that was made earlier.
Chris Bryant
I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.
Chris Bryant
I was just going to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will then give way to other Members, if that is all right.
Jim Shannon
My own family members are very clearly aware of the three IRA murderers who escaped across the border and stayed there; they did not return home. I put it on the record that Gerry McMonagle, who was involved in the murder of Lexie Cummings in Strabane in 1982, not only escaped across the border, but became a mayor and sat on Donegal county council. There is a person who should be held accountable for his actions. He escaped because a wrong notification was made by the police in relation to the summons. He was able to run out of court, get on a motorbike, cross the border and live a new life. There are also the two superintendents who were murdered at the border. There has been collusion from the Garda Síochána and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has to be accountability for the people in the Garda Síochána who gave evidence and for the people in government at the time who oversaw it and did nothing about it. There is a big role for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to play, so let us ensure that we keep their feet to the fire and keep the heat on the back of their neck.
Chris Bryant
That is precisely the point I am making. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and provide answers. Where they fail to do so, we will take issue with them assertively. The key difference that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South made was ensuring that the Irish Government are introducing legislation that will require them to co-operate in this process and, in many cases, provide answers that are essential in relation to the kind of person that the hon. Member for Strangford refers to.
Gavin Robinson
The Garda legacy unit has been much lauded, particularly by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). It formed part of the framework that was published last year, and it was meant to be operative from January. Is the Secretary of State aware that from that date until now, that unit has failed to provide any answers or any responses, answer the telephone or respond to emails with any information? Is he aware that there was a public perception that it was providing information until we challenged Helen McEntee as the Minister responsible? She then said that no information would be passed at all until the legal uncertainties were cleared—they have been cleared by Dillon in the Supreme Court—or this legislation passes, yet the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information continues to investigate cases. It continues to seek answers for families, and it is getting no responses whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State have an indication that the legacy unit will provide those answers, either following tonight or next Tuesday?
Chris Bryant
I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.
Chris Bryant
I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.
The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.
The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the briefing that his team gave mine at the start of this week. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that he and his team have worked hard to try to make improvements to this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill is a mess. That mess is attested to by the fact that we are still debating it when it was introduced a year ago tomorrow and we have yet to breach Committee of the whole House. The mess is attested to by the fact that we are debating a carry-over motion for the second time. It is attested to by the fact that the Government told us in April that they were going to submit their amendments after six months of delay, but published them only yesterday after another six months. We have 144 Government amendments making up a pack of about 300 amendments over 119 pages. This is a mess in the process of becoming a bigger mess.
The Secretary of State has been handed this mess. I know it is not of his making, but he has been given the unenviable task of fixing it. Yet this Bill cannot be fixed, because the fundamentals are wrong. However much one scrubs off some of the worst corners and the worst excesses, the fundamentals are still there. Next week, we will have a chance to debate this legislation and its many amendments, but the amount of time set aside is wholly unequal to the task. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government have effectively denied the House the Report stage. Only an hour has been set aside for Report, and it is inevitable that the Committee of the whole House will eat that away entirely. As a Back Bencher, the Secretary of State was a defender of this House’s role in scrutiny. It is upsetting that we will not be able to give this Bill proper treatment in the Commons and that it will only get proper scrutiny in the Lords. That, though, is only a minor quibble in the face of the problems in the Bill itself.
In simple terms, we cannot support this legislation because it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. In the long time in which this Bill has been in the Table Office, a number of cases have come to public attention that illustrate both the problem that requires fixing and the inadequacy of the Government’s response. In November last year, we debated the findings in the case against soldier F from Bloody Sunday.
Alex Burghart
Soldier F was found not guilty after the longest and most detailed inquiry in British legal history. Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that even after such an investigation, the evidence fell well short of the standard required.
Alex Burghart
The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined”—
Alex Burghart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will finish my sentence.
Alex Burghart
Because I was in the middle of speaking. The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper.”
It is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, but I would also be grateful if he actually mentioned a victim in his speech. We are three minutes in, and there has not been one mention. He talks about soldier F, who murdered lots of people on Bloody Sunday along with his colleagues. They were unarmed people, as proven by a British Prime Minister-appointed court of tribunal, and as understood, recognised and supported by a Tory Prime Minister. Will he mention some of the victims of soldier F or some of the other victims that we should be talking about tonight, instead of people who were willingly and openly going into streets and shooting people down who did not have a gun in their hand? That is what happened.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims. The victims, who suffered so much, are being given the promise of convictions that will never come. Even when we have the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes, yet this House is now expected to believe that the legislation before us will open the road to all these convictions. It will not happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled, but that does not mean that soldiers who did nothing but their duty will not be pulled through the courts time and time again.
In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case from 1992. On that occasion, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war, they sought to kill and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. The men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances, decades ago.
The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in the House. In 2024 a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in Coagh in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as “ludicrous” and said that it should never have come to court. Despite that, in April this year the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out. Last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court, and that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years, when the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous.
Chris Bryant
I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that all that is under his legislation.
Alex Burghart
I am giving the Secretary of State an example of the things that will not be stopped by his legislation. This will continue. The Bill does not solve the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
Your problem.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady says that it is our problem. Our legislation drew a line in the sand which meant that things like that would never happen again. That case had already started, and if the hon. Lady were familiar with the legacy Act, she would know where the line in the sand was drawn.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I just want some clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.
Alex Burghart
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out to the hon. Lady and the Minister for Veterans and People exactly the sort of problems that the legacy Act was designed to solve. There was obviously a cut-off point—[Interruption.] As I am sure the hon. Members know, the legacy Act had a cut-off point, and cases that had already started were not caught by that. I am giving an example of similar cases that will now come about because of their legislation.
As Philip Barden KC wrote in The Spectator this week, the Government’s attempts to solve this issue, and the Government's proposed protections, are wholly inadequate to the task. They fail on their own test, because the Bill and the Government’s amendments “will permit repeat investigations.” Earlier, the Secretary of State raised the use of the word “essential”, and talked about new evidence. As Philip Barden pointed out,
“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence.”
This might sound like a high bar, but it is an extremely low bar.
All the while—throughout the year and more in which we have been dealing with this legislation—the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, set up by the legacy Act, has been doing its work. A few weeks ago, ICRIR published its first report, which laid out the details of Mr Rory O’Kelly’s murder by the IRA in 1977. That was an information-recovery exercise which concluded that no perpetrators were ever likely to be identified, but it still provided answers to questions that have haunted Mr O’Kelly’s family for half a century. His daughter described, in extremely moving terms, how the report had moved the family into a
“space of serenity and light, all anger taken away”.
Yet just as ICRIR has started working as intended, the Government are to reprogramme it into what two generals have described today as essentially a criminal investigations body, charged with collecting evidence to a criminal standard, although we know that the chance of prosecutions is incredibly unlikely. Those who work in ICRIR are desperately concerned that that will lead to a massive increase in their workload, with no increase in funding, and that it will inevitably mean long delays and distraction from the core information-recovery exercise, which was intended to be their central function. Those on the Government Benches may not want to take from me the case that I am making against this Bill, and I understand that, but they should take it from the retired generals and soldiers who have repeatedly spoken out.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about veterans and the roles of those veterans. My concern is for my constituents who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive their service in Northern Ireland. What those families want is the truth, and they want a truth that is undebatable. Does he not recognise that we should be talking about the victims and the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false dichotomy? There is more than one level or tier of victim.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady speaks powerfully on this point, and she is absolutely right to say that many victims were people who served. I was talking about the way in which ICRIR works and is now being seen to work. Regardless of who was killed, it can be used by victims’ families in order to assist in the information-recovery process, and one of the advantages of ICRIR is that it is a non-adversarial system that has already started to enable families to find out things they did not know before. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that process is very valuable, which is why it was put in the legacy Act by the previous Government.
I hope that Labour Members, and anybody in the House who is thinking of supporting the continuation of this legislation, will listen to the two retired generals who wrote today that the Government should stop pretending that their amendments offer veterans meaningful protections. The consequence of continuing down this route will be that some men who served decades ago, like soldier B—not soldier B himself, but men like him—will spend years in the jaws of vexatious litigation, that victims will not receive the justice that they are being promised by this legislation, and that many more veterans will continue to live with the nagging sense that those using lawfare may come for them. They are already being punished by the idea of this legislation.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party’s legacy Act actually gave no protection whatsoever to veterans’ families because it was found to be unlawful? He has therefore let those families down.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will know that her Government, when they came in, did not appeal against that case. We have a human rights framework that is wholly inadequate for dealing with cases from decades ago, and it is clear that the current Government would rather protect that framework than protect people from that period.
The failings of this Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen and long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have met many people whose lives have been shaped by the troubles and who, decades later, continue to search for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, today I hosted in Parliament victims’ families from WAVE. They also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, which I was really pleased about. I pay tribute to Jennifer, who was 12 when the IRA took over her family’s home and her father, Patsy, was abducted and killed; to Pat Molloy, whose son John was 18 when he was killed on his way home; to Mo Norton, whose brother Terence was serving when he was killed in the M62 bus bomb in 1974; and, finally, to Laura Burns, whose dad Robert was killed in their home.
It is always emotional listening to any victim, so I would personally like to thank victims for speaking to us; they are in the Gallery. As we debate this Bill and consider the next steps in this process, we must keep those people at the forefront of our mind.
At the end of last year, my Committee completed a year-long inquiry on the legacy of the past. It was a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging extensively with all communities, and revealing strong cross-party consensus on a number of key issues and areas where the Bill can be improved. Our hope is that the detailed evidence and recommendations in our report will help shape debate in this House and beyond. I encourage all Members to review our report as we consider this Bill.
My Committee heard powerful testimony from victims, survivors and families who continue to live with the consequences of the past. Many are still struggling to obtain answers, accountability and a measure of closure. We cannot build a more reconciled future without addressing the past, and for that reason, we must ensure that the Bill is carried over, and that Parliament has the time to give these issues the careful consideration that they deserve. It is clear that there is still much that we need to do to improve this Bill, so that victims and survivors remain at its heart, and so that it addresses the concerns raised during our inquiry.
Time and again, witnesses pointed to the importance of resources. Whatever structures Parliament creates, they will succeed only if they are properly funded. Without adequate resources, expectations will be raised that cannot be met. We also heard concerns about whether victims’ and survivors’ voices would be fully reflected in the new arrangements. This process should never be framed as a choice between different groups; the focus must remain on those who continue to carry the burden of loss and trauma. More broadly, questions remain about how the new system will work in practice: who can access investigations, how will information be disclosed, and can we build confidence in the process? These issues go to the heart of public trust.
In conclusion, while views differ on many aspects of legacy, one message came through clearly: people want a process that is properly resourced, commands public confidence and places victims and their families at its centre. The challenge for the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office is to deliver that. We owe it to those still carrying the legacy of the past to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As has been said many times before, and ignored just as often by Conservative Members, the Tories’ legacy Act utterly failed our veterans, drawing an unacceptable equivalence between the actions of those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to undermine it by maiming, murdering and doing all they could to encourage sectarian division and hatred.
Of course, the Conservatives are trying to argue that they are defending the interests of our brave veterans, when in reality they are cynically using them to score political points. That is why so many veterans organisations will have nothing to do with their grandstanding. The legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations under the European convention on human rights. At the time, that was just collateral damage, but now it has become central to the Conservatives’ ill-conceived plan to leave the ECHR, and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Brexit deal of which they are so unjustly proud.
The legacy Act failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party, be it from the Unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition, supports the Conservatives’ flawed legislation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation. As we have seen throughout these debates, the Tories are still in denial about the legacy Act’s failings, just as they are in denial about their many other failings in government—from Brexit to their financial mismanagement. I am sorry to say that it is what we have come to expect from a once-great party. It is shameless, and they should be shame-faced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?
Mr Kohler
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Labour party’s willingness to deal with these failings is most welcome. At this point, may I, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who was the architect of the original Bill, for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party’s spokesperson for Northern Ireland? I am pleased to acknowledge that it is an approach normally followed by the shadow Secretary of State, and followed by the new Secretary of State.
Although 156 Government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing them today. Under the mysterious procedures of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry-over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary Session. I am sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but I trust that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and his fellow trailblazers on the Modernisation Committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time-wasting practices. The Bill we are considering today is the same one we considered the last time we debated it, so my party will again vote against the motion.
I have worked closely with veterans organisations, such as the British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland. Anxiety about future threats of lawfare, and veterans being dragged through repeated investigations, has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against that background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards in the Bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure that the process does not become the punishment.
I commend both the Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues. As they both promised, the Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned raft of 156 amendments. However, there is just a week before the Committee stage. That raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then re-numbered Government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail. Only today, I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments.
Mr Kohler
He did, but I have now discovered a table, helpfully produced by the Northern Ireland Office, detailing the key ones. It is very useful, but what we and the veterans groups need is time to work through the implications of each amendment, and to talk to our veterans. That is simply not possible in only a week.
As the Secretary of State knows, I also have concerns that scrutiny is being undertaken via a Committee of the House. What this legislation requires is detailed line-by-line examination of each clause, but what we will have is two days of the usual pantomime in this Chamber.
Chris Bryant
It is really important to explain why we do not generally consider Northern Ireland legislation in a Committee upstairs; it is so that a lot of Members can take part in these debates.
Mr Kohler
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention, but I was coming on to that. I am told, as he has just told me again, that the reason we have a Committee of the whole House is that we need to include our colleagues who represent Northern Ireland. However, I do not see why that absolutely legitimate point could not have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—a solution that I suggested, but that the Secretary of State ignored.
This legislation will have profound consequences for victims and veterans. Getting it right is essential to maintaining the confidence of communities across Northern Ireland, and the confidence of current and former members of the armed forces. Our amendments propose clear statutory safeguards to prevent repeated investigations, unless there is materially new evidence that is certified as necessary and proportionate. They establish a presumption of remote participation, so that veterans are not compelled to relive traumatic experiences in person unless it is strictly essential. They also provide for anonymity, proper welfare support and regulated contact through official channels. Additionally, our amendments seek to ensure that veterans’ views are properly represented, including by guaranteeing veterans a place on the victims and survivors group. We would also establish an independent reviewer, who would report annually to Parliament. This would ensure that protections were consistently applied, properly scrutinised and upheld in practice.
The Government’s amendments do indeed seek to address many of those points, but we need to work through the detail of the drafting before we can say whether they achieve what is needed. For example, the clause requiring compelling new evidence to exist, or be reasonably expected to exist, before a witness can be contacted is already giving us cause for concern, as the director of investigations will be the sole judge of his own decision.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I enjoy working with him on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have also enjoyed listening to him talk us through his many amendments. Does he not realise, though, that we will not be able to consider or vote on those amendments if he does not back this motion this evening?
Mr Kohler
The point is that we have only a week to consider 156 amendments, and then we have only two days to discuss them. We need line-by-line scrutiny.
The legislation does not exist in a vacuum. The House is aware that tensions have increased in the wake of the decisions to allow the Drumcree march, and then to ban it. Against that backdrop, it is even more important that the legislation provides genuine routes to reconciliation, so that future generations growing up in Northern Ireland no longer have to experience the divisions of the past.
On that point, I am still disappointed by the lack of weight given to restorative justice in the Bill. The process cannot only be about legal mechanisms that conceive of justice through an all-too-narrow lawyer’s lens. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a statutory duty to promote reconciliation, alongside a framework for restorative justice. That would offer victims and survivors, where they choose to participate, the opportunity for truth telling and acknowledgment outside of purely adversarial processes.
For many, the primary question is not about punishment but understanding. The recent report from ICRIR into the death of Rory O’Kelly, who was murdered by an IRA gunman, shows that answers, not retribution, are key. His daughter Frances issued a powerful statement, describing the catharsis and closure that the report brought to her and her brother Roger, who died shortly before its publication. The work undertaken ensured that Roger did not die without knowing what had happened to his father. Yes, this was a form of restorative justice, but our amendments would allow more intensive forms of RJ.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.
Mr Kohler
I remain to be convinced that the Bill, even after 156 amendments, can deliver on its essential function, and I am concerned that we cannot properly scrutinise the proposed wording to see if it will. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the motion.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am voting in favour of the carry-over motion, because we need to debate the Bill, and to have the Bill. We need to have it for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. Not only are the victims of terror attacks looking at the Bill—many are in the Public Gallery—but the eyes of the world are on us. This is an international issue. We have shown the way by bringing peace to Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest legacies of the Labour party—and the tireless work of community activists, Members in this Chamber and those from different parties in Northern Ireland, representing a future full of peace.
To have that future, however, we need to understand the past, and there are over 1,000 families who have not got answers about what happened to their loved one. For those families, that is a pain that is almost too hard to tell. They do not know what happened in the last minutes of their loved one’s life, who committed those atrocities, and in many circumstances, where they are. That pain is being passed on to future generations, who they are understandably worried about.
Today I met members of the WAVE Trauma Centre community in Belfast. Sandra Peake and WAVE do an amazing job of addressing the continuing trauma. They enable us politicians to hear from some of the families. Those stories were hard to hear, but I will share some of the words spoken, because I support the carry-over motion on their behalf. One victim said:
“It is important to get legacy right now or it will keep affecting our children and future generations”.
They said it was important to debate the motion and have the right product set up,
“so that we can move on.”
Another person said,
“My mum has been fighting for decades and passed it on to me, but she should have the answers before it is too late.”
Someone else said,
“I would really like the truth. Who was responsible.”
Another said, “People need the truth.”
People have been researching what happened, in some cases for 20 years or more. They know some of the names and have begun to piece some of it together. There is always the concern that there might be an investigative journalist knocking on the door with some of the answers, but with no actual investigation to back it up with and to say what really happened.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am listening to the powerful message that the hon. Lady is giving. Is she concerned that in moving away from ICRIR and the work that has already been done and moving to a commission, trust and the search for truth will be lost and some families, veterans and victims may be put off the process because they see yet another body?
Fleur Anderson
I really welcome that question. I think that the Bill will enable us to build on the work of ICRIR and that it will prove itself. If the Bill is not agreed to, investigations will not go forward at the pace that they need to, and then justice is stopped. I think that more families will come to the commission in its new and improved form, and then more families will have answers.
If we do not approve this carry-over motion and pass the Bill behind it, we will not see an improvement to the commission and it will not be able to continue doing its work. Too many court cases have been stopped because of the Conservatives’ legacy Act. Too much justice has been stopped. More than 1,000 police investigations, including investigations into the deaths of over 200 members of our armed forces and civilians, were stopped. That Act failed to win the confidence of families and victims. It shut down civil claims and halted inquests. Now we need the good work of peace and reconciliation to go ahead.
At the same time, the Government have rightly recognised the need to protect veterans. I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State for their work in delivering that. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—several of my constituents have come to talk to me about what they did—served with courage, professionalism and distinction in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Bill’s protections against unnecessary repeat investigations, recognition of operational realities and safeguards for witnesses will help to ensure fairness for those who served our country honourably.
More than a quarter of a century after the Good Friday agreement, Northern Ireland has made extraordinary progress, as I have seen for myself. But for far too many families, the shadow of the troubles remains. We cannot change what happened or undo the enormous suffering that was inflicted, but we can ensure that families have the best possible chance of discovering the truth. That chance will continue to wither away if there are more delays, because it will be harder to get the evidence, talk to witnesses and get to the truth.
This Government have chosen not to look away; they have chosen to act. I therefore welcome the carry-over motion, the Bill that will follow and the commitment that it represents to victims, survivors, families and the whole of the Northern Irish community that there can be justice.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Minister. I enjoyed working with her in that role.
It is incumbent on me to make two initial points. The first is that we only have 30 minutes left in this 90-minute debate and this is the first substantive Northern Ireland contribution. Because of that, I will keep my remarks as brief—uncharacteristically brief—as I can.
Can I also uncharacteristically welcome the tone of the Secretary of State in introducing the carry-over motion? It should be no surprise to him that I lament that we are here debating it. I lament the fact that a Government who came in with such a majority on a promise of repeal and replace is doing neither. I resent the fact that it took 18 months before we received the Bill a year ago, and the advice of my colleagues and I six or eight months ago was that if they Government were going to amend their own legislation so substantively, it would have been better to withdraw it and reintroduce it with coherence and consistency, so that people could look at it and understand its implications properly.
What we have now is but one week. I said this morning and I say again that it is deeply unfortunate for innocent victims and veterans to have but a week to consider and comprehend the import of the amendments—scores of them, with 60 additional pages in the amendment paper—and understand the impact they will have on their rightful quest for truth and justice.
The Secretary of State will know if he has educated himself on these issues and the history of them that we did not support conditional immunity. We do not support those measures, and we are pleased to see some of the issues that he has opened today, and which he released to the media and to parliamentarians yesterday. I lament that during the passage of the legacy Act, although the former Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, took on board many of the amendments tabled by me and my colleagues, he could not do so in this representative House of Commons, but had to leave it to the House of Lords. Here again, we have amendment after amendment where the Government have thankfully finally listened to some of the amendments tabled by me, by my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party and by Ulster Unionist party, Traditional Unionist Voice, independent and Alliance Members. The Government have, however, tabled their own amendments.
I do not understand why the Labour Government resisted for so long committing to legislate to root out equivalence between those who upheld the law and those who set out to destroy law and order in Northern Ireland—between veterans and paramilitaries. I am glad that that will be put beyond doubt, because it was a statement of fact before and it should not have been resisted.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am pleased to see that there is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, so I do not have to hold myself to the commitments I made earlier. [Laughter.]
I say to the Secretary of State that I am pleased that the Labour Government have accepted that they will legislate on the matter of on-the-runs—again, it is a statement of fact, and I could never comprehend why the Labour Government were resisting such an amendment. So, too, will they legislate to ensure that paramilitaries and former paramilitaries—people who sullied themselves and tried to destroy our society—will not form part of any advisory board to the commission. That is right. I could not for the life of me understand why the Labour Government were resistant to that approach. I am grateful—[Interruption.]. No, it was always indicated that it would not happen in practice, but they would not legislate on the face of the Bill. I say “they”; I mean the Labour Government. I am glad that at least that concession has been given.
I am grateful that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to make a fundamental point, which draws on comments that were opened earlier. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), but I am pleased that he referred to what happened yesterday in the Omagh inquiry. It is beyond me—I hope it is beyond every sensible Member of this House—that the Government are still resisting the dates for the legacy commission. The legacy commission has to stop its work on a given date—the date the Belfast agreement was signed—yet the largest atrocity of the troubles occurred just three months later in Omagh. The Government are resistant to allowing the legacy commission to consider the case of Omagh.
Why is that important? It is important because the Omagh inquiry is set up, and its terms of reference allow the inquiry only to look at what the British state could have done to prevent the largest atrocity of the troubles, yet the Irish Government have questions to answer. Yesterday when John Ware, the former “Panorama” journalist, opened up his evidence in court, he referred to the Irish soldiers who received a bomb warning the day before—on 14 August—in Finner base, as has been mentioned. I have every word of that. Will the Secretary of State ask immediately for a copy of that document? He knows that it goes further; he knows that it says clearly that on 14 August they have to inform the guards and the Northern Ireland security forces and that they have to place people on border checkpoints 196 and 194. It was very clear and precise. Why was it opened up yesterday? Because the belief is that, in a 1,500-page bundle, the Irish did not know that they had given it, and they were worried that it was going to be taken back and not opened up.
If the Irish Government had information the night before, at Finner base, that the Omagh bomb was going to be placed in Omagh, as was opened yesterday in the inquiry, that needs to be explored. Yet it falls outside the terms of reference. All we ask in the amendments is that we legislate for ourselves to say that the legacy commission can at least consider the largest troubles-related incident that sits outside the dates of the troubles.
Jim Allister
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.
Gavin Robinson
It was Mr Justice Horner, as he was then, who declared in 2021 that there should be an inquiry on both sides of the border to deal with the jurisdictional issues. I say this to the Prime Minister: the legacy commission will have the ability to look at the issues, provided the dates are moved from 21 April 1998 to 31 August 1998. It is easily done, and it is so fundamentally important for those victims and families who suffered at Omagh and who require truth and justice. I make the plea, knowing that I am going beyond the bounds of a carry-over motion debate, that this is so fundamental that we cannot allow this point to pass and for the Government fail those families yet again. Yesterday’s revelation is as stark and as telling as it needs to be. The information shared yesterday falls outside the terms of reference, and yet the legacy commission should and could take on that work.
I intend to revisit this matter next week, but in the interim I implore the Secretary of State, with whom I have raised it on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, who I am grateful is here, to consider the import of what was shared yesterday in the inquiry and what was withheld from the Sir Peter Gibson review in the past, when it was emphatically said that the Irish had no warning when they did. The inquiry’s chairman is incapable of drawing conclusions from that because it falls outside his terms of reference. The legacy commission could do that work; it needs to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will be aware that we are pressed for time. I will try to get as many people in as I can, so I immediately reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his engagement throughout the process. Generals, veterans, veterans’ commissioners, ex-chiefs of the defence staff, victims, those who live in Northern Ireland—he has engaged with them all and collectively they are thankful for it. The Government amendments are also welcome; they are moving in the right direction.
There is one thing that I request from those on both sides of the House. Behind the victims, the soldier Bs and the soldier Fs, and underneath the passion and the emotion, there are human beings. We have to ensure that the message we send to them in this House is that we are after their best interests. We must remember that they will be watching this debate and that it affects every single factor of their lives.
I know what it is like to be in the dark, facing terrorists, when snap decisions have to be made in a difficult environment. Unfortunately, I also know what it is like to console the family members of lost loved ones. I do not know what it is like to have all that wrapped into a community and into neighbourhoods—neighbour on neighbour, street on street. I pay tribute to and commend all the individuals in the Gallery. Thank you so much for attending.
I resigned from Government in part because I could not support our approach to legacy. In particular, I remain concerned about the different routes we created to examine the same conflict and some of the same incidents.
It is my belief that we are adopting a twin-track approach to truth, justice and reconciliation. On the one hand, we have inquests, where the chance of prosecution is vanishingly small, but the prosecution is often not the end state. The process has become the punishment. With a minimum cost of £20 million, on average, and a maximum cost of £20 million per inquest, the total equates, as one Policy Exchange paper put it, to in excess of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, we have the legacy commission. Let us build it. Let us make it better. Let us make it the single route to truth, reconciliation and justice. It has more investigative powers, it can move faster and it will bring the end state at a delivery cost of a fraction of that of inquests. What other country delivers reconciliation through a twin-track approach? It just does not happen.
I will vote in support of the carry-over motion tonight, but there is more to be done to streamline the route towards truth, reconciliation and justice, so my vote tonight should not be taken as support of the Bill as it stands. I believe that there is a better way, and more work to be done: one route, one process, no more lawfare, no more twin-track approach, stop the legal exploitation of the system, and put all the inquests through the legacy commission. I will vote tonight to carry the Bill over, but when we get to Committee, it must change.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to talk about the carry-over motion that we have in front of us this evening, because much of what we have heard from the Secretary of State was what we heard from the previous Secretary of State in regard to why we needed to see the remedial order rushed through. The remedial order went nowhere, but now we are compensating and bringing it into the legislation that we have been asked to consider next week.
I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in regard to the number of amendments that have been laid before us when considering the Bill and the very short time that this Government have given everybody to consider them. That applies not just to the legislators in this House but to the victims groups, the veterans not just of the United Kingdom but of Northern Ireland, and the small family groups, who will find it extremely difficult to work through that booklet of amendments to see how it applies to them, to their cause and to their loved ones, and how it supports them in their search for truth.
I ask the Secretary of State to look at the timing of the Committee stage and also at what contribution Northern Ireland MPs will get to make in this House. I make a plea to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches: let us not use victims and veterans in Northern Ireland as political playthings. We have heard that from the Labour Benches. The Government are at times as bad as what we have seen from the Opposition, and I think the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), has a lot to apologise for here tonight in regard to the topics that he brought forward. I ask the Secretary of State to consider a Keeling schedule, setting out with clarity how the amendments would apply to the legislation, what amendments can be brought forward and how they would amend the Bill. That would make a big difference.
The Secretary of State strayed away from the carry-over motion into some of the amendments. Can I ask him and the Government to look seriously at my amendment 4, which would bring sexual crime under the remit of the new commission? I know what the previous Secretary of State said, and what the Northern Ireland Office said, and it is often stated in here that the previous Government’s troubles Bill did not receive any support from the Northern Ireland parties. My amendment has support from every Northern Ireland MP who takes their seat in this House, as well as from Labour Members and Lib Dem Members, so I ask the Government to seriously consider it. When I met the Secretary of State to talk about this, he was very open and honest, and he said that the Government would consider non-Government amendments to make this Bill better. It has a long, long way to go before it could be acceptable to many in my community.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I will be supporting the carry-over motion today. I would also like to pay tribute to the victims from the WAVE Trauma Centre, who, alongside many of us, have shared their powerful stories with parliamentarians in the last two days.
Nearly 30 years on from the Good Friday agreement, these men and women are still seeking truth and justice for the awful crimes inflicted upon them. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will share a couple of the stories that they shared with me. The first is the story of Jennifer Gillespie. Jennifer was just 12 years old when masked Provisional IRA men broke into her house, took her and her mother hostage, and forced her father, Patsy, to drive into an Army checkpoint as a human bomb. Patsy, who was a civilian cook in the local barracks, was chained to the driving seat of a van packed with 1,000 lb of explosives, followed by kidnappers in a separate car, while his family was held at gunpoint. He was forced to drive into the checkpoint. As he approached, Patsy shouted a desperate warning to the troops guarding the checkpoint, but the IRA detonated the van, killing Patsy and five soldiers from the King’s Regiment. That was just one of three co-ordinated proxy bomb attacks that evening. Jennifer and her mother, Kathleen, are still seeking justice so many years after that horrible attack.
I also met Mo Norton, whose brother, Bombardier Terence Griffin, was one of 12 killed in the M62 bombings. A Provisional IRA bomb was stowed in their coach luggage locker, and exploded as the young soldiers and their families were returning to Catterick after their weekend leave. Nine soldiers and three civilians were killed, including two children, aged just five and two. Mo is still devastated after all these years, and she and her family in Wigan are still seeking answers.
I never served in Northern Ireland myself, but I have served alongside many soldiers and Marines who have. They spoke of the constant threat of snipers and bombs, of not knowing who among the local population might be trying to kill them or when they would strike. They took on strict rules of engagement, serving in the United Kingdom among British citizens to protect them. They fought paramilitaries that were unencumbered by those same rules, as the cowardly attacks I described earlier show.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these veterans, but victims and veterans are not two separate groups. Two hundred and sixty-four members of our armed forces were murdered by terrorists. They had their unresolved cases terminated by the 2023 legacy Act. We owe these families a chance at justice. The last Conservative Government attempted in good faith to draw a line under the troubles, but their offer of conditional immunity was unacceptable to bereaved families, and the courts found it unlawful. The legacy Act must be replaced, and today’s motion allows for that work to continue. The families have waited for decades. I urge the House to pass the carry-over motion and allow the Bill to proceed.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Government ask the House to grant the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill a carry-over extension. This is not a trivial request. It will extend the life of the Bill, and this House should not grant it lightly, particularly where the legislation is as contentious as this.
I ask a basic question: what will the extension actually achieve? I am aware of the Government’s proposed amendments. The Government will be aware of the substance of the amendment I have tabled, which seeks to bar former paramilitaries from appointment to the victims and survivors advisory group. I welcome the fact that my amendment has been substantially engaged with, but a Government amendment or amendments, however welcome, cannot cure a Bill that must be judged in the round. Taken as a whole, the legislation remains substantially flawed.
Behind this procedural motion lie real people: victims and survivors who have waited decades for truth and acknowledgment, and veterans who served this country with courage and distinction, who now face the prospect of repeated investigations into events from more than 50 years ago. That is my impression. Isn’t the reality that neither group is served by legislation that does not command the confidence of either?
William Faulkner wrote:
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in Northern Ireland. Families will seek answers about loved ones they lost. Veterans who served under extraordinary pressure deserve fairness and certainty in equal measure.
We must speak honestly about the history. Around nine in 10 troubles-related deaths were caused by terrorist organisations, not by the state. Any legislative framework that does not reflect that reality with clarity and proportionality risks compounding injustice rather than resolving it.
Lord Hewart reminded us over a century ago that
“Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
That principle cannot be set aside by a Bill extended for procedural convenience while its fundamental flaws remain unaddressed. Carry-over should be the exception, not the default—granted where a Bill is close to being fit for purpose, not where it remains substantially flawed. Extension will not repair this. The House owes victims, survivors and veterans more than delay dressed up as progress. I urge Members to oppose this motion.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Politics is ultimately about confidence. Leaders cannot lead without the confidence of their party, a Government cannot govern without the confidence of this House, and legislation cannot work without the confidence of the people it affects. The legislation passed by the previous Government did not have the confidence of any party in Northern Ireland, victims groups or, ultimately, the courts, but it is entirely apparent that this legislation has never had the confidence of veterans, and I genuinely believe it unlikely that it can be recovered. I am talking about veterans like Mick Male, a member of the Hartlepool armed forces liaison group, who came to my office to express his lack of confidence in the Bill and who invited me to meet his veteran colleagues who said similar.
I fully appreciate the efforts of our new Secretary of State and his attempts to rescue this Bill and restore that confidence, and also the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and his efforts to go further to restore confidence. On balance, I believe that these arguments deserve to be heard and debated, but veterans in my community of Hartlepool deserve to be able to debate them as well. I am deeply sceptical that in the next few days they will have the opportunity to make their views heard, in the way they should be allowed to, to their elected representatives. I say clearly to Mick and all the veterans in Hartlepool that if, ultimately, in just a few days’ time this Bill does not have their support, then it will not have mine.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation?
My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.
The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today.
I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is at times like this that I feel very despondent. I share some of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) tonight, because I do not think it is ideal that I am standing here with 180 seconds to try to sum up what this carry-over motion and this Bill mean.
The people of Northern Ireland have heard it all before. This is not perfect, and the manner in which it is being done is far from perfect, but people have died waiting. We have been at this in Northern Ireland for at least 20-odd years. I am not going to stand in the way of any family. I have held the hands of families—families I know from my constituency—people who served, people who were innocent Catholics, and people who were innocent Protestants. No one person is above anyone else. I hope to God that those people in the Gallery understand that and do not go away from this place despondent tonight. I am glad more people from Northern Ireland are not listening to this—I really am—because there has been a lot of grace lacking in this.
Let’s stop playing games. No one has any right above another. It has been many, many years, and many mistakes have been made. All I want anybody in Lagan Valley, Northern Ireland, across the UK and wider afield, where people have been drawn into what was such an intimate, insidious and disgusting conflict, to know is this: you are seen, and you all matter. We are not going to get this 100% right, but if we do not act now, people will die—many already have—without the truth. I will be supporting this carry-over motion tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the final one and a half minutes, I call Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—
David Davis
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has now put that matter on the record.