House of Commons

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Monday 19 October 2026

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to help increase investment in jobs and skills in the defence sector in the north-east.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

The north-east plays a vital role in supporting the UK’s defence sector. I am delighted that our increased defence spending means that in the north-east spending rose from £187 million in 2024-25 to £198 million in 2025-26, supporting around 2,000 jobs, and 49% of our spending goes to the region’s small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Mr Brash]

I welcome the investment outlined by the Minister, but as a north-east MP, I always want to see more. One way that can be achieved is by helping our small and medium-sized enterprises to navigate the procurement system. Steel Benders UK is making a major investment in Hartlepool and is keen to understand how it can play a greater role in the defence supply chain. I have recently written to the Secretary of State about that, as its managing director, Tania Cooper, also sits on the steering committee of the north-east regional defence and security cluster. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the company to discuss how businesses in Hartlepool can contribute to growing our sovereign defence manufacturing capability?

[Luke Pollard]

I may be a south-west MP, but I am a north-east MP when it comes to increasing defence spending, just as my hon. Friend is. I want to see more spending in the north-east. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how Steel Benders UK can access more of that increased defence spending. I would like to promote the work of the Defence Office of Small Business Growth in providing a single door for small businesses to access more defence contracts, helping to create more jobs, growth and opportunities in every part of the UK, including the north-east.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help improve skills in the defence workforce.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to improve skills in the defence workforce.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

19. What steps he is taking to improve skills in the defence workforce.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)]

Before I begin my answer, I pay tribute to Major Paul Wilks, who was sadly killed in a road traffic accident in Ukraine last month. I know the whole House will join me in sending heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues, particularly his wife and children.

There has never been a better or more important time to join defence. I am determined to ensure that we give people from all backgrounds opportunities to succeed, while creating the skills and talent that keep our country safe. As part of the defence industrial strategy, we are investing £182 million to improve science, technology, engineering and maths skills for young people and increase capacity in the education system, as well as backing defence technical excellence colleges in England with £50 million, with the ambition and intention to see that expand to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have got to strengthen our defence industrial skills base to provide opportunities for the next generation; this Government, with this investment, will certainly do that.

[Jessica Toale]

I recently opened the new cyber-competence centre at Bournemouth University, which provides courses in cyber-defence intelligence and autonomous systems in partnership with industry. The centre is creating a vital pipeline of talent to keep our nation safe and ensure economic resilience. Will the Secretary of State tell us how we can encourage more partnerships between industry and our higher and further education institutions to ensure that this pipeline of talent continues and we keep the nation safe with those skills?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing Bournemouth University and the work that has been undertaken to develop the cyber competence centre that she opened last month. As part of our defence strategic priorities grant competition, we are investing over £2.8 million to boost the work at Bournemouth University, including establishing new undergraduate courses in cyber-defence and autonomous systems, increasing skills development for students and collaborating with employers. We would like to see that approach—of Government, industry and our innovation and science base working together—power the future of defence.

[Lauren Edwards]

Last week, BAE Systems in Rochester launched its Movement to Work initiative, a three-week programme that will develop practical skills, provide real work experience and build the confidence that Medway needs. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the company on that fantastic initiative, and outline how he is working more broadly with the defence sector to help tackle the crisis of people not in education, employment or training across the UK?

[Wes Streeting]

Recently, I chaired an industry roundtable with Alan Milburn, who is leading work for the Government in that area. I strongly believe that with the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, we can not only strengthen our national defence but ensure that we have a country that is worth fighting for by investing here in Britain: backing Britain, buying British, investing in the next generation and tackling the scourge of the 1 million or so young people who are not in education, employment or training. I am delighted that the defence industry has responded to calls to help us.

[Chris Kane]

Stirling was home to Army headquarters Scotland until 2021; like communities across the UK, we retain skills and defence heritage but our direct connection has been weakened by the distance from defence jobs. A student from Bannockburn should have the same opportunities as one from Rosyth but will have additional costs and challenges in accessing them. Will the Secretary of State ensure that our ambition for growth in every postcode translates into practical action from the Ministry of Defence and its suppliers to build outreach and clear routes into defence careers in communities beyond their existing defence centres? Will he visit my constituency to explore our defence links, including at Queen Victoria school in Dunblane—a military boarding school owned and operated by his Department?

[Wes Streeting]

I would certainly like to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the first available opportunity. With our investment in two defence technical excellence colleges, we will be able to widen the availability of skills, jobs and opportunities across Scotland. We would like to work with the Scottish Government to achieve that, which is why I welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, the Scottish Government have finally decided to match fund the initiative, which has been available to them since March this year.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The military cannot develop skills unless they can actually train. Does the Secretary of State share my concern? Does he agree that it is absolutely scandalous that non-essential training has been suspended across large parts of the British Army because there is no money? Will he tell the House when training will resume on Salisbury plain?

[Wes Streeting]

First, training and exercises are taking place for the remainder of this year. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that when I arrived at the Ministry of Defence, there was an in-year overspend that would have seen us over-committed by the end of the year. As I did at the Department of Health and Social Care, I have sent a very strong message, very early on, and I make absolutely no apology for that. Although this Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, I expect my Department and our armed forces to live within their means. I think that message has been received loud and clear and will help me to tackle the historical problems that we have had at the Ministry of Defence: routine overspending, and challenges with value for money and productivity. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to heckle on those points, they should explain why they under-invested in defence for more than a decade.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I have not had the chance to do that until now. I wish him well in his new role.

Northern Ireland has a reputation for being a supply chain in action; although it has only 3% of the UK’s population, it has 70% of the UK’s Supply Chains for the 21st Century, or SC21, aerospace and defence business excellence awards—gold awards, regularly. Major Northern Ireland manufacturers in my constituency rely on small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver high-quality components and engineering. Will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Northern Ireland’s highly capable SMEs have improved access to defence contracts?

[Wes Streeting]

We are determined to spend more across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the £50 million growth deal will help in that regard. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People will be visiting this Thursday. As I identified when appearing before the House of Lords Select Committee last week, we can be proud of the contribution that defence makes in every corner of the country—whether it is the north-east of England or Northern Ireland. There are some parts of the country where we can and will do more.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I start by echoing the Secretary of State’s comments about Paul Wilks, and on behalf of the shadow defence team, I pass on my condolences to the families and colleagues of the Canadian service personnel who tragically lost their lives yesterday.

Improving skills in defence requires training. Training builds readiness, which increases both lethality and survivability. Yet it has been reported through multiple outlets that the Army has cancelled important training to save money. Is that correct?

[Wes Streeting]

First, I welcome the shadow Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time. I place on the record my respect for his service to our country and the expertise that he brings to the role. On behalf of the Government, I conveyed support to Minister McGuinty following the terrible incident in Canada overnight; I am sure that our Canadian friends will welcome the support across the House.

As I said, further training is to take place throughout the rest of this year, including major exercises that we have taken part in. I restate, however, that we have to live within our means. That has required some reprioritisation, including of training. We have to focus on the right things and make sure that we are ready to fight the next war, not the last one. It has not been a popular decision, but I absolutely stand by the decisions that I have taken to make sure that the culture in my Department is one that lives within its means and delivers value for the taxpayer.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of increasing levels of defence co-operation with the EU.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

At a time when Europe faces the most dangerous security environment since the cold war, defence co-operation is key. The UK-EU security and defence partnership agreed in May last year is delivering on that. Together, we are co-ordinating support for Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats, strengthening sanctions on Russia and enabling systematic UK-EU co-operation on global crises.

[Sarah Olney]

The Government have been clear that NATO faces the genuine prospect of conflict with Russia before the end of the decade, and our industrial bases across the alliance are critical to ensuring that we deter this threat. Therefore, we must ensure that our world-leading UK defence companies can support our European NATO allies in rearming to counter Russian aggression. That must include formal co-operation with the European Defence Agency as well as involvement in the European competitiveness fund. What further progress has the Secretary of State made with our European partners to deepen our co-operation on defence industrial readiness?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we co-operate across a number of measures via the EU, through NATO, and through bilateral agreements such as Lunna House with Norway and Trinity House with Germany. As well as that, we have the security and defence partnership, and we will continue to work through that on the opportunities that she described.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is clear from the lifting of US sanctions on Russia, reports of Starlink being slowed down and restricted, and President Trump’s recent Russia diesel deal that we, alongside our European allies, must step up to fill the void being left by the US. The path to peace on our continent will not be forged by sidelining Ukraine and rewarding Russian imperialism. What capabilities will now be given to Ukraine as a European alternative to ensure that President Zelensky is not further isolated?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend how vital it is that we stand with Ukraine; Ukrainian security is our security. As part of that, he will be aware of the many wide programmes that we have with Ukraine—whether Operation Interflex or our equipment and industry partnerships—which we will continue. We look every day to see whether we can do anything more to support our allies and ensure that Ukraine can stand up against Russian aggression.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend the Government’s decision to stay out of the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme? It was going to be horrendously expensive, we would have got less money out than we would have put in, it was going to take the intellectual property of any participating company who offered a programme to it, and it was going to take far too long to build up any capability. Can we concentrate on NATO? Will the Minister advise the Liberal Democrats that defence in the EU is a reserved matter to the member states? Therefore, we are much better off co-operating through NATO, which is also much quicker than trying to do something with some European—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Bernard, in fairness, I think you got in your first three questions.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will not intrude in relations among those on the Opposition Benches, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats have heard the hon. Member’s point. As he knows, we are big believers in NATO first, not NATO only; I take his point.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Last year, the UK agreed a security and defence partnership with the EU as part of the Government’s commitment to strengthening European security, supporting economic growth and reinforcing NATO. Will the Minister set out what dialogue has happened since then to implement the partnership?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

It is important to note that the defence industry in the UK can still participate under standard third-country terms. Since then, we have continued to work with our EU partner nations on a variety of different mechanisms, whether through NATO or through our bilateral arrangements.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)]

Terms such as “hybrid threats” and “grey zone” fail to convey adequately the seriousness of Russia’s widespread campaign of what I prefer to call state-sponsored terrorism, which it is inflicting across our continent. We expect it to continue probing and testing Britain and her allies, including through military posturing and reckless military activity. We are not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation, but Russia should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO territory and that we will not be deterred in our unwavering support for Ukraine.

[Andrew Lewin]

To deter Russia, we need vigilance at home and the support of our allies abroad. I am sure the whole House will agree that Vladimir Putin’s decision to continue to bomb and target civilian and energy infrastructure in Ukraine is proof that he is not interested in a ceasefire, so does my right hon. Friend agree that, at this moment, our allied response should be to give even greater support to Ukraine and President Zelensky and to look at what further sanctions we could place on Russia?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon Friend. At the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, I will be continuing to mobilise practical support from our allies. When I was in Washington last week, I made our view very clear that Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy everywhere, and that we need to stand together to increase the cost of this war to Putin, because only Putin has the means to end this war. If Ukraine were to cease fire tomorrow while Russia continued, it would pay a heavy price in casualties and in the very freedom that the United Kingdom and all our allies seek to defend.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s last answer, because it is important that the American President and the US Defence Secretary understand that Russia started this war. Did the right hon. Gentleman also point out that the President’s decision to buy diesel from Russia is actually funding Iran, because the Russians are buying it in from Iran, and that it is therefore counterintuitive to what the Americans are trying to achieve with their blockade?

[Wes Streeting]

There is no doubt that Russia presents a threat and is an adversary of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom. We see that with the company that Russia chooses to keep and with the risk that Russia poses to US interests and US personnel as well as our own in the way that it conducts itself. The United States has not been alone in buying fuel from Russia. We have had similar challenges here on the European continent in relation to Russian gas. The more that Putin’s war machine is funded, the longer this war goes on and the higher the price for everyone. That price is being paid most of all by the Ukrainians, who did not start this war and who lack the means to end it. Only Putin can do that. He could stop the war tomorrow; he chooses not to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Part of the growing threat from Russia—and it is growing —includes increased maritime activity, both in the English channel and in the surveillance of critically important undersea cables, including by specialist Russian submarines. Part of our response should surely be to increase our own submarine patrols around our shores. However, for many months, not a single one of our Astute class attack submarines has been on patrol. I know that it is not the Government’s policy to comment on submarine movements, but I am asking about the absence of submarine movements. Why, on Labour’s watch, have our attack submarines been embarrassingly tied up alongside for months at a time, while the Russians are roving in the North sea and the Atlantic?

[Wes Streeting]

However the shadow Minister phrases his question, he is not going to tempt me to comment on operational deployments. He understands perfectly well why we choose not to do that. Secondly, I point him to recent exercises we have conducted in the North sea and to our leadership of the joint expeditionary force. To go to the heart of his question about our armed forces and their readiness, perhaps the next time he or his party want to get to their feet to lecture us about the state of our armed forces, they might begin with an apology for underfunding them for more than a decade.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Last week, Ukrainian forces were reportedly left exposed to Russian attacks after the US President acted to restrict access to Starshield, showing that the White House is prepared to pressure American companies to interfere in allied military operations, and the importance of sovereign control over military satellite communications in facing the Russian threat. Now the Government are reportedly considering a low-ball American bid to operate Skynet—a system conceived during the cold war to guarantee British sovereignty over military satellite capability—threatening hundreds of jobs in Portsmouth, a great military city still reeling from losing shipbuilding. The Government talk about buying British and strengthening sovereign capability, and here we have a proven world-leading system operated by a European company, so can the Defence Secretary explain to me and the people of Portsmouth why he is considering handing operation of this critical sovereign capability to the US?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment on that during a live procurement. The matter is still under consideration. To be clear, we take sovereign capability and control very seriously. It is also worth pointing out, after what was unquestionably a challenging week for relations between the United States and Ukraine, that the United States has provided and will continue to provide vital support to Ukraine, whether that is through intelligence sharing, the work we do on procurement with and through the United States, or the diplomatic track. It is worth reporting to the House that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, my US counterpart, was keen to thank the United Kingdom for our leadership on Ukraine. That suggests to me that the United States does know which side it is on.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to support cadet forces in Bracknell Forest.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces, particularly in underserved communities where young people can benefit most from the opportunities and skills that a cadet forces experience provides. We are strengthening links between defence communities and employers to expand volunteering and cadet opportunities, so that more young people, including those in Bracknell Forest, can benefit from the cadet experience.

[Peter Swallow]

Earlier this month I had the huge privilege of celebrating the first ever National Cadets Week alongside 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadets and 2211 Squadron Air Cadets. I was struck, as I always am when I meet cadets, by the young people’s confidence, skills and sense of pride. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to the role that the cadets can play in tackling the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training, and supporting more young people to develop essential skills?

[Mr Bailey]

Wasn’t National Cadets Week just brilliant? I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his cadet craftsmen and women of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Cadets at 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadet Force and the Royal Air Force Cadets of 2211 Squadron—semper paratus. Both units show us how we must recognise the science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities that cadet engagement provides to our young people, helping to improve confidence and employability and reducing their risks of becoming NEET.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to support cadet forces.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces. On 5 October, I opened the first National Cadets Week, which celebrated the skills of our cadets and recognised the contribution of the volunteers who are central to providing the experience. We are strengthening links between defence and industry to expand our cadet opportunities to more young people.

[Chris Murray]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Musselburgh Sea Cadets and Royal Marines Cadets have been giving young people in Musselburgh a head start for more than 70 years, and celebrated the first ever National Cadets Week last month with an open day. I will be joining them on parade on Thursday to pay tribute to the huge contribution that they make to the honest toun. Will the Minister join me in thanking the cadets and volunteers in Musselburgh and across my constituency, and tell me what the UK Government are doing to support cadets?

[Mr Bailey]

I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets, the 297 Squadron Royal Air Force Cadets and the tam o’ shanter-wearing Lothian and Borders Army Cadet Force, who highlight how important our cadets are to strengthening our communities and preserving our national music and totems. I look forward to hearing how he enjoys himself at the 70th anniversary event. I hope that the SNP can see fit to allow the expansion of cadet forces into our schools, which they resist at present.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Young people are the future of the armed forces, and that is why cadet groups are so important. In England, schools receive £360 a year for every child from an armed forces family, helping them to provide extra support. If Wales followed the English system, over £800,000 a year could go directly to Welsh schools and service children, including £97,000 for schools in my county of Powys. The reality is in Wales schools are competing with each other for a share of just £40,000 across the whole country. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government must stop short-changing the children of armed forces personnel and put this money directly into their schools?

[Mr Bailey]

I welcome the question. Wales has a proud history of serving our country, and that results in an extension of the armed forces covenant in our schools. There is something there that we need to recognise in supporting our veterans and their children in schools in the Welsh system, so I will take a look at it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have proposed expanding our cadet and reserve forces to include a voluntary civilian resilience strand, equipping British people with skills in cyber-defence, emergency response and protecting critical national infrastructure. Last week, the director general of MI5 warned of escalating Russian hybrid warfare and the need to strengthen our national resilience. The Defence Secretary will be aware that Britain once had a civil defence corps, with tens of thousands of volunteers during the cold war. Will he back our proposals to establish a new civilian volunteer reserve co-ordinated by a new, dedicated civil defence office, harnessing the enthusiasm of Britain’s young people who want to serve their communities and strengthen our national resilience?

[Mr Speaker]

That was shoehorned—I call the Minister.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman spent some time with our Royal Air Force cadets, he would see the amazing cyber-programme that they are rolling out, which will be expanded across the Army Cadets and the Sea and Royal Marine Cadets as part of the cadets action plan.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

7. What steps the armed forces take to inform residents of low-flying drills by military aircraft.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

Low flying plays an indispensable role in achieving and maintaining our warfighting capability. I understand it can be disruptive, but it is spread throughout the whole of the UK to minimise that disturbance. The amount of low-flying training conducted is limited to the operational requirement, and night flying is only conducted when necessary.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Just over a month ago, my constituent had a Chinook helicopter fly extremely low over their farm on two occasions with no prior warning or engagement. Despite guidance that the Minister referred to that farms and livestock should be avoided, the flights caused significant distress, with a vet bill for urgent treatment for an animal who collapsed as a result of the flights. Can the Minister assure me that such incidents are investigated, and will she meet me to discuss this particular one further?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Absolutely, we will certainly meet the hon. Member at the earliest opportunity. Otherwise, I invite her to write to me in the meantime with the specifics of the case. There is a mechanism, so I will be happy to help her with it.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to support defence procurement companies in Dudley.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

Thanks to our growing defence budget, last year we spent £1.8 billion in the west midlands, benefiting not just west midlands businesses but those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is an increase of 3% on last year. I am keen to visit Dudley to see some of the businesses that I know she has been championing so consistently in Defence questions, but also in between in our many frequent conversations. I know that we are looking to spend more with UK businesses, and that includes ones in her constituency.

[Sonia Kumar]

I wholeheartedly support the Government’s ambition to buy British, and there should be no difference in defence. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his defence roundtable being held in Dudley later this year. Can my hon. Friend outline what proactive work has been done to make new small and medium-sized enterprise supply chains in Dudley and outline how industrial bases such as the Pensnett estate in Dudley are well placed to benefit from future defence investment and procurement opportunities?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that work. She will know that we have stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is a dedicated front door for small businesses to access and navigate the defence procurement process and speed up security clearances and cyber essentials. She will also know that many companies that could benefit from it may not classify themselves as defence businesses; they may be a provider of a service or component that could make a big difference to defence as well. I look forward to making the case to her businesses that there is an easier way now to contract with defence which I hope will create more opportunities for those in the west midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister. Welcome.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Boxer is vital to defence procurement across the west midlands, including for those constituents in Dudley who work at Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. The MOD has now confirmed that earlier this year it cut nearly £2 billion from the £7 billion allocated to the mechanised infantry programme—a cut that included three new variants for the Army, including the critical repair and recovery variant. What will the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments be equipped with, given that there is no longer a plan to procure those vehicles, and how will the Army repair and recover damaged Boxer vehicles without a repair and recovery variant?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. I am sure there will be no shortage of parliamentary questions from him—indeed, this relates to a question he asked about Boxer to which I have already replied. We look at the criteria for what we need to buy for our armed forces, and that includes looking at the Boxer programme. The Boxer programme is incredibly successful for KNDS and RBSL. We are looking at the variants required to ensure it is appropriate for the modern fight and armed forces, and we are prioritising spend against those capabilities as recommended by the Army. I am more than happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman and Members with Boxer-producing constituencies. Boxer is a real success story, and I want to continue delivering more Boxer capabilities.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to strengthen national resilience.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)]

The strategic defence review published last year set out that defence must play a stronger role in protecting our homeland. The Ministry of Defence is taking a whole-of-Government approach, working closely with the Cabinet Office and particularly the Home Office. We are bringing together industry, civil society, emergency services and the public to help build a whole-of-society approach to resilience and preparedness. We are refreshing our homeland defence plans, we will introduce a defence readiness Bill, and we are strengthening critical national infrastructure resilience. I look forward to keeping the House updated, including on the actions that Members can take and ways they can support their constituents, and to supporting the national conversation that is under way.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

Whether the threat is from Russia, Iran or rogue AI agents, keeping our country safe is the precondition for growth and progress here at home. Protecting ourselves means protecting the critical national infrastructure on which our constituents’ lives depend, whether that is our banking systems, road and rail networks, or electricity grid. As the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State have said, we face a society-wide threat, and we must prepare and respond with a society-wide effort. Will the Secretary of State say more about what he is doing with Cabinet colleagues to protect our critical national infrastructure, and will he advise my constituents on what they can do to play their part in keeping us all safe?

[Wes Streeting]

The Prime Minister has announced threat briefings for CEOs from sensitive sectors, including defence and critical national infrastructure operators, to strengthen their understanding of the threats we face and improve our collective resilience. The Government have announced a national resilience public awareness campaign and a wider national conversation on defence and resilience to improve public preparedness. Individuals can play their part by following the preparedness advice on gov.uk, and we will all have a role to play in getting those messages across. Finally, we should be clear that those threats do not come just from overseas and that the aggressive targeting of defence industry leaders by protesters here at home is not acceptable. We will not tolerate the intimidation of people who are doing a job for our country.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When this issue came up in the Defence Committee last week, the Secretary of State said that the national conversation should leave the public “alert but not alarmed.” I personally think the public need to be a bit more alarmed, so I was reassured when the excellent General Sir Roly Walker said last week that

“very soon, the political leaders of this country will start to have a frank conversation with the citizens of this country about just what is going on, and where the risk lies,”.

When the Secretary of State starts that conversation, will he make it as cross-party as possible? It is important that this House sends a strong message to the country about the threats we face.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by the Chief of the General Staff, which were widely reported over the weekend. Our armed forces chiefs are some of the most credible message carriers, and the ones the public will trust most. That is not to cast aspersions on Members across the House, but given that our popularity as politicians sits somewhere beneath traffic wardens and estate agents, we should lean in to—[Interruption.] I am not sure the Liberal Democrats want to go there this week.

Let me take seriously the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to work together on a cross-party basis. I am proud that on issues like Ukraine we speak with one voice and there is total unity, and there is enormous consensus across the House about the nature of the threat we face, the need to invest more, and the type of capabilities we need. That will be reassuring to both the public and our allies, and I would be delighted to work together in that spirit.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Many United States servicemen from RAF Lakenheath live off base in my constituency. As we all know, lately the United States’ bombers were removed from RAF Fairford. What more can every citizen do to increase national resilience, so as to protect and support the brave United States servicemen and servicewomen who are in our country at a time of increased threat from Russia?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this House, as reflected in his question, to champion the great service that the United States’ personnel give to our collective security. Their presence here in the United Kingdom makes us safer and they are always welcome. The current US force posture at RAF Fairford is what we would expect to see outside of major combat operations. However, given the threat to RAF Fairford—respecting that there is still an ongoing investigation, I will be limited in what I say—we need to take base security seriously, and off-base support for UK and US personnel and those of our allies equally seriously. We have committed half a billion pounds of additional investment, and strengthened security technology and infrastructure across military sites. The challenges that we face here in the UK are challenges that are facing all our allies, and one issue that I discussed with Secretary Hegseth last week was about what more we could do together to strengthen our collective security across the alliance.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Territorial Army plays an important role in our national resilience? Will he commit to fight for increased funding for the Territorial Army in the forthcoming Budget, and what is he doing to increase recruitment?

[Wes Streeting]

We certainly support our reservists—they have an important part to play in our national defence. I will take the hon. Member’s question as yet another supportive submission to the Budget process on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. I can say confidently to the House that those Budget representations fall on very sympathetic ears with this Chancellor.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to protect British interests in the High North.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

The UK is stepping up its defence of the High North. This year, our carrier strike group operated in the region, alongside 19 NATO allies, and 1,500 of our Royal Marines have trained in Arctic conditions. We are also doubling our military presence in Norway, investing in key anti-submarine warfare and undersea surveillance capabilities, and our carrier strike group will be returning shortly to NATO’s northern flank.

[Patricia Ferguson]

The North Atlantic, High North and Baltic are the frontline of the UK’s security, which is why British leadership of the joint expeditionary force is so vital to our defence. Will the Minister update the House on the recent meetings of the joint expeditionary force counterparts in Iceland, and on the major exercises that have taken place across the region?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

We are rightly proud of the work that we are doing with partner nations in the JEF. In July this year, the carrier strike group deployed to the High North, working alongside 19 NATO allies, and is due back this autumn. The UK has recently taken command of NATO’s Joint Force Command Norfolk, which oversees all NATO operations across the High North, and the Royal Marines took part in Exercise Cold Response, alongside approximately 25,000 personnel from 14 allied nations.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Last weekend I was in Iceland for the Arctic Circle Assembly, where I heard a great deal of support for greater co-operation with the United Kingdom in the High North, but also an excitement about the impending Arctic policy framework that was published on Thursday. That document recognised the great strategic importance of the High North to the United Kingdom. Given that, will the Minister say more about when a new icebreaker will be brought online, which is clearly critical to our polar strategy and posture? What other resources will the United Kingdom need in the short term to deliver that strategy?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of our icebreaking capability. Project Shackleton is looking at the longer-term options for the capability.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I was pleased to see the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister welcoming HMS Protector home to Devonport, although judging by the three tugboats, I suspect she was rather less enthusiastic about the reunion than he was. With growing Russian activity in the High North and renewed chest beating from Argentina over the Falklands, Britain’s only naval ice patrol ship faces an uncertain future. How can a single replacement sustain a credible presence at both poles, while allowing for maintenance and refits, and how will the Minister prevent a gap in capability?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

We have recently launched Project Shackleton, which is looking at some of the very questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is a very important capability, and we will look at the options to ensure we are mitigating the risks that we know we all face.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

12. What progress he has made on allocating Valour funding.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating essential care and support for veterans. We have the new Valour centre in Telford, and in March we announced more than £13 million of Government funding to veteran support centres. Some 21 Valour-recognised centres are open, supporting veterans across the country, including in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.

[Jodie Gosling]

I am once again championing the brilliant Valour bid from Veterans Contact Point in my constituency. We have the backing of 10 cross-party MPs in the region, which highlights the strength of feeling and our dedication to our armed forces. More than 2,500 veterans are set to benefit from locally delivered community support, and I am proud to mention that VCP is rolling out its female veterans transformation programme alongside that. Will the Minister please update us on how quickly we can start work to transform the lives of our veterans in Nuneaton and across the wider region?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion for veterans and is very powerful in her support of the bid in Nuneaton. Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating the essential care and support available to veterans. The new Valour centre in Telford—the hub—is a collaboration between Telford & Wrekin Council and others, and this is just one example of our co-ordinated approach. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Minister pay tribute to all the work done by many of the Veterans’ Commissioners and those involved with helping veterans across the United Kingdom, including the Veterans’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland? They do all that work to try to help and assist many of those who have suffered greatly in the past. Will the Minister become a champion for veterans both now and beyond the Budget?

[Mr Bailey]

This Thursday, I will be in Northern Ireland with my very good friend, the Veterans’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, where I will hear his representations on the issues affecting our veterans there. We have an incredible champion in our Veterans’ Commissioner for Scotland, who is doing an incredible job. A few months ago, I enjoyed breakfast in Wales with our Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales. All our commissioners play a valuable part and contribute to my understanding of the veterans landscape across the country, and they know that I have their back.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to improve defence preparedness and resilience.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 13—unlucky for some!

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

This Government have ended the underfunding and hollowing out of our armed forces that we inherited from the last Government. We are getting ready for warfighting readiness by 2030. That is why we are directing more of a growing defence budget at British companies, retiring old equipment, and giving our brilliant men and women in the armed forces the latest kit. Defence spending is up, morale is up and recruitment is up.

[Ian Roome]

Speaking in Washington last week, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

“Defence spending is the measure of our commitment. Defence capability is the measure of our credibility.”

How will the Government ensure that in addition to increasing defence spending, this country maximises the capability that it gets for every pound?

[Luke Pollard]

We inherited defence spending of roughly 2.3% of GDP. That figure will be 2.7%-ish next year, and—as the hon. Gentleman will know, having read page 11 of the defence investment plan—at the spending review next year, the Chancellor will set out the spending profile that takes us to 3% and 3.5%. We are not only spending more on defence, but ensuring that we have the right equipment and capabilities. That is one of the reasons why we are retiring so much old equipment that no longer delivers for our armed forces and investing in new equipment, be that the hybrid Navy, autonomous drones or the latest capabilities for our people.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

When it comes to improving defence preparedness and resilience, I was really pleased to see the Minister launch Project Safari at the Hebrides range last week, particularly as I am the MP for Farnborough, which is home to the headquarters of QinetiQ. Will the Minister update the House on Project Safari, how it will modernise test and evaluation provision across the UK, and why this is important?

[Luke Pollard]

Project Safari is a superb example of how, when we have asked industry to step up, it has responded. Steve Wadey, the chief executive of QinetiQ, is pioneering a new set of requirements for test and evaluation, with more access to our ranges for small businesses, a greater focus on more collaboration, and more utility for us to test new capabilities. Project Safari was delivered from start to finish in three months—it is a model for how I expect other companies to react to our move to warfighting readiness.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

14. What his policy is on the future of the British military base on Diego Garcia.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)]

Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for the United Kingdom and the United States. As I said in the US last week, our priority is to secure the long-term operation of the base and protect UK national security. To that end, we are working closely with Mauritius and the United States to secure an agreement that can command the support of all parties involved. Any arrangement must be acceptable to all of us, including President Trump, and that will be our focus in the coming months.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

In his discussions in the United States, did the Defence Secretary explain to our counterparts there that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be deployed or stored anywhere on its territory? If Mauritius takes over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, that means that no nuclear weapons can be stored in the Diego Garcia base. How did the Americans react to that disclosure, if the Defence Secretary saw fit to make it?

[Wes Streeting]

As a matter of policy, we obviously do not talk about the storage of nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say that however much people want to try to find another way around this, I can only assure the House that, having looked at this issue with a fresh pair of eyes, I have reached the same conclusion as every Prime Minister since Boris Johnson, including this one. That conclusion is that the capabilities provided by the Diego Garcia base make it extremely unwise—and a risk not worth taking—to have legal uncertainty, which is why efforts to negotiate a treaty continue. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may disagree now. If they do, they should explain why Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) were all trying to achieve the same outcome.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)]

Last week in Washington, I met my US counterpart in person for the first time to discuss a range of issues including Ukraine, Russian aggression and Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism. In recent weeks, we have seen threats to our airbases here at home and deadly attacks on civilians in Saudi Arabia. The first responsibility of any Government is to defend the nation, and this Government are stepping up to meet the challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are building a country ready to fight and a Britain worth fighting for.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Since 2020, the Royal Navy has lost more than half of its frigates, its entire landing craft capability and its only icebreaker, and all of its attack submarines are now inoperable. I fear that our ability to protect the Falkland Islands is now in doubt, so will the Secretary of State take the defence of His Majesty’s overseas territories seriously and rebuild our naval capability?

[Wes Streeting]

It is simply irresponsible, not to mention inaccurate, to suggest that the UK is incapable of defending the Falkland Islands. We are perfectly capable of doing so, and we had a very visible demonstration of that only recently. Maybe if Reform had a defence spokesperson, they might have noticed.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

T2. I am proud that my constituency is home to one of the largest numbers of military family housing in the country, and that last year, this Labour Government improved 100 of those homes. Does the Minister agree that we must go further and give all our military heroes the good homes that they deserve, and when I have the findings of my military housing survey, will he meet me to hear what they would like to improve?

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

We are rapidly improving defence housing; we have already upgraded 1,250 homes, with a further 1,000 brought back into use this year. We have introduced customer commitments for service families, including clear pledges on housing standards, customer service and listening to families’ experiences. I will find the time to meet those people who live in service housing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

As it is the first time we have debated, may I begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position? On 26 July, he appeared on the Camilla Tominey show on GB News and was asked, “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stump up enough defence spending, will he resign?” The Secretary of State replied, “Absolutely.” Is that still the case?

[Wes Streeting]

Absolutely. My answer is the same as it was before, and the reason I could give that answer so confidently in my first week in office was because this Government are already delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Chancellor resigned from the previous Government on a matter of principle. He is committed to invest more at the Budget, and he will set out the path to 3% and 3.5% at next year’s spending review. I trust the Chancellor a hell of a lot more than I trust the record of the previous Government, who under-invested in defence for more than a decade.

[James Cartlidge]

The Chancellor resigned then to go to 3% on defence. Bearing that in mind, on the same day, the Secretary of State also appeared on Times Radio and was asked by Adam Boulton if a failure to deliver on defence spending would be a resignation issue for him, as it had been for the now Chancellor. The Secretary of State replied:

“It is. It is absolutely, for me, a matter of principle.”

It begs a simple question. If the Budget does not deliver 3% for defence by 2030, will he resign?

[Wes Streeting]

This is what happens when the shadow Secretary of State writes his question before listening to the answer to his first question. The Chancellor has been very clear. I do not think repetition is a crime in the Commons, so I will repeat what I said just a moment ago: at next year’s spending review, the Chancellor will set out the path to 3% and 3.5%.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T3. Dorset Innovation Park has rapidly become a hub for defence companies, but we now need a college on site to ensure that more young people can gain the qualifications they need to stay and work locally. Will the Minister work with Yeovil college, the innovation park, the Department for Education and me to establish a satellite college on site, which will give more young people a direct pathway into high-skilled, well-paid defence jobs?

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I was hugely impressed by what I saw when I visited Dorset Innovation Park. Awarding Yeovil college status as one of the five defence technical excellence colleges was good news not only for Yeovil and Leonardo and its helicopter business, but for the wider region. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can operate more of the hub-and-spoke models that the DTECs deliver up and down the country.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T5. Leuchars station in North East Fife has seen investment as an Army base recently, and it is home to a significant military airfield, too. I welcome service families to the community in North East Fife, but there is always pressure on local services, particularly in areas such as education. Can I be advised as to what engagement takes place, so that we can ensure we are as welcoming a community as possible?

[Mr Bailey]

There are two aspects in answering this question. The first is the provision that we provide to our veterans; we are pleased to be rolling out the Valour network, with announcements for further centres soon. The second is the roll-out of the armed forces covenant and making sure that all local service providers play their part in delivering for our service families and their communities.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

T4. North-east MPs and business leaders are very keen for an update on procurement for Skynet, the Ministry of Defence’s secure satellite communications system. That is because, were Lockheed Martin UK successful, 500 jobs would be created in Sedgefield in my constituency, and it would be a huge boost to the north-east’s growing satellite industry. The Minister cannot comment on the outcome, but can we get an update on when we might expect this important decision?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does in raising defence business opportunities in his patch. This is an ongoing procurement, and no final decisions have been made. Both the UK-based bidders are subject to full evaluation of their proposals and must offer satellites that are assembled, integrated and tested in the UK. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

T6. Last month, our oldest allies, the Portuguese, hosted NATO’s REPMUS—robotic experimentation and prototyping with maritime unmanned systems—event, and I had the privilege of attending for a couple of days. Over three weeks, member nations worked together to test the interoperability of autonomous drones, submersibles and surface vessels. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the Portuguese navy for hosting this important event again? Will he commit to exploring why the 2022 defence agreement between our two nations has not yet been finalised?

[Luke Pollard]

I think I was the only Plymouth MP not at REPMUS, given that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) attended. I support the work that the hon. Member for South West Devon is doing. We have a huge opportunity in marine autonomy to create more jobs and increase the lethality and deterrence of our Royal Navy. I am very happy to pick up the points that she raised.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T7. How food reaches us is important, and 40% of British food is imported, almost all of it by sea. The combined value of British imports and exports by sea is around £1 trillion. During a crisis, it will be the role of the Royal Navy to protect that essential trade and ensure that imports reach Britain. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Royal Navy is ready for that role, should we need it?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important topic. Protecting the vital sea routes on which Britain depends is a fundamental task of the Royal Navy. We are strengthening these capabilities through the strategic defence review and defence investment plan, including through investment in the hybrid Navy, which will bring together crewed warships, submarines and uncrewed systems.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T9. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Putin has proposed a meeting with President Xi and President Trump to agree a deal to end the war in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that Britain’s support for Ukraine to win this war is unwavering, no matter what dodgy deals are done by autocrats behind closed doors?

[Wes Streeting]

We support the diplomatic track that is being promoted by the Americans, which aims to bring together the Ukrainians and negotiators from Russia to bring an end to the war. Our position is clear, and I relayed this directly in Washington last week: there can be no decision about the Ukrainians without the Ukrainians; the peace would have to be acceptable to them. We will back Ukraine to the hilt.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T8. Last month, I visited Ukraine with colleagues from across the House. It was clear that Putin’s tactic of terrorising Ukrainian civilians is putting a huge strain on air defence, so I thank the Secretary of State and his Department for all we are doing on that front. We also saw the reckless damage done at Chernobyl, so I was pleased to see last week’s announcement of support for repairs there. Could the Secretary of State update the House on the timeline for that project, and the importance of securing that really sensitive site?

[Wes Streeting]

Notwithstanding the challenges posed by the fact that Ukraine continues to be subject to bombardment by Russia, which is targeting its energy facilities, we are working closely with our Ukrainian friends on this, delivering £17 million to support repairs to the site. We want those repairs to be undertaken as quickly and safely as possible, while recognising the challenging planning environment in which we are operating.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Support for defence bonds now reaches far beyond political divides; it has spread from the Liberal Democrat Benches to former Conservative Defence Secretaries and many Labour Members. Given that broad support, can the Secretary of State confirm that he will make representations to the Chancellor about including defence bonds in his Budget next week?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his continuing support for defence. There are a variety of methods for increasing support for defence. I am grateful for the work he is doing, and I am always happy to have a conversation with him. In the meantime, the Government will continue to increase defence spending for our armed forces.

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

Across Scotland, including in my constituency, innovative companies are helping to develop the UK’s space capabilities. Innovation in the sector, however, comes with considerable up-front costs, as new technologies require extensive research and development and rigorous testing to the point of destruction. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to support research and development, overcome these financial barriers and help businesses in the space sector to grow and thrive?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in championing space. As a space nerd myself, the subject is close to my heart. In fact, I have had two brilliant small ministerial group meetings on space in the last week alone. I direct the House’s attention to the new UK space strategy, which was published only a few weeks ago. It sets out how we will grow the space sector, creating more jobs and providing more testing, more launch capability and more resilience for our space assets.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Veterans injured serving our country can see their pension credit cut because their military compensation is counted as income. How is that consistent with the armed forces covenant? Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to end this deduction?

[Wes Streeting]

I recognise the challenge raised by the right hon. Member. That is something I am looking at.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Businesses such as Cairnhill Structures in Coatbridge play a critical role in supporting infrastructure repairs in Ukraine, including the rebuilding of bridges destroyed by Russian forces, to help reconnect Ukrainian communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our continued support for Ukraine can go hand in hand with strengthening Scottish industry, supporting skilled employment and driving economic growth? If he gets the opportunity, will he visit Cairnhill to see the work it is doing?

[Wes Streeting]

I would be delighted to visit, diary permitting, at the first available opportunity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that investing in the UK’s defence and in Ukraine’s defence can also have a positive impact on jobs and growth here in the United Kingdom. We are determined to deliver that benefit for our country.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government would set out a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence, but he forgot to say by which year that would happen. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that this is 3% defence spending by 2030?

[Wes Streeting]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 11 of “The Defence Investment Plan”. I also urge him to understand why, after the catastrophic misconduct of the Government of Liz Truss, we take a rather more prudent approach to the management of the public finances, and do not set out spending commitments without showing how we will pay for them.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

The north-east has the highest rate of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and remains the region with the lowest level of Government defence investment. As the defence youth participation and employment pledge is signed by primes, and the north-east defence industry is largely based on small and medium-sized enterprises, can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will see some tangible support from that pledge for our region?

[Wes Streeting]

I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. Indeed, in front of the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee last week, I highlighted my dissatisfaction with investment in the north-east. The Government have already taken steps since the general election to increase defence spending in the north-east, as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry reported, but we can and will do more, including through the employment pledge.

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Scotland is on the frontline of defending the High North, yet despite the very real threats we face, the UK Government spend seven times more on defence in south-east England than in the whole of Scotland combined. Given the very real threats that we face, and given that our coastland is currently undefended by the Royal Navy, will the Secretary of State commit to placing a surface-level vessel permanently on the north coast of Scotland?

[Wes Streeting]

Can I just say gently to the hon. Member that I think it is both inaccurate and irresponsible to suggest that Scotland’s coast is undefended? In the same spirit, I underscore that I am very willing to work with the Scottish Government in defence of the United Kingdom, regardless of our constitutional differences. It is important that we work together, and I hope we can do so, in the spirit in which I answered her question.

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Drones are changing the way we fight and the structures used to fight. America is creating the robotic uncrewed systems combatant command; Germany is creating an uncrewed regiment; and the Ukrainians have created the Unmanned Systems Force. What projects are we moving forward with, to revolutionise the approach used in the Army, Navy and Air Force?

[Wes Streeting]

May I first thank my hon. Friend for the leadership he showed in this space as a Minister in the Department, the work he is now championing, and the support and advice he provides to me? As he will know, whether we are talking about initiatives like the hybrid Navy, the collaborative combat aircraft programme or the heavy investment we are making in innovation and drone technology, we have to be ready for the fight ahead. That means innovating—not just out-producing, but out-innovating and building new systems and new platforms, rather than relying on old ones. I look forward to working with him closely on developing those.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

During the Hillsborough law debate, the Prime Minister pledged his support for the families of the 1994 Chinook tragedy. I have since written to him, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). Sadly, our meeting has been pushed over to the Ministry of Defence. As we come up to the Prime Minister’s 100th day in his role, will the Secretary of State facilitate that meeting between the families and the Prime Minister?

[Wes Streeting]

I will certainly make sure that a meeting is arranged with my Department to discuss the issue.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

In the last few days, Ukraine’s satellite intelligence has been badly disrupted. Nobody’s defence should be dependent on someone else’s decision on whether to provide that support. What can the Secretary of State and the Government do to ensure that our defence intelligence is kept secure and sovereign?

[Wes Streeting]

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on that. I can also reassure him that over the weekend, I was in contact with both the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, in the United States and Defence Minister Yevhenii Khmara in Ukraine to try to improve the coverage and the capability of that intelligence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For all intents and purposes, Diego Garcia is an American military base, but the Government claim that to protect it, we must basically sell it to Mauritius at vast cost. There is one country in the world that does not acknowledge the International Court of Justice: the United States. Why do we not create a virtuous circle and sell the base to President Trump for £6 billion, and use that £6 billion to start the process of raising our defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030?

[Wes Streeting]

With great respect to the Father of the House, I do not think that is the right solution. I think we can reach an agreement with the United States and Mauritius—and before Opposition Front Benchers become too animated, let me just delicately point out that they were accused only last week by the United States of playing politics with national security. I could not agree more, and I hope that they can work in a more constructive spirit.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My great-aunt was one of the thousands of Canary Girls who did vital but dangerous work in Britain’s munitions factories during both world wars. Those women have no national memorial. Does the Minister agree, as we approach our national day of remembrance, that that is a historical omission, and will he meet me to discuss a national memorial for the Canary Girls?

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

As a proud east Londoner, I learned as a child about the Woolwich Canaries, and the difficult conditions to which they were exposed in support of our war effort and to keep our armed forces equipped. The contribution of the Canary Girls, along with that of all civilian and military women, is recognised on the “Women of World War II” memorial in Whitehall. Because the responsibility for matters involving civilian wartime workers sits outside the Ministry of Defence, I direct my hon. Friend to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, but as an east London MP who knows very well of the great sacrifices of the Canaries, I would like to meet her and support her campaign.

[Mr Speaker]

Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in Chorley. I call Sir Roger Gale.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr. Trump’s disgraceful show of support for Putin has clearly raised the stakes, not only in Ukraine but in the Baltic states and Poland. Given the perfidious nature of the current incumbent of the White House, will the Secretary of State reaffirm our commitment to NATO, and indicate very clearly that an attack on one NATO state is an attack on all of us, and that this country stands by its friends?

[Wes Streeting]

I can wholeheartedly give that commitment to the right hon. Member. This is a principle, but also a conviction that is held across the entire NATO alliance. Putin should be in no doubt that NATO stands ready to defend every inch of NATO territory. Let me place on record again that when I was in Washington last week, the United States, through the Secretary of War, thanked us for our leadership in Ukraine. It has not been an easy week for US-Ukraine relations—I would not pretend otherwise—but I think that we should recognise the support that the United States provides, and will continue to provide, for Ukraine. This country will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is aware of the unique case involving my constituent Rachel Gallagher, a former MOD civil servant who was released from her role under civil service nationality rules. While I accept that my constituent was not legally employable, I simply cannot accept that, after a decade of dedicated service, her accrued pension contributions have been declared void. Will the Minister meet me, so that we can ensure that an equitable resolution is found, and my constituent receives the full pension contributions that she earned in service to this country?

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate case about a very complex and tragic issue. I agree to meet him, and I hope that we can find an equitable outcome for his constituent.

Points of Order

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

15:44

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today the Children’s Commissioner has published a report indicating that children in England face a state of emergency. Has the Secretary of State for Education given any indication that she intends to come to the House to give a statement and allow Members to question her on the Government’s response?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is no, I have had no such indication. However, at least those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on a matter concerning the rules of courtesy and the rights of this House. Earlier today, Ministers chose to issue a major press release outlining critical new Government policies regarding young people and jobs, yet we have had no such statement. “Erskine May” is entirely clear that major policy announcements should be made first to this House before they are given to the media. It is an absolute discourtesy to Parliament that Members must read about vital employment initiatives for our youth in the newspapers, rather than hearing them directly from the Dispatch Box. Have you, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I have got the message. You are absolutely right, but I am not responsible for statements. Once again, I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard you.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Order of 18 November 2025 in the last Session of Parliament (Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(3) Proceedings in Committee—

(a) shall be taken on the first and second days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings

First day
Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 12; Schedule 2; Clauses 13 and 14; Schedule 3; Clauses 15 and 16; Schedule 4; Clause 17; Schedule 5; Clauses 18 to 71; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of Parts 1 to 5. Second day	The moment of interruption on the first day.
Clauses 72 to 90; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of Parts 6 to 8; Clause 91; Schedule 6; Clauses 92 to 98; remaining proceedings on the Bill.	One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading—

(a) shall be taken on the second day, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Sarah Owen.)

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

15:46

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is important to put on record the Opposition’s unhappiness with how Committee stage is being handled. Although we of course welcome a Committee of the whole House, which allows hon. Members from Northern Irish parties to contribute, the amount of time set aside is wholly inadequate for the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that the House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98-clause Bill to which over 300 amendments—including, I think, 144 Government amendments—have been tabled, and the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself.

The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerningly, the programme motion makes it clear that we will have only about an hour for Report, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for making those points, and for highlighting the lack of opportunity for this House to properly and thoroughly scrutinise this legislation today or tomorrow. I lament the fact that this democratic Chamber will have much less of an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill than the House of Lords does. Once the shadow Secretary of State concludes his remarks, we do not need scores of Members to make the same point, because that would eat into our scrutiny time.

[Alex Burghart]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Member.

It looks as though we will get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to the House to debate this Bill properly is laughable. On Wednesday the House is confining itself to the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill. On Thursday we have a general debate. This House will not get to vote on any of the Government’s 144 amendments directly, or on any of the Government’s 98 clauses individually.

The new Administration have done one good thing here, for which they should take credit: they have rolled the remedial order into this legislation. We strongly support that. It is something that those on the Conservative Benches have been calling for throughout the progress of the Bill, but we think that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said during the carry-over debate, it would have been far better for the Government to have adopted their own amendments and created a new Bill, and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the Government are now up to. The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that that would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the new Bill in its entirety.

As it is, and as the right hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out, the main scrutiny will have to be done by the upper House. Although their lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.

15:49

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I want to speak in favour of the argument for more time that the shadow Secretary of State has put forward. The issue of legacy has been dealt with by the UK Government for more than seven years. It has been going around in circles, and I have been critical of some of the previous Government’s approaches.

We are talking about the victims of some of the most horrendous crimes in our country. We are talking about veterans who worked for our country to protect it against some of the worst examples of terrorism. We are talking about relationships with Ireland; there is a great deal of concern about how far it is going to go with what it has committed to.

In this process of two days, we are going to consider more than 300 amendments. It is a ridiculous situation. This is people’s lives. This is people who are extremely vulnerable—whether they are a veteran worried about a court case or a victim who has been waiting for decades, their position is one of mental and physical trauma. It is absolutely shocking that we should have got into a situation where the House does not have the ability to take our time, consider the amendments and come to as close an agreed conclusion as we can.

15:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for setting out their views on this issue and keeping them brief. I will carry on in that vein by keeping my remarks about the programme motion brief, as I am keen for us to move straight to Committee proceedings. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are similarly keen.

I want to address some of the points, particularly those about the amendments. We tabled our amendments a week before Committee, in line with the usual practice for Government amendments. The amendments followed significant discussion with many Members and many stakeholder groups over many weeks and months. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that there are many amendments, but he has to recognise that many of them are technical. Over the course of the two full days, we will be able to scrutinise, debate and consider those amendments in detail before the Bill is sent to the other place, where I have no doubt it will receive significant further scrutiny.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is absolutely right: the Bill is about victims and we cannot allow those victims to wait any longer for answers. Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the issue of the legacy of the troubles remains unresolved. After many years of bereaved families having been let down, this may be our last chance to get things right. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to fix the failed systems that the Tories created and ensure that a reformed legacy commission can be the route for families to get the answers that they need and deserve.

More than a quarter of a century after the end of the troubles, too many families are still waiting for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Their grief has been prolonged by uncertainty and unanswered questions. We cannot accept that any longer. It is critical that we move the Bill forward. To that end, I urge all Members to support the motion. I commend it to the House.

Question put.

15:53

Division 90

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 286

Noes: 163

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

Considered in Committee

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, HC 162; Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of Session 2024-26, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government Response, HC 1716; Correspondence from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on the Government’s amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, reported to the House on 12 October 2026.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. When addressing the Chair, please use our names, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman”.

Clause 1

Introduction

16:07

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move amendment 143, page 1, line 8, leave out

“including Schedules 1 to 8 to that Act,”.

This is a drafting change.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), or of any Remedial Order made under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any rights or protections that were, as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, granted by the ICRIR to individuals who had previously served as service personnel or crown servants are to be regarded by any prosecuting authority or court in the United Kingdom as remaining in force.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.

Amendment 24, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “12 April 2010”.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) perpetuating or planning an act of terrorism”.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(2A) Any actions which were lawfully performed by members of the Armed Forces, or Crown servants, in the course of their duties shall not, as a consequence of this Act, be considered as unlawful acts of terrorism or criminal violence.”

Amendment 10, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(7) No provisions of this Act may be read to imply or suggest a moral equivalence between perpetrators of terrorism and the security and police forces of the State.”

Amendment 56, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(7) No provisions of this Act are to be understood as suggesting any form of equivalence between terrorist actors and the British Armed Forces, security or police services.”

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “(section 7)” insert “, and

(f) the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.”

Amendment 82, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

“(e) to offer to refer parties to relevant conduct to restorative justice processes as an alternative to referral to prosecution where investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under this Act find evidence that offences have been committed (see section [Restorative justice procedures]).”

This amendment provides that a principal function of the Legacy Commission will be to offer to refer parties to restorative justice processes as an alternative to prosecution. It is connected to Amendments 83 and 84, and NC19.

Government amendment 144.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) In performing its functions, the Legacy Commission must ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.”

This amendment will require the Legacy Commission to ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.

Amendment 53, page 3, line 7, leave out from “, and” until end of line 8.

This amendment would remove the Chief Executive Officer from being a member of the Legacy Commission’s oversight board.

Government amendments 145 to 147.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendments 252 to 254.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 82, line 23, at end insert—

“(cc) the person has previously held one or more of the following offices—

(i) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(ii) a councillor (within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 – see section 126(1) of that Act);

(iii) a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, or

(iv) a Member of the European Parliament representing any constituency in Northern Ireland,”.

This amendment adds anyone who has previously held elected office in Northern Ireland to the list of restrictions on being appointed as a Legacy Commissioner or Director of Investigations.

Government amendments 255 to 259.

Amendment 42, page 86, leave out part 4.

This Amendment decouples the process for appointing Judicial Panel members from the appointment process for other offices involving the Secretary of State and is consequential to Amendments 39, 40 and 41.

Schedule 1.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out from “investigations” to end of line 2 and insert “in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, so far as practicable, to ensure that one of the persons appointed as Director of Investigations must have experience of conducting criminal investigations elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 39, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.

This amendment provides for Judicial Panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.

Amendment 40, page 4, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”.

This amendment provides for the senior judicial panel member to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and is consequential on Amendment 39.

Amendment 41, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment removes reference to the appointment process set out in Schedule 1 and is consequential to Amendments 39 and 40.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Amendment 116, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, after “victims” insert “, veterans”.

This amendment changes the purpose of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group so that it additionally provides advice to the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State in such a way as to uphold the rights and interests of veterans.

Amendment 117, page 5, line 11, leave out “so far as practicable”.

This amendment removes the “so far as practicable” limitation on the categories of people who must be members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(iii) the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and”.

Amendment 75, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(iii) one or more persons who is a veteran.”

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, so far as practicable, ensure that the Victims and Survivors Group includes at least one veteran, as defined in Amendment 79.

Amendment 21, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has—

(a) been convicted of a Troubles-related offence, or

(b) been identified, following national security vetting, as having had any former or current associations with any proscribed organisation.”

Amendment 52, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has been, or is, a member of a political party that has any links to, or supports, any paramilitary or terrorist organisations past or present.”

Amendment 1, page 5, line 21, at end insert

“, and

(b) do not include any person—

(i) who has participated in any terrorist act, or

(ii) who has a terrorism-related criminal conviction.”

Amendment 2, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(5A) For the purposes of this section, a “victim” is a human individual who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, through no fault of their own, directly by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law.

(5B) A person is not to be considered a “victim” if they—

(a) are, or were, physically or psychologically injured as a result, or in consequence, of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict related incident; and

(b) were either wholly, or in part, responsible for the planning, or implementation, of an unlawful conflict related incident.”

This amendment inserts a definition of victim for the purposes of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group which would be established under clause 8.

Amendment 22, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(5A) In this section references to victims and survivors refer to innocent victims and does not include those who are precluded from receiving a Victims Pension under Regulation 6 of the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020.”

Amendment 118, page 5, line 31, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer whose function is to—

(a) monitor and assess whether the views and interests of each member are being adequately represented within the Group;

(b) produce an annual report on the effectiveness of the Group’s representational balance and engagement with the Legacy Commission; and

(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State for improving the Group’s composition or consultative practices where imbalances or deficiencies are identified.”

This amendment provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the Group’s representational balance and effectiveness.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 149.

Clause 9 stand part.

Government amendment 150.

Amendment 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would remove the national security restriction on the Legacy Commission’s potential activities.

Amendment 85, page 6, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

This amendment would limit the restriction on the Legacy Commission’s actions to those that would damage national security, rather than including those that would risk damaging national security.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendment 151.

Amendment 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 5, leave out

“human rights should be respected”

and insert

“human rights standards must be complied with”.

Amendment 77, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that veterans who served the United Kingdom should not face disproportionate legal action through the conduct of the Legacy Commission.”

This amendment introduces a specific principle to the duties of the Legacy Commission, ensuring that in exercising its functions, the Commission protects veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who served the UK from disproportionate legal action.

Amendment 119, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that all investigatory and inquisitorial functions should be exercised proportionately, having regard to the public interest in further inquiry and the likely evidential value of what it may yield.”

This amendment introduces a principle requiring investigatory and inquisitorial functions to be exercised proportionately by the Legacy Commission, having regard to the public interest and likely evidential value.

Government amendment 152.

Amendment 81, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(g) the principle that restorative justice procedures can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—

(i) facilitating honesty,

(ii) supporting victims and survivors, and

(iii) promoting reconciliation.”

This amendment creates a duty on the Legacy Commission to function consistently with the principle that restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles.

Clause 11 stand part.

Amendment 55, in clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out “constable” and insert

“Chief Constable, as provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”.

Government amendments 153 and 154.

Clause 12 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 155 to 160.

Clause 13 stand part

Government amendments 161 and 162.

Amendment 120, in clause 14, page 9, line 24, leave out from second “person” to end of line 25 and insert

“(other than a veteran) to attend at a time and place stated in the notice, and in the case of a veteran may require such attendance only where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means—”.

This amendment provides that veterans may only be required to attend in person where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means.

Government amendments 163 and 164.

Amendment 80, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

“(3A) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) may not be issued to a veteran who has previously provided information under the provisions of this section, unless—

(a) materially new evidence has been brought to the attention of the relevant person,

(b) as a result of the new evidence, issuing a notice to a veteran to provide further information would, in the opinion of the relevant person, be proportionate and necessary,

(c) the relevant person has issued a certificate confirming that the conditions in (a) and (b) have been met.”

This amendment would prevent a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member from requiring a veteran to provide information under this section unless the investigator had certified that it was, in their view, proportionate and necessary to do so.

Amendment 138, page 10, line 6, at end insert—

“(5A) A notice under this section may not require a person to attend to give oral evidence when the provisions of section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate] apply.

(5B) Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of full medical records, except in accordance with section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate].”

Government amendments 165 to 167.

Clause 14 stand part.

Government amendments 260 and 261.

Schedule 3.

Government amendments 168 and 169.

Clause 15 stand part.

Amendment 86, in clause 16, page 11, line 36, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

This amendment changes the definition of sensitive information to refer to information that, if disclosed, would damage national security, rather than also including information that would risk damaging national security.

Amendment 87, page 12, line 5, leave out

“person considering whether information is prejudicial information”

and insert

“Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland”.

This amendment would give the decision as to whether the disclosure of information is prejudicial, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Clause 16 stand part.

Amendment 286, in schedule 4, page 99, line 14, leave out from “The duty” to the end of paragraph (4).

This amendment would remove the requirement for relevant authorities to classify information as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring it to the Legacy Commission, reflecting the conclusions of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.

Schedule 4.

Amendment 65, in clause 17, page 12, line 18, leave out from “person” to the end of line 41 and insert

“, unless in the view of the Commission the disclosure of such information would lead to a breach of any individual’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.”

Amendment 88, page 12, line 21, after “concerned” insert

“, unless a judicial panel member finds that it is necessary and proportionate to do so”.

This amendment would enable a judicial panel member to determine that a disclosure of information may be made by the Legacy Commission, notwithstanding prohibitions A to E, if they believe such a disclosure is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 89, page 12, line 38, after “proceedings” insert

“, if any restriction notice has been approved by a judicial panel member”.

This amendment would require a judicial panel member to agree to the issuing of a restriction notice.

Government amendment 170.

Amendment 54, page 12, line 41, at end insert—

“(11) Within six months of this section coming into force, and every six months thereafter, the Legacy Commission must report on any incidences in which the Secretary of State, under the provisions of Prohibition C in subsection (6) and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, has either—

(a) prohibited the disclosure of, or

(b) ordered the redaction of material that has been identified by the Secretary of State as protected international information.

(12) In the case of material falling under subsection 11(b), the report specified in subsection (11) must include any determination made by the Legacy Commission as to whether the redactions resulted in the material being of no use to them in their investigations.

(13) Within a month of each report published by the Legacy Commission under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the report’s conclusions.”

Clause 17 stand part.

Government amendments 262 and 263.

Amendment 37, in schedule 5, page 101, line 39, leave out from “permitted” to the end of paragraph (5).

This amendment would remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to be notified prior to, and their ability to veto on national security or public interest grounds, the disclosure of sensitive information by the Legacy Commission.

Amendment 90, page 102, line 2, after “and” insert

“takes their response into account when reaching a decision”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 91 to 96, would allow the Legacy Commission to disclose sensitive information once it has notified the Secretary of State, and considered their response, and would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to prohibit disclosure on national security grounds.

Amendment 91, page 102, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 92, page 102, line 8, leave out “permitted” and insert “approved”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 93, page 102, line 9, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 94, page 102, line 11, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 97, page 102, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”.

Amendments 97 and 98 clarify that the power to prohibit proposed disclosures on national security grounds is limited to those areas which would definitively, rather than potentially, impact national security.

Amendment 95, page 102, line 23, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 96, page 102, line 24, leave out “prohibition” and insert “opposition”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90.

Amendment 104, page 102, line 24, after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) Where a notification under sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) has been made, the Secretary of State must refer the matter to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

(5B) A referral under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made within a month of the Secretary of State’s notification.

(5C) In considering the referral under sub-paragraph (5A), the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament may request further reasons, and information, from the Secretary of State relating to the decision to prohibit the proposed disclosure on national security grounds.

(5D) The Secretary of State must respond to any request from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for further reasons or information within two weeks of receiving the request.

(5E) After considering a referral under sub-paragraph 5A the Intelligence and Security Committee may within 12 months of the referral lay before both Houses of Parliament a report outlining the Committee’s—

(a) assessment of the Secretary of State’s reasons for prohibiting the proposed disclosure of information; and

(b) conclusions on why the prohibition is an inappropriate response to national security considerations, and how—

(i) the information in its entirety could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed; or

(ii) the information, subject to redactions, could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed.

(5F) Where the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported that a disclosure could, in their opinion, be reasonably made under sub-paragraph (5E)(b) (i) or (ii), the Secretary of State must, within a month of the Committee publishing its report, make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the Committee’s conclusions.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to refer any decision to block a disclosure on national security grounds to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, enabling the Committee to review the decision, request further information, and, if it concludes that the prohibition is not justified, report to Parliament on how the information could reasonably be disclosed.

Amendment 98, page 102, line 26, leave out “risking damage to, or”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 97.

Amendment 38, page 103, leave out paragraphs (8) to (13).

This amendment is supplementary to Amendment 37.

Government amendments 264 to 266.

Amendment 101, page 104, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.

Amendment 99, page 104, line 30, leave out “an” and insert “a merits based”.

These amendments (99 to 101) would extend the power of the courts to review the merits of a Secretary of State’s decision not to permit the proposed disclosure of information, beyond those powers provided to courts in judicial review proceedings.

Amendment 100, page 104, line 33, leave out “review” and insert

“reconsider all evidence relating to”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99.

Schedule 5.

Clause 18 stand part.

Government amendments 171 to 177.

Clause 19 stand part.

Amendment 67, in clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Government amendments 178 and 179.

Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.

Government amendments 180 to 182.

Clause 22 stand part.

Amendment 70, in clause 23, page 17, line 36, after “appropriate” insert—

“(k) the number of occasions during that reporting period when an employee of the Commissioner either—

(i) declared, or

(ii) (ii) was determined, following an internal review, to have

a conflict of interest in relation to a case referred to the Commission.”

Clause 23 stand part.

Government amendment 183.

Clause 24 stand part.

Government amendments 184 and 185.

Clause 25 stand part.

Government amendments 186 and 187.

Amendment 62, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) The statement must set out the manner in which the Legacy Commission is to exercise its investigatory function so as to ensure compliance with its human rights obligations, including, but not limited to, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Government amendments 188 and 189.

Clause 26 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 27, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Where conduct forming part of the Troubles—

(a) caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, or

(b) caused a person physical or mental harm as the result of being the victim of a sexual offence,

the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”

This amendment would enable victims of sexual crimes that were committed as conduct forming part of the Troubles to request an investigation under Part 3 of the Bill.

Amendment 68, page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (3).

Clause 27 stand part.

Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) there is material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, and there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43.”

This amendment requires any requests for investigations by public authorities based on new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30 and requires there to be a realistic prospect of information being provided to a prosecutor.

Amendment 139, page 23, line 3, at end insert—

“(11A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.

Amendment 103, in clause 30, page 23, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the request relates to a matter which has previously been the subject of investigatory or inquisitorial proceedings, no further investigation may be accepted by the Directors unless—

(a) materially new evidence has been brought to their attention, and

(b) as a result of that new evidence, a re-investigation would, in their opinion, be proportionate, necessary, and in the public interest for maintaining confidence and trust in the justice system.

(c) Where (a) and (b) are satisfied, the Directors must issue a certification confirming that those conditions have been met.”

This amendment is intended to introduce a rule against reinvestigation of matters related to the conduct of a veteran unless new evidence has been brought to the attention of the Director of Investigations, is proportionate and necessary, and it is in the public interest.

Amendment 280, page 23, line 26, leave out

“or an active resumed inquest”.

Amendment 281, page 23, line 36, leave out

“or an active resumed inquest”.

Amendment 282, page 24, line 5, leave out “or resumed inquest”.

Amendment 123, page 24, line 9, leave out from “unless” to end and insert

“material new evidence exists which was not available to previous investigators and the Directors of Investigations acting jointly have issued a written “New Evidence Certificate” which—

(i) identifies the specific material relied upon as constituting such material new evidence;

(ii) confirms that the material was not reasonably available at the time of any previous investigation or inquest;

(iii) explains why any further investigation or duplication is essential and proportionate, having regard in particular to—

(A) the passage of time;

(B) the age and health of any person likely to be investigated;

(C) the likelihood that the new evidence could realistically lead to information capable of being provided to a prosecutor; and

is published, subject only to national security and GDPR redactions.”

This amendment introduces a requirement that further investigations duplicating earlier proceedings may only be undertaken where material new evidence exists and a “New Evidence Certificate” has been issued.

Amendment 25, page 24, line 9, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 283, page 24, line 11, leave out “or a resumed inquest”.

Amendment 284, page 24, line 19, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Clause 30 stand part.

Amendment 125, in clause 31, page 25, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of that investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in the Directors’ view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before subsequent investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 26, page 25, line 33, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Clause 31 stand part.

Amendment 126, in clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) owing to material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43,”

This amendment requires investigations initiated by the Directors of Investigations on the basis of new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30.

Amendment 285, page 26, line 20, leave out from “proceedings” until the end of line 21.

Clauses 32 to 34 stand part.

Government amendments 190 and 191.

Clause 35 stand part.

Amendment 130, in clause 36, page 28, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) The Director must decide that the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation only where—

(a) material new evidence exists, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and

(b) such evidence is capable of demonstrating that the relevant conduct constituted an offence at the time it occurred; and

(c) there is a realistic prospect that the relevant prosecutorial authority would decide that it is in the public interest for a person to be prosecuted in respect of that conduct, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”

This amendment raises the threshold for conducting a criminal investigation by requiring material new evidence and a realistic prospect of prosecution. It is connected to Amendment 123.

Amendment 131, page 28, line 33, at end insert “, but may only do so where—

“(a) material new evidence exists in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and

(b) determining those facts is fair and proportionate, having regard in particular to the matters set out in sections 36(10) and 36(10A).”

This amendment limits non-criminal fact-finding investigations to cases where material new evidence exists and where such inquiries are fair and proportionate. It is connected to Amendment 123.

Amendment 127, page 29, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in the Director’s view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 27, page 29, line 9, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Government amendment 192.

Amendment 132, page 29, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) the conduct to which the investigation relates occurred, including the operational orders, briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time; and”.

This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the operational context in which the conduct occurred, including relevant orders, briefings and intelligence.

Amendment 133, page 29, line 21, at end insert—

“(10A) In carrying out an investigation, the Director must also have regard to—

(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;

(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and

(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry or questioning remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”

This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out an investigation.

Amendment 34, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”

Amendment 63, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) A ‘previous investigation’ refers solely to investigations which complied with the full requirements of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Clause 36 stand part.

Government amendment 193.

Clause 37 stand part.

Government amendment 194.

Amendment 121, in clause 38, page 30, line 33, at end insert—

“(6A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”

This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.

Clause 38 stand part.

Amendment 69, in clause 39, page 31, line 20, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert

“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”

Clauses 39 to 42 stand part.

Amendment 83, in clause 43, page 35, line 7, at end insert

“and no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”

This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.

Amendment 12, page 35, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 13, page 35, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 14, page 35, line 22, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Government amendments 195 and 196.

Amendment 15, page 35, line 33, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.

Amendment 44, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) No referral for prosecution is to be made for a person who served in—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),

(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

when the conduct under investigation arose as a result of that person acting in accordance with operational decisions.”

Amendment 47, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the referral for prosecution concerns a veteran of—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the Special Forces),

(b) the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Services or Government Communications Headquarters,

(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(d) the Police Service of Northern Ireland

the written permission of the relevant person as set out in subsection (6B) is required.

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), the relevant person is defined as follows—

(a) the Director of Service Prosecutions (in the case of paragraph (a)),

(b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom (in the case of paragraph (b)), or

(c) the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d)).

(6C) When determining whether to give the permission required under subsection (6A), the relevant person must consider whether prosecution would have a negative impact on the proposed defendant’s mental or physical health, giving particular attention to—

(a) the proposed defendant’s age and health;

(b) any trauma that the proposed defendant suffered as a result of their service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles;

(c) any medical evidence from the practising doctor; and

(d) the number of times that the individual has been previously investigated or given evidence to an investigation.”

Amendment 140, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clauses 43 to 48 stand part.

Government amendment 197.

Clause 49 stand part.

Amendment 278, in clause 50, page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) This section applies to a death caused directly by conduct forming part of the Troubles if—

(a) the Secretary of State gives a direction to the senior judicial panel member in relation to the death;

(b) an inquest relating to that death had been initiated, including where such inquests had not yet been allocated to a coroner, before 1 May 2024, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.”

Clause 50 stand part.

Government amendments 198 and 199.

Amendment 128, in clause 51, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) must (in particular) ensure that they do not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless—

(i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,

(ii) in their view, the duplication is essential.”

This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before inquisitorial proceedings may duplicate previous investigative steps.

Amendment 28, page 40, line 17, after “essential” insert

“, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 279, page 40, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) For the purpose of subsection (3), in taking into account previous investigations, the relevant judicial panel member must consider any evidence that was presented before those investigations before requiring a witness to give evidence at inquisitorial proceedings.”

Amendment 134, page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) The relevant judicial panel member must ensure that, in the carrying out of the proceedings, regard is had to—

(a) the context in which the conduct examined in the course of the proceedings occurred, including—

(i) operational orders given to personnel; and

(ii) briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time.

(b) any earlier criminal investigation of that conduct occurred.”

This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the operational context in inquisitorial proceedings.

Amendment 35, page 40, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of this section, “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.”

Amendment 135, page 40, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) In carrying out the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member must also have regard to—

(a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation;

(b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and

(c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).”

This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out judicial proceedings.

Government amendments 200 to 202.

Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.

Amendment 76, in clause 54, page 41, line 32, after “person” insert

“who is not a veteran”.

This amendment together with Amendment 78 provides that a person who is a veteran, as defined in Amendment 79, will not be required to give evidence in person to an inquisitorial proceeding, unless the Director of Investigations demonstrates it is strictly essential for them to do so.

Amendment 29, page 41, line 35, after “given)” insert

“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Amendment 78, page 41, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) Where a veteran is required to give evidence in inquisitorial proceedings, the judicial panel member must give permission for such evidence to be given through a live audio or live video link, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, unless the Director or Directors of Investigations can demonstrate that there is a clear and specific reason, recorded in writing, which makes it strictly essential for the veteran in question to give evidence in person.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 76.

Government amendment 203.

Clause 54 stand part.

Government amendment 204.

Clause 55 stand part.

Government amendment 205.

Amendment 108, in clause 56, page 43, line 8, at end insert

“unless such restrictions would lead to the concealment of the involvement of a state agent in rape or other sexual offences.”

This amendment would ensure that the restrictions on public access provided in this section may not be imposed if they would result in the concealment of information about state actors who were involved in rape or other sexual offences.

Government amendments 206 to 208.

Amendment 30, page 43, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) Restrictions under this section may be imposed if the individual subject to, or participating in, inquisitorial proceedings is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”

Government amendment 209.

Clause 56 stand part

Government amendments 210 to 221.

Clauses 57 and 58 stand part.

Government amendment 222.

Clause 59 stand part.

Government amendment 223.

Clause 60 stand part.

Amendment 84, in clause 61, page 46, line 37, at end insert

“and no referral to a restorative justice procedure has been made.”

This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made.

Amendment 16, page 47, line 1, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 17, page 47, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 18, page 47, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert

“there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 26, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”.

Amendment 141, page 48, line 10, at end insert—

“(10) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”

Clause 61 stand part.

Government amendment 224.

Amendment 122, in clause 62, page 48, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.”

This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made.

Clause 62 stand part.

Amendment 71, in clause 63, page 49, line 16, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert

“an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.”

Clauses 63 to 66 stand part.

Government amendments 225 and 226.

Clauses 67 and 68 stand part.

Amendment 136, in clause 69, page 54, line 23, leave out “have regard to the” and insert

“not take any decisions which will, or are likely to, unreasonably impact the”.

Amendment 31, page 54, line 25, after “proceedings” insert

“, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”.

Amendment 137, page 54, line 25, at end insert—

“(3) In determining reasonableness in this section, the relevant Directors of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must have specific regard to—

(a) the number of prior investigations or interviews the individual giving evidence or participating in the investigation or proceedings has participated in;

(b) the intrusiveness of the step;

(c) the availability of less intrusive means by which to obtain the evidence or benefit of the individual’s participation in proceedings; and

(d) the importance of the individual’s participation or evidence in the investigation as a whole.”

This amendment prohibits investigative steps that would unreasonably impact the health or welfare of a person, and sets out factors relevant to determining reasonableness.

Clause 69 stand part.

Government amendment 227.

Clause 70 stand part.

Government amendments 228 to 231.

Clause 71 stand part.

Government new clause 32—Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces.

Government new clause 33—Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Government new clause 34—Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

Government new clause 35—Duty to avoid unnecessary costs.

Government new clause 36—Inspections of the Legacy Commission.

Government new clause 37—Powers of inspection.

Government new clause 38—Reports following inspections.

Government new clause 39—Disclosure of sensitive or protected international information by the Inspectorate.

Government new clause 40—Assistance agreements.

Government new clause 41—Effect, pending determination, of application for restriction order.

Government new clause 42—Information for registrar of deaths following inquisitorial proceedings.

Government new clause 43—Time limit for applying for judicial review.

Government new clause 44—Intercepted communications etc.

Government new clause 45—Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses.

Government new clause 46—Initial contact with police officers.

Government new clause 47—Working with prosecutors: policy statement.

Government new clause 48—Defamation.

New clause 1—Legacy Commission: Transparency of resourcing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, each financial year, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the resources allocated to the Legacy Commission.

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the resources made available to the Commission; and

(b) the allocation of resources to investigations relating to—

(i) state actors, and

(ii) non-state actors.

(3) Within two months of the publication of a report made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on the report.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each financial year which sets out the resources made available to the Commission and the allocation of resources to investigations relating to state and to non-state actors.

New clause 2—Disqualification from appointment of Persons with Terrorist Associations—

“(1) A person (X) is disqualified from being appointed, or from continuing to serve, as—

(a) a Commissioner of the Legacy Commission,

(b) a Director of Investigations,

(c) a member of the judicial panel,

(d) an officer of the Legacy Commission, or

(e) a member of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group,

if subsection (2) applies to that person.

(2) This subsection applies where person (X)—

(a) is, or has been, convicted of a terrorist offence within the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000;

(b) is, or has been, a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of section 3 of that Act; or

(c) has publicly advocated for, justified, or glorified the commission of acts of terrorism connected with the Troubles

(3) The Secretary of State must, before confirming any appointment under this Act, require candidates to declare any matter that would fall within subsection (2).

(4) The Secretary of State must terminate the appointment of any person who becomes disqualified under this section.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section prevents the appointment of a person whose only connection to the Troubles was as an innocent victim or survivor.”

New clause 3—Lack of legal effect for “comfort letters” or assurances—

“(1) For the avoidance of doubt no “comfort letter” or other assurance of no police investigation or prosecution provided at any time to any person can have any lawful effect.

(2) This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”

New clause 4—Principles when examining activities of veterans of armed forces or police service—

“In evaluating the actions or omissions of any person under investigation while serving in the armed forces or the police there shall be a rebuttable presumption that there was no criminal mens rea involved.”

New clause 5—Support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—

“The Secretary of State must ensure, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, that an equivalent package of practical and financial support and assistance is provided to former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, facing investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under the provisions of this Act, as is provided by the Ministry of Defence to former members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

New clause 6—Requirement to not make remedial orders in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—

“(1) No remedial order may be made by the Secretary of State under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of any part of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

(2) Any remedial order in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that was made prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent is to be regarded as having no legal effect.

(3) If a remedial order had been made in relation to the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must, within a month of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament regulations to repeal the remedial order.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

New clause 8—Relevant authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: Legacy Commission—

“(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 31, subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(ab) The Legacy Commission.’

(3) In Section 32, subsection (6), after paragraph (n) insert—

‘(o) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(4) In Section 33, after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4AZA) The Legacy Commission shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance except on an application made by the Director(s) of Investigation.’

(5) In Section 33, subsection (5A), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) The Legacy Commission.’

(6) In Section 34, subsection (4), after paragraph (m) insert—

‘(n) a person is entitled to act for the Legacy Commission if they are the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(7) In Section 51, subsection (2), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, the Legacy Commission’.

(8) In Section 51, subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) in the case of a direction by the Legacy Commission, except by or with the permission of the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(9) In Section 51, subsection (3), after ‘the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert—

‘, the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission’.

(10) In Section 55, subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(zba) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(11) In Section 56, subsection (1), after paragraph (ha) insert—

‘(hab) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(12) In Section 75, subsection (5), after “Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary” insert—

‘, or the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’

(13) In Section 75, subsection (6), after paragraph (ee) insert—

‘(ef) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’

(14) In Schedule 1, Part A1 (Relevant Authorities for the Purposes of ss. 28, 29 and 29B), after paragraph (A1A) insert—

‘(A1B) The Legacy Commission.’

(15) In Schedule 2, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission.’

(16) In Schedule 2, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (5), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission;’.”

This new clause is consequential to Amendment 55 and would bring the powers of the Legacy Commission and the Director(s) of Investigation in line with those afforded to Chief Constables and equivalent investigatory bodies in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

New clause 9—“On the runs”: no immunity from prosecution—

“It is recognised that the “on the runs” administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution.”

This new clause reaffirms the conclusions of Lady Justice Hallett’s 2014 report into the “On the Run” administrative scheme.

New clause 13—Tort, delict and fatal accident actions—

“(1) A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force.

(2) A relevant Troubles-related civil action may not be brought on or after the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) For the purposes of this section an action is a “relevant Troubles-related civil action” if conditions A, B and C are met.

(4) Condition A: the action is to determine a claim arising out of conduct forming part of the Troubles.

(5) Condition B: the action is founded on—

(a) tort or delict,

(b) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation, or

(c) a cause of action arising under the law of any other jurisdiction that corresponds to—

(i) tort or delict, or

(ii) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation.

(6) Condition C: the time limit for bringing the action was, or would be (in the absence of this section), given in—

(a) the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11)),

(b) the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/754 (N.I. 5)),

(c) the Limitation Act 1980,

(d) the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984,

(e) the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, or

(f) section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;

(including where a court has permitted the action to be brought outside such a time limit).

(7) Subsection (1) does not stop a relevant Troubles-related civil action from being continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force, if the court of first instance has given a final judgment on, or otherwise finally determined, the matter in dispute before that day (including by a default judgment or a consent order or, in Scotland, by a decree in absence, decree by default or summary decree).

(8) Where subsection (1) or (2) stops an action from being continued, or brought, on or after the day on which this section comes into force, that subsection—

(a) does not stop costs proceedings from being continued or begun on or after that day; but

(b) otherwise stops the proceedings in the action, and any other related proceedings, from being continued or begun on or after that day.

(9) In this section—

“costs proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings to determine or recover costs (in Northern Ireland or England and Wales) or expenses (in Scotland) of the action;

“fatal accidents legislation” means—

(a) the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)),

(b) the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or

(c) section 4 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 7);

“matter in dispute” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means the claim (referred to in subsection (4)) which arises out of conduct forming part of the Troubles and which the action is to determine;

“other jurisdiction” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means a jurisdiction (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) other than the jurisdiction in which that action is, or would be, brought;

“other related proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings which relate to, or arise out of the action (including any enforcement action and any appeal), except for costs proceedings;

“2008 Mediation Directive” means Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.”

New clause 14—Investigations: ability to accept referrals for conduct after 10 April 1998—

“(1) The Legacy Commission may accept any request for an investigation into conduct which would be considered conduct “forming part of the Troubles” had it occurred between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998 where that conduct caused—

(a) a person’s death, or

(b) a person to suffer serious mental or physical harm,

and where an investigation had previously occurred but was subsequently found to not be compliant with Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) The Legacy Commission may accept such a request notwithstanding the conduct in question occurring after the time period specified in Section 2 of this Act, provided that the Commission is satisfied that the conduct in question was related to the Troubles.”

New clause 15—Inquisitorial Proceedings: ability to make a finding of state collusion—

“(1) This section applies where inquisitorial proceedings have been carried out.

(2) In producing a final report on the findings of the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member may, if satisfied that they have received clear evidence that “state actors” were involved in the breach of an individual’s rights under Articles 2 or 3 (or both) of the European Convention of Human Rights, make a finding of collusion between the UK Government and paramilitary organisations.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), “state actors” includes members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, security or police services.”

New clause 16—Independent reviewer of the safeguards for veterans under this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer to monitor the application of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.

(2) Within a year of their appointment, and every year thereafter, the Independent Reviewer must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act.

(3) In producing the reports specified in subsection (2), the Independent Reviewer may make any such recommendations for the reform of the safeguards as they deem appropriate.

(4) The Independent Reviewer established under subsection (2) shall be appointed for a five-year term, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.

(5) In this section, "armed forces" has the meaning given by section 94.”

This new clause would create an Independent Reviewer of safeguards for veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, in the Act.

New clause 17—Protections for veterans involved in investigations or inquisitorial proceedings—

“(1) Where inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 involve a person who is a veteran, a restriction notice or restriction order made under section 56 must prohibit the identification of that person in any proceedings or publications, whether directly or indirectly, unless the Secretary of State determines that disclosure is necessary in the public interest.

(2) The Legacy Commission must not contact a veteran directly regarding an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and contact relating to such matters must be made through the relevant official channel.

(3) The “relevant official channel” for the purposes of subsection (2) is either the Ministry of Defence or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or such other body as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.

(4) If any contact is made with a veteran under subsection (2), the veteran must be provided with appropriate welfare and support in connection with that contact from the relevant official channel.

(5) In applying section 69 (Duty to have regard to welfare of witnesses etc.), the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must—

(a) not take any investigative step that would unreasonably impact the physical or mental health of a veteran, and

(b) have regard for the cumulative and longitudinal impact of any previous investigations or questioning of that veteran.”

This new clause provides that veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who are subject to inquisitorial proceedings will not be identified until that disclosure is necessary in the public interest, that any contact with veterans is made through an official channel with appropriate welfare support provided, and that the welfare of veterans is considered before investigative steps are taken.

New clause 18—The work of the Legacy Commission: Principles of restorative justice—

“(1) Within six months of commencement of this Act, the Legacy Commission must report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work.

(2) The report produced under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following—

(a) ways in which the Legacy Commission could facilitate or offer restorative justice processes as part of its work;

(b) ways in which restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by—

(i) facilitating truth-telling;

(ii) supporting victims and survivors who wish to engage in non-adversarial processes; and

(iii) promoting acknowledgement, reconciliation, and understanding without displacing formal accountability mechanisms;

(c) any steps that it recommends the Government take to support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work.

(3) The report produced under subsection (1) must be made public.

(4) Within three months of the publication of the Legacy Commission’s report, the Government must lay a report of its response before Parliament.

(5) The Government response must include—

(a) any steps it will take to enable and support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work; and

(b) where it rejects the recommendations of the Legacy Commission, its reasons for doing so.”

This new clause requires the Legacy Commission to publish a report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work, and requires the government to respond to that report.

New clause 19—Referral to restorative justice procedures—

“(1) Where an investigation under Part 3 has been carried out and the relevant Director of Investigations considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual, whose identity is known to that Director, constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Director may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.

(2) Where an inquisitorial proceeding under Part 4 has been carried out and the relevant judicial panel member considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual whose identity is known to the judicial panel member constitutes an offence, the judicial panel member may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process.

(3) No referral to a restorative justice process can be made without the consent of every party to the conduct who would be entitled to be a participant in the activity.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, “a restorative justice process” means an activity—

(a) where the participants consist of the individuals referred under subsection (1) or (2) and at least one victim or survivor of the relevant conduct;

(b) which aims to maximise awareness of the impact of the relevant conduct on the victims; and

(c) which gives an opportunity to victims and survivors to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the conduct and its impact.

(5) A person running an activity for the purposes of a restorative justice referral must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with such an activity.

(6) In this Act, “parties to the relevant conduct” means the offender and one or more of the victims or survivors of the relevant conduct.

(7) In this section, “relevant conduct” has the same meaning as given in section 43(7).”

This new clause provides a definition of restorative justice and requires that any referral to restorative justice requires the consent of every person who would be a participant in that activity.

New clause 20—Comfort letters: lack of validity—

“The “comfort letters” issued by the UK Government under the “on the run” administrative scheme do not have, nor have ever had, any lawful effect and do not provide immunity from prosecution, nor may they impede any future prosecution.”

New clause 21—Protection for conduct carried out in accordance with contemporaneous Rules of Engagement in respect of Troubles-related conduct—

“(1) No criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries shall be commenced in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland by—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),

(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

unless the condition in subsection (2) has been met.

(2) The condition is that—

(a) there is new and compelling evidence, that was not available at the time of the conduct in question; and

(b) the evidence has been certified as “new and compelling” by a Supreme Court Judge.

(3) In any legal proceedings, it is to be presumed that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness of the Rules of Engagement and orders they received, unless—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) has been met; and

(b) the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.

(4) No civil action against any party identified in subsection (1) shall be commenced, unless in a prior criminal case related to the conduct in question—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) was met; and

(b) a criminal conviction against that specific party in relation to conduct in question was obtained.

(5) Where it can be shown that the operational directives or Rules of Engagement given to a party listed in subsection (1) were unlawful under the domestic law that was in force at the time of the conduct in question, criminal or disciplinary investigations, or proceedings, may only be commenced, or continued, against those individuals who authorised, or approved, the Rules of Engagement or directives, and not against individual service members who acted in good faith in following those directives.”

New clause 23—Provision of legal advice and support for veterans and former police officers—

(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that any person who—

(a) is a former member of the armed forces, or

(b) is a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

and who is subject to an investigation, review, inquest or legal proceedings relating to conduct forming part of the Troubles, has access to appropriate legal advice and support, and that such advice or support should be provided at no cost to the person in question.

(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include—

(a) access to independent legal representation,

(b) support in connection with inquests, investigations and any related proceedings, and

(c) such further assistance as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the provision of free legal advice and support to veterans and former police officers who are subject to investigations, inquests or legal proceedings relating to the Troubles.

New clause 24—Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld—

“(1) Where information relevant to an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 is not disclosed by virtue of—

(a) section 17(2);

(b) a restriction notice or restriction order under section 56; or

(c) any other enactment or rule of law,

the relevant decision-maker must determine whether, in the absence of that information, the investigation or proceedings can properly and fairly continue with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) In making a determination under subsection (1), the relevant decision-maker must consider—

(a) the need to ensure that any investigation or proceedings are conducted consistently with the principles set out in section 11;

(b) the need to secure public confidence in the work of the Legacy Commission; and

(c) whether the evidence available is sufficient to justify continuation.

(3) If the relevant decision-maker determines that the investigation or proceedings cannot properly and fairly continue, they must not take further steps in relation to the investigation or proceedings.

(4) In this section “relevant decision-maker” means—

(a) the relevant Director of Investigations; or

(b) the relevant judicial panel member.”

This new clause requires a determination of whether investigations or proceedings can fairly continue where relevant information is withheld, having regard to Article 6 ECHR.

New clause 25—Cold-calling protocol—

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a protocol (“the cold-calling protocol”) to ensure that any contact with a veteran, in connection with any matter arising under or by virtue of this Act, is made only through channels supported by the Ministry of Defence.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) prohibit direct or unsolicited approaches to a veteran by or on behalf of the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, or any other body exercising functions under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with the cold-calling protocol;

(b) provide that any permitted contact with a veteran is to be made only—

(i) with the knowledge and support of the Ministry of Defence, and

(ii) through a representative authorised for that purpose by the Ministry of Defence;

(c) secure that, from the first point of contact, the veteran is afforded access to advice and assistance arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence; and

(d) make provision for the recording and oversight of contacts made in accordance with the protocol.

(3) Regulations made under this section (1) are subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a cold-calling protocol governing contact with veterans, including provision for contact to be made only through Ministry of Defence-supported channels.

New clause 26—Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards—

“(1) The Secretary of State must also appoint a person (“the Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards”) to monitor the operation and effectiveness of—

(a) the cold-calling protocol made under section [Cold Calling Protocol], and

(b) any other arrangements made under or by virtue of this Act for the protection of veterans.

(2) The Independent Reviewer must, in particular—

(a) keep under review the implementation of the cold-calling protocol by the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, and any other body exercising functions under this Act;

(b) assess the adequacy of the steps taken by those bodies, and by the Ministry of Defence, to ensure compliance with that protocol; and

(c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State about any remedial or preventive action that appears to the Reviewer to be necessary or desirable.

(3) The Independent Reviewer must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of the Reviewer’s functions during that year.

(4) The Secretary of State must—

(a) lay a copy of each report given under subsection (3) before Parliament, and

(b) publish each report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to, or in respect of, the Independent Reviewer in connection with the performance of the Reviewer’s functions.”

This new clause provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the operation and effectiveness of safeguards for veterans under the Act.

New clause 27—Presumption against prosecuting veterans—

“In determining whether to institute, or continue, criminal proceedings in respect of conduct forming part of the Troubles, the relevant prosecutorial authority must have regard to the principle that it is to be exceptional for such proceedings to be brought or continued against a veteran, unless the evidential threshold is satisfied by material new evidence and it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.”

New clause 28—Duty to have regard to age and health of witnesses—

“(1) This section applies where an investigation under Part 3 of this Act, or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act, are being carried out.

(2) The Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members must, in exercising their functions in relation to investigations or inquisitorial proceedings, have specific regard to—

(a) the age and operational experience of any person at the time of the events being examined; and

(b) their current age, health and wellbeing when determining whether to compel participation or evidence.”

New clause 29—Presumption of anonymity for veterans—

“(1) A Veteran is entitled to anonymity in relation to—

(a) any investigation under Part 3,

(b) any inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and

(c) any publication, report or disclosure made under, or by virtue of, this Act, unless the Secretary of State determines that the disclosure of the veteran’s name or identity is necessary in the public interest.

(2) In determining whether disclosure is necessary in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to—

(a) the significance of disclosing the information to public understanding of the conduct or event to which it relates;

(b) the extent to which non-disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice; and

(c) the degree of risk to the veteran’s safety, welfare or private life that disclosure would be likely to cause.”

New clause 55—Transfer of Troubles-related Coroners inquests to the Legacy Commission—

“Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Presiding Coroner for Northern Ireland must—

(a) identify, and notify the Legacy Commission of, all inquests which had been initiated, including where a coroner had not yet been allocated, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern (Ireland) 1959;

(b) transfer to the Legacy Commission all relevant records relating to the inquests specified in subsection (a); and

(c) notify families and affected participants of the transfer of these cases from the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland to the Legacy Commission.”

New clause 56—Inquisitorial proceedings: duty of candour and assistance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that any duty of candour and assistance which is contained in any Act of Parliament which results from the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026-27, applies to inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act.

(2) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 79, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—

“‘veteran’ is a person who—

(a) has served for at least one day in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, whether as a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces,

(b) has served as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary,

(c) has served as a prison officer, including service in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, or

(d) has served in a police support, reserve, or auxiliary role connected with the maintenance of security during the Troubles, as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

but has not at any time been a member of, or acted in support of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000, or knowingly taken part in, assisted, or enabled the carrying out of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”

This amendment provides a definition of “veteran” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 276, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert—

“‘veteran’ means a former member of—

(a) the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown; or

(b) the police services who by reason of service was present, deployed, or acting in connection with Troubles-related operations, this excludes any person who—

(i) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(ii) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;

‘victim’ means a person who has suffered physical or psychological injury, loss or harm directly caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles, whether such harm arose from an act of violence, threat, intimidation, or other conflict-related event, this excludes any person who—

(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles;

‘survivor’ means a person who has experienced or continues to experience psychological injury, trauma, or other lasting harm arising directly or indirectly from conduct forming part of the Troubles, this excludes any person who—

(a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or

(b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.”

This amendment inserts definitions of “veteran”, “victim” and “survivor” for the purposes of the Act.

[Chris Bryant]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. Today, we will debate parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of those tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including those that amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the Bill.

First, I want to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow. That is important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers. It is important that the Bill is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background and whoever the probable perpetrator. It is important, too, that it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice. That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country.

The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including Government amendment 143—the first amendment we are considering—which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to matters raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other hon. Members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with those more substantive matters under three main headings.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not even got to my headings yet, but, as the right hon. Member knows, I am fond of him.

[David Davis]

Our exchanges on fondness will get the Secretary of State into trouble. He talks about balance; who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Will he tell the Committee how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish Government before they were brought to the Committee?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not shared a single amendment. I have talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some members of the Irish Government, but I have not shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish Government. I think the first they ever saw of the amendments was when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else. On occasion, as part of the consultation with various special forces groups and others, we have, of course, talked about some of the broad issues. I have wanted to consult as widely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, the Special Forces Association and to some of the generals and others, but we certainly have not done that with any other Governments.

The first of my three headings is improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the commission. The second is ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. The third is addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence.

First, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learned in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The legacy commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the commission’s investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases, and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group. It is why the Bill repeals the immunity scheme—which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow—and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements with the Irish authorities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting the scene and we look forward to his comments. In relation to the Republic of Ireland, we have seen the news in the paper today—others will have seen it as well; I know I am not the only person who reads the papers—about Brian Stack, a prison officer down south who was murdered. His son says in the paper today that he knows who the murderers are. He has given the names to the Garda Síochána, but nothing has happened. How can the legislation before us today make the Republic of Ireland more accountable and ensure that those who killed Brian Stack, a prison officer in the Republic, are made accountable? That is what we all want to see. I want to see it, and so does Brian Stack’s family.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is similar to a point he made last week in the carry-over debate. I agree with him. Of course, the Irish Government have to provide all the information that could possibly lead to further families being able to get the answers they need. Of course, there are instances where the answers will not lie in any of the paperwork the UK Government have, but might lie somewhere in the archives and records of the Irish Government.

One of the most significant achievements that was secured by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), was the co-operation with the Irish Government. In the previous debates, people were worried that we were going to introduce our legislation and the Irish Government would then introduce theirs, but they have already put together and published their heads of terms—the equivalent of a draft Bill—and they have committed, both privately to me and publicly, that they will work in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day. That is an important part of guaranteeing that people will get the answers they need.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State consider extending the remit of the commission to include September 1998, and thus the Omagh bombing? He will know that the Irish agencies, and the Irish Government specifically, will have quite a lot to say on the subject, given the events of September 1998, but as things stand, there will be no way for victims and families to get the answers that he has mentioned in his preamble.

[Chris Bryant]

That is the subject of an amendment that has been tabled by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I am going to resist that amendment. Whatever date we choose would be, in one sense, an arbitrary one. I think the best date, which worked for the previous legislation and would also work in relation to this legislation, is the date of the Good Friday agreement, and that is what we are sticking to. I understand the point that is being made about Omagh. A public inquiry is ongoing, and it is important that the Irish Government can co-operate fully with that process. Indeed, I raised some of these matters directly with my counterpart, Jim O’Callaghan, the other day.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. If we are going to discuss these things, I think it is important to be accurate. The Omagh tragedy occurred in Northern Ireland in August 1998.

[Chris Bryant]

I think the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was making was just that he wanted to extend the date to accommodate the amendment that has been tabled, but I understand—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is talking while I am talking, which makes it difficult for me to hear, but she has made her point.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and then come back to the leader of the DUP.

[Sir Julian Smith]

On the Irish legislation, how confident is the Secretary of State that, if there is a Sinn Féin-led Government, that legislation will not be overturned?

[Chris Bryant]

It will be legislation of the Government. Of course, whatever the Government at the time, they cannot bind their successors, but I am very confident that this legislation will stand the test of time in the Republic of Ireland.

16:14

[Gavin Robinson]

Can I express my profound disappointment that, at the start of two days in Committee, the Secretary of State has already indicated that he wishes to resist one of the most inoffensive but constructive amendments, which has cross-party support across this Chamber, is not to one side’s benefit or another’s, and would assist the families of the Omagh victims in achieving the answers they deserve, most notably from the Irish Republic and the Irish Government? There is no point lamenting that two days are not enough if the Secretary of State has already made his mind up and has no interest in discussing the substance of any of the amendments before us this afternoon.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that is a slightly ungenerous interpretation. I am happy to listen to the debate, and will respond to it at the end of the day. I am trying to proceed as much as I can on a cross-party basis. I was asked about an amendment and I am simply expressing a view, which is that most legislators in this country have tended use the date of the Good Friday agreement as the cut-off date.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).

[Simon Hoare]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the point he was making about the Irish Government’s legislative progress being in lockstep with that of the UK Government? Will he assure the Committee—this is a pivotal point, as he knows—that the usual channels will timetable the progress of his legislation to ensure that it would not go for Royal Assent until the Irish legislation was in its final stages, to ensure that it is absolutely in lockstep, as he said?

[Chris Bryant]

That is one part of what we might do, but it might be more convenient for everybody concerned if we simply said that certain clauses would not be commenced until such time as both parties had agreed. In addition, I have tabled an amendment, which is remarkably similar to one tabled by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in relation to issuing a written ministerial statement to clarify how consistent the Irish Government have been with their obligations. I hope that, between all those different elements, we will manage to land on working in lockstep.

I think that all hon. Members would expect me, while first of all congratulating the Irish Government when they have provided important material, and wanting to co-operate with them entirely and fully, to be robust in pushing them where we feel that that has sometimes fallen short. For instance, one issue that was raised with me last week was the evidence that has been given to the Omagh inquiry. Some questions have already been asked by the leading counsel, and I have put those to Jim O’Callaghan, who I expect will be responding to me. Then there is the issue of gelignite. I am also conscious that, only a few weeks ago, I stood in a field where people were digging to see whether they could find the body of a man who was murdered some 30 years ago. Some of the answers to those issues will also lie with the Irish Government, rather than in our paperwork.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I need to make a bit of progress.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful yet again, but I make the point that there is not one defined cut-off point for the troubles. Everyone in this House accepts that the Omagh atrocity was the largest atrocity of them all, and it happened outside the Secretary of State’s defined date for the troubles. If he does not like amendment 23, then he should look to amendment 24, which has the date 12 April 2010. Why was that picked? It is because this House legislated for the troubles-related pension entitlement going to that date. It is therefore just wrong to indicate to this Committee that there is one agreed date. Legislators have chosen a number of dates, and all we are asking is at least to include the largest atrocity of the troubles in its totality.

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him.

Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation.

As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.

Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it.

A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests.

I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

How can this House support the Government on that when we have a political party called Sinn Féin whose members supported violence and the killing of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, of Her Majesty’s armed forces personnel and of civilians? How can we stand here in all consciousness and support a Bill that potentially will allow people who supported that in a political party to be on the board? That is just not right.

[Chris Bryant]

I note the point that the hon. Member makes, but if he looks at clause 8(4)(b), he will see that it states that the Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that it is

“balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.”

The whole group has to meet not only that requirement, but the requirement of supporting victims. I hear what he says, but I am afraid that his amendment would not be proportionate, although I am happy to listen to his contribution later.

[Dr Murrison]

The Secretary of State is characteristically generous in giving way. Clauses 4 and 5 govern the appointment of members of the commission and directors of investigations, and mandate that some of those should be drawn from people with experience outside Northern Ireland. Can he explain why that is, who these people will be and of which countries he believes they will have experience? I assume that means the Republic of Ireland.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not think that was the intention at all. One of the complaints about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, the body established by the legacy Act in 2023, was that there were potential conflicts of interest. That is why the idea of having two directors was introduced—that is the important part of the change to the legacy commission. The idea was that one would definitely have experience of Northern Ireland and one would have experience of elsewhere. It was not specifically that this should be in relation to Ireland. I would have thought it more likely that somebody would have experience of other parts of the United Kingdom.

Full disclosure by public authorities to the commission is vital to enable families to get answers about what happened to their loved ones, which is why it is required that the commission sees everything. To build on that, Government amendments 155 to 160 will allow directors of investigations and judicial panel members of the legacy commission to impose a timescale on state authorities when requesting disclosure—that is another key ask of the families. The amendments tabled by hon. Members relate primarily to the onward disclosure from the commission to the public—in other words, after the commission has reviewed the disclosure and is preparing its report.

I must be clear: the primary responsibility of any Government is national security, and I am accountable to Parliament on matters of national security as they pertain to Northern Ireland. Some information, even if it is historical, has present-day implications for the life and safety of individuals, for national security or for international relations. That is why schedule 5— [Interruption.] Sorry, I did not hear what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was saying.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I was chuntering.

[Chris Bryant]

Just for the record, Ms Ghani, he was chuntering and he admits it.

That is why schedule 5 provides essential safeguards, allowing the Secretary of State to prohibit the onward sharing of sensitive information by the commission only where the disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Bill already changes the legacy Act’s onward disclosure regime in a number of important ways. Material will no longer be designated as “sensitive” based on the organisation that owns it, and the Secretary of State will be required to conduct a balancing exercise when considering disclosure of sensitive information, and give reasons for decisions not to disclose. I cannot, however, accept amendments that would change that balance, which is designed to ensure the maximum possible disclosure of information to families while ensuring that we do not compromise national security.

I now turn to the question of how we ensure that those who served the state are treated with dignity and respect during any legacy process.

[Sir Julian Smith]

I apologise for not intervening earlier, but I want to ask a question about cost and funding. The Secretary of State has outlined the expansion of the commission’s remit, but what assessment has he made of the time other public bodies and the commission will need, and of the Treasury funding required, to deliver for victims on the commitment he is making?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I pay tribute to his previous work on this subject. It is important that we do not over-promise in the Bill. I recently saw the first ICRIR report into the death of Rory O’Kelly. I spoke to his daughter, Anne O’Kelly, and she was very moved and felt a great sense of liberation by its publication, but it does not come to perfect answers. I am guessing that many of the families will not get perfect answers, although they may get a degree of closure and healing because of being able to go through the process. I am very keen to ensure that the commission’s remit does not increase dramatically and make it more difficult for it to meet its obligations, and I am of course in discussions with the Treasury to ensure that finances are available to do the job properly.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, as he is about to come to the central and important part of his speech. He will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the privilege to sit, has raised concerns that the duty of candour that this Government introduced under the Hillsborough law might not necessarily apply equally to coronial inquests as it would to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission. Will he confirm that it is his intention that the duty of candour will apply to both streams, and that if that is not made clear in Committee, it will be made crystal clear as the Bill progresses through both Houses?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its request for us to look at this issue. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Hillsborough law has not completed its progress through the House of Lords, where it is still in Committee, and we want to ensure that we can mesh the two pieces of legislation together when it comes to that issue. The Hillsborough law’s commitment to truth and information recovery is mirrored in this legislation, which is why I am proud to say that we would want to able to, wherever possible, ensure that it applies.

New inquests that proceed under the Bill will automatically be in scope of the duty of candour included in the Hillsborough law, and the processes of the legacy commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime. We agree that the duty of candour needs to apply to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission, and I note the Committee’s recommendation. I am confident that when it comes to the House of Lords’ processes, we will be able to mesh these two pieces of legislation together.

16:30

If that concludes interventions on this issue, I will move on to my next point, which is about how those who serve the state are treated with dignity and respect. The goal of this legislation is to create a human rights compliant legacy process in which all communities, including veterans and former police officers, can have absolute confidence. When we introduced the Bill, we included a number of safeguards for former service personnel. Following further engagement with a wide variety of groups, I, along with the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who I see in his place, am now introducing further amendments to ensure that our veterans are treated fairly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Can the hon. Lady wait until I finish my next paragraph?

[Alicia Kearns]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

I think and hope that all hon. Members agree that there is no moral equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and the barbaric acts of terrorism for which paramilitaries were responsible, as Members including the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have set out through their amendments. Government new clause 32 makes it clear that the lawful actions of soldiers in the course of duty cannot be treated by the legacy commission as equivalent to the actions of terrorists.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Secretary of State talks about protections for those who served our country. One key achievement of the legacy Act was stopping new inquests that could threaten to expose those who served our country to vexatious claims, particularly in the case of Loughgall, which is one of the best known cases. Do his amendments definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again?

[Chris Bryant]

The term “vexatious claim” could in itself be argued to be vexatious. A phrase that I have used a couple of times is “rinse and repeat”. I will come to that a little later. I am keen to ensure that nobody is subjected to being brought back time and again to face the same kind of process.

[David Davis]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Much as I am fond of the right hon. Gentleman, I need to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim first.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State refers to new clause 32, which introduces certain protections in respect of the security forces in regard to the legacy commission and to inquests. For example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account, the orders that they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, and so on. All of that is good, so why do the same provisions not extend to cover any trial of such a person, should that occur? If it is right for the legacy commission and coroners to take those matters into account, why is it not right for a Diplock court also to take them into account, if it were investigating a criminal trial?

[Chris Bryant]

I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Bryant]

I will finish this point and then I will come to the right hon. Members for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

Our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, the intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of those soldiers.

[David Davis]

The Secretary of State, with every good intention, talks about preventing “rinse and repeat”, yet the moment we introduce this situation into a coroner’s inquest, the opportunity for judicial review arises—multiple stages of judicial review. As we have already seen with inquests, “rinse and repeat” cannot be stopped, so a soldier may be going through three or four judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the Government say.

[Chris Bryant]

I am conscious of judicial review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judiciously reviewed. [Interruption.] I meant to say judicially reviewed—whether it is judicious is a matter for the courts to decide, not me; I am not challenging their authority.

We have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It is about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual. That is a really important distinction to make.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, then I must make some progress.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for making the point about there being no moral equivalence. Does he recognise—I hope he does—that there must be legal equivalence between everybody who goes before this process? A particular question arises about the fact that if somebody is found to have been guilty of a murder, no matter how heinous it was and no matter how many people were killed, the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 would still apply. Nobody—whether it is a terrorist or a soldier who committed a murder—will go to jail for more than two years. We have to recognise that when we are talking about the search for justice, there will not really be any justice in terms of the sentence reflecting the gravity of the crime.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things he said to me last week was that he would be very grateful if I said in this debate that there is no moral equivalence, and I have done exactly as he asked. He is right.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Bryant]

I am very reluctant to give way too many times, because I am conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and catch your eye, Ms Ghani.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not given way much to Members on this side of the House, so I will take one intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I will also take an intervention from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and then I promise that I will really crack on, Ms Ghani.

[Colum Eastwood]

It would be good if the Secretary of State cleared something up for the House. We have heard a lot about justice, vexatious claims and everything else. Will he tell us how many of the 25,000-odd people who served time as a result of troubles-related crimes were members of the security forces?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether this is a quiz. I do not know the precise answer to that question, but I think my hon. Friend has made his point.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

One!

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked a very specific question about the Loughgall inquest and whether any of this paperwork and legislation will stop it from going ahead. Last Tuesday, in the Defence Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence that question and he gave me a pretty definitive answer, so I am intrigued to hear the answer of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Chris Bryant]

The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no.

We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement.

I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information.

Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. It also requires the commission to consider

“whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”,

and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness.

This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses. If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying those points. He knows—because I have raised this point with him before—that those protections cover veterans and former military personnel. Will they also extend to former police officers who served?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place.

We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as

“a direct threat to national security.”

General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.

16:45

It is worth reminding the Committee of the context in which we are debating these amendments today. During the troubles, approximately 3,500 people tragically lost their lives, 90% of them at the hands of terrorists, be they republican or so-called loyalist. Only 10% of all those fatalities were at the hands of the security forces, the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, George Cross. It is important to restate that had it not been for the efforts of those units, including those British Army veterans who deployed on Operation Banner, to help keep the terrorists at bay, the Good Friday agreement of 1998 would never have been achieved in the first place. Indeed, the respected military historian Martin van Creveld, in his 2006 book, “The Changing Face of War”, described Operation Banner as

“one of the few counterinsurgency campaigns that have been successful”.

We have a number of veterans who served on Operation Banner with us in the Gallery this afternoon. I wish to pay tribute to them and all their comrades, including the more than 700 who were murdered and the many thousands who suffered life-changing injuries in attempting to uphold the rule of law in incredibly difficult circumstances. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service.

With reference to amendment 23, in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), Operation Banner commenced in 1969 and was formally ended in 2007. It was the longest-running single operation in the entire history of the British Army. One of the worst atrocities that took place during the period of the troubles was the Omagh bombing in August 1998, during which 29 people lost their lives and many more were violently injured.

The Committee will be aware of the recent revelations of the Omagh bombing inquiry, as reported by BBC Northern Ireland on 12 October 2026, that an Irish army camp received a warning that the town was to be the target of a bomb the day before the fatal explosion. We now know that a call was received on the eve of the bombing at Finner camp near Ballyshannon in County Donegal, and that the caller told the soldiers to check the back routes or back roads, and then repeated three times, “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” However, it would appear that, tragically, this warning was not passed on by the Irish authorities, and the bombing then took place the following day. I imagine that a number of right hon. and hon. Members will want to refer to this tragedy during the course of the debate, but I mention it at this juncture as an example of exactly the kind of atrocity that our troops were deployed to Northern Ireland to seek to prevent.

I will turn to the Opposition’s specific amendments. We took careful drafting advice on our new clause 21 from legal experts and retired senior officers. It would set a new evidential standard such that no further investigations of any kind could take place unless they were based on new and compelling evidence. That is a deliberately high bar, intended to prevent the endless cycle of investigation and re-investigation that many of our veterans have had to endure, unless there were evidence that is both original and of a compelling nature, as determined not by a politician such as the Attorney General, but by a UK Supreme Court justice. To be clear, that would not end all investigations under any circumstances, but it would mean that a new investigation could not take place unless the threshold were met.

[Chris Bryant]

What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?

[Mr Francois]

I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.

This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.

[Mr Francois]

No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.

Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:

“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”

Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.

Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.

New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.

The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Francois]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will.

The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”.

As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked a lot about the republican movement. Maybe it would be worth it if he took the opportunity to make it clear for those listening that not every victim of state violence was involved in the republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British forces on that day. Can he make it clear that there are lots of people out there today crying out for truth and justice if possible, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the republican movement or any other organisation?

[Mr Francois]

I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year:

“There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?”

That is a very realistic point.

With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words:

“Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.”

On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement:

“The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.”

Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion:

“The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.”

It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.

17:00

For those reasons, the veteran community fear that they have now become pawns in a wider game to appease Dublin; they are not fooled in any way. The Secretary of State would be naive beyond belief if he felt that, were this Bill to become law, the Irish Government in Dublin, who turned a blind eye to terrorist acts for decades north of the border, would somehow become a willing witness, and would open all their files to allow families to seek the truth. We Conservative Members are not taken in by that; neither, it must be said, are the veterans, who know well that their former adversaries are determined to rewrite the history of the troubles—even, in some cases, more than half a century on. The SAS motto is “Who Dares Wins”. If we never dare, we may not win when we have to.

Let me remind the Secretary of State, who I know has an interest in history, of the final stanza of Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem “Tommy”, which is very apposite:

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’

But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot;

An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;

An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!”

Well, Secretary of State, Tommy does see. They see up there in the Gallery right now, and we Conservative Members see, too. We will not allow our veterans to be sacrificed as part of some wider diplomatic gambit with Dublin, at the behest of No. 10 North—or South. Our mission remains steadfast, as it has been throughout the tortuous progress of this wretched Bill: it is to defend those who defended us, and that is exactly what we are going to do—if necessary, in the House of Lords as well.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the amendments that he has tabled. Notwithstanding what we have just heard, I think that they show beyond doubt that the Government have listened to the points made by many Members, veterans and others. They have been carefully thought out. They are balanced, reasonable and fair. They maintain the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Amendment 47, tabled by Opposition Members, would not ensure that, because it singles out one group for special treatment. The Government amendments recognise the special circumstances in which all those who served with such distinction in Operation Banner found themselves, and in my view, those amendments will enable the House to send the Bill to the other place with confidence.

The Bill, and the amendments, are needed for two principal reasons: first, because of the manifest failings of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and secondly because we need a system that can command confidence and provide help for all those people who are still searching for answers after all these years. That is what this is about—how their loved ones died, and at whose hands. I say “all those people”, because if I have a cause for regret, it is that it strikes me, when I reflect on the debate on the Bill in the House over the last year and a bit, that much of it has focused on just some of the people who were involved. Veterans are hugely important—many of them were killed, and many of their families are looking for answers on how and at whose hands their loved ones died—but if we are honest, we must recognise that we have failed collectively, as a House, to reflect the hurt, pain and suffering of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, and that is what I want to focus on in my brief remarks.

Some conversations and stories that we hear as Members of Parliament never leave us. Some remain with us and are imprinted on our very soul. I can think of many that I have had in Northern Ireland, including the first time I went to WAVE, a wonderful organisation that supports so many people affected by the troubles. I had a meeting in Newry with Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which was found by an inquest—I shall return to this point—to have been carried out by the IRA; Eugene Reavey, whose three brothers were shot on the same day by the Ulster Volunteer Force and all died; and Michael O’Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot and killed by a soldier while on her way to mass.

I remember standing in the bleakness of Bragan bog, to which reference was made earlier, with Columba McVeigh’s family as the search teams continued patiently to scrape, bit by bit, the surface of the black and grey earth, trying to find his last resting place. He was 19 years of age when he was kidnapped and murdered by the IRA. I remember the family of Private Tony Harrison, who was shot dead by the IRA on his fiancée’s sofa in her home in Belfast, and so many others. I am not alone; many Members of this House have heard such stories. Too many times, I have heard people say that somebody came from the police and said, “Don’t worry; we will leave no stone unturned to find out what happened,” but they never heard another word.

I think all of us understand that, at the height of the troubles, the number of killings was so great, and the circumstances in which investigation would need to have been carried out were so challenging—indeed, in some places, downright dangerous—that it was difficult for that work to be done. That is why it is so important that we now have a mechanism that allows such work to be completed, and in which all families in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence.

I have criticised the 2023 Act many times in exchanges. Much of it failed to command support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland, or from victims and survivors. We should not forget that the legacy commission, which the Act established, has the power to undertake criminal investigations as well as fact finding. People listening to debates that we have had about this Bill might think that it introduces a new thing called criminal investigation, but it does not; that was provided for in the Act. However, the Act did establish the legacy commission.

When the report on the murder of Rory O’Kelly came out, I think it proved what the commission is there to do. For me, most important of all was the reaction of his family. Even though they could not name who was responsible for the killing, his daughter said that when they heard the details of what happened, it moved the family into

“a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”

It has always been the case that the success or failure of the commission rests in the hands of the families who go to it, and on the judgment that they pass when the commission comes back with answers, in so far as it is possible to find them.

I would say this about inquests, which we will debate in detail tomorrow. I have heard some people make the criticism that they achieve nothing. I disagree profoundly, even though the inquests will now come to an end. Eight had started—and in my view, it was profoundly wrong to cut off an inquest that a family had seen begin—and the Solicitor General will deal with the remaining ones. I was puzzled when I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because I had grown up thinking that, if there is a suspicious death, there is an inquest, but I found that there were many cases in which there had been no inquest at all for over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. We only have to look at the impact on the family of the recent Springhill inquest, its findings and the apology that the former Prime Minister made from the Dispatch Box to see what it meant to the family, who had been waiting for 54 years to hear that their loved ones who had been killed, including children, had presented no threat to anyone.

[Jim Shannon]

First, I thank the former Secretary of State for his words and the incredible speech that he is making. I think as well of Raymond McCord—many of us in this Chamber will know him—whose son Raymond McCord Junior was murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force because he stood up to the UVF in the Shankill Road; he was a strong person who had also been a member of the RAF Reserve. Since 9 November 1997, Raymond has sought an inquiry and justice for his son, and not once in all those years has he been able to find that. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about finding justice, and justice is what I want. If I get a chance to speak, I will be speaking for justice. If Raymond McCord is watching on TV—he is not able to come here today—he will be watching for justice for his boy, and he grieves his boy almost 30 years later.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member—my hon. Friend, if I might call him that—makes a very powerful point. Every family deserves, in so far as it is possible, to find an answer to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. We are debating all these amendments in order to create a means of finding those answers—a means that people can have confidence in; that was the point on which the previous legislation failed.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I want to finish, because many Members wish to speak.

This is unquestionably the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. Those who signed that extraordinary document knew that this issue had to be dealt with, and knew that it could not be done at the time. However, it is 12 years since the Stormont House agreement, and people think, “Right, we might be moving forward now.” Everyone is getting older, and sadly people are dying. The trauma is being passed from generation to generation. Is the legislation perfect? Of course it is not, but if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this. Now is the time to take forward this legislation, so that the families who still wait patiently for answers, after all these years, finally have the chance to find them.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It has been more than a year since the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was introduced to this House. In spite of the valiant efforts of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), to deal with the legacy left by the Conservatives, I fear that the Bill still does not achieve the admittedly difficult task of squaring the circle of enabling victims to find answers, while providing veterans with the protections that they need and deserve.

It is important to begin by recognising the impact that the protracted gestation of this Bill has had on those who fought bravely, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to uphold the rule of law and save lives during Operation Banner. It has been more than a year of anxiety, uncertainty and anguish for former service members who feared being dragged back to Northern Ireland for further investigation. It has been more than a year in which veterans have found no solace in the vague, uncertain promises of improved protection through recognition of the reality of the circumstances in which they served.

The issues that we face are by no means all the fault of the current Government. If the Conservatives had enacted a legacy Act that was fit for purpose and delivered a suitable mechanism for historical inquiries, this Bill would not have been necessary. Sadly, the Tories opted for a barely conditional immunity principle that drew an abhorrent equivalence between those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to exploit sectarian division to murder, maim and intimidate.

The Tory legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations to international human rights law under the European convention on human rights, the very convention that was so important to our soldiers—challenging inadequate equipment, unjust LGBT exclusion, and investigating sexual assault, bulling and welfare failures. At the time, that was just collateral damage: a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ cavalier attitude to the rule of law and to our international obligations, but it has now become central to their ill-conceived plans to leave the ECHR, thereby fatally undermining the Good Friday agreement.

17:15

The legacy Act also failed the communities in Northern Ireland. No political party from the Unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition supported the Conservatives’ flawed legislation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed the innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation.

It would consequently be churlish of me not to recognise the unenviable inheritance bequeathed by the Tories to the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South. I thank them both for their continued engagement with myself and other Members of this House. I am in no doubt of their good and noble intentions, but I regret to conclude that, in its current form, the Bill is simply not ready to become law.

Last week I again cast doubt on whether a Committee of the whole House is capable of providing the scrutiny necessary for such delicate and detailed legislation. The Secretary of State again repeated the line of his predecessor: that it allows Members representing the communities of Northern Ireland to play an active role in Committee. That is, of course, an absolutely legitimate point. However, it could 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 have raised numerous times, only to be ignored.

Instead of thorough line-by-line scrutiny, the Bill will now be subjected to two days of politicking. Rather than weeks of line-by-line scrutiny, where we could have come together to make the legislation work, we have the pantomime of the Chamber. It is simply impossible to give proper consideration to in excess of 300 amendments and new clauses in two days of often partisan debate. How could anyone expect such a process to deliver workable legislation that commands confidence across the various communities and stakeholders?

In spite of those challenges, I have brought forward and support amendments that would rectify three key shortcomings of the Bill: protection for veterans, promotion of reconciliation, and ensuring proper oversight of the Secretary of State’s power to block disclosure of information. Veterans are at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach to the Bill—they include victims, of course. I am immensely grateful for the continued support and engagement of the Royal British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, which have helped ensure that the amendments I have tabled will deliver the protections that veterans need.

The SASRA and other special forces associations have told me that they are unable to support the Bill as it stands, because:

“those who seek to punish former Special Forces soldiers for doing their duty to save lives all those years ago will easily exploit its loopholes and vulnerable provisions.”

Generals Sir Nick Parker and Sir Peter Wall have likewise stated:

“The Government’s amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill fail to address the fundamental injustice facing veterans.”

That is the injustice of, in the Secretary of State’s own words, “rinse and repeat” investigations. He knows the problem, so why not listen to the senior officers and veterans when they tell him that he has not yet solved it?

At the heart of every conversation I have had with veterans’ associations has been the fear of such repeated investigations, where process becomes the punishment. Safeguarding veterans when they are being interviewed by the legacy commission is vital, but as it stands, the Government’s amendments do not protect veterans from being repeatedly dragged into court, and in some cases, facing decades of uncertainty.

The case of Soldier B illustrates the problem. In 2024, a coroner’s inquest ruled that the lethal force he used was “reasonable and proportionate”. Despite that, appeals have been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and now possibly the Supreme Court. That has all been facilitated by legal aid, with state resources spent hounding Soldier B, who has suffered years with the continued stress of sleepless nights, even though a High Court judge branded the case as “ludicrous” and “utterly divorced from reality”.

The Government must not unwittingly facilitate lawfare against those who served if they want to maintain the confidence of veterans and active service members. The Secretary of State has placed great emphasis on the assurance that repeat investigations will not take place unless they are “essential”. To that end, the Government have imposed a duty on the director of the legacy commission to give “particular weight” to whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist before obliging a witness to be interviewed. That is simply not good enough. It is a factor to weigh, not a test that must be met, so the director could still compel a veteran who had already given evidence to do so again.

“Compelling” new evidence is not defined; it is enough for it to be reasonably suspected to exist. The bar for repeat investigations is simply too low. That is why I have tabled amendments 123 to 129, all at the request of the SAS Regimental Association. They would create a full certification process regarding new evidence. Under amendment 123, before an investigation duplicating earlier proceedings could proceed, the director of investigations would have to certify that material new evidence existed based on a new evidence certificate, rather than having regard to a vague requirement to lay out the exact reasons why the new evidence was material—reasons, of course, that would be open to challenge if inadequate. That is the pivotal provision, on which amendments 124 to 129 rely and that we wanted to press to a vote. However, to my great surprise and dismay, that has not been granted.

Other protections that I have put forward or supported include a presumption against prosecution for veterans; proper oversight; proper consideration of intelligence and rules of engagement; proper representation on the victims and survivors group; an end to new inquests; and enshrining the right to anonymity. Sadly, we will not get time to consider any of those protections as this is a Committee of the whole House.

My party is proud of the number of veterans in our ranks, and we do not believe in playing politics with their protections. Consequently, we will support amendment 47 and new clause 21, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman says that he supports new clause 21. Will he explain how it is right for Mrs Jones, when asking for a review and before turning up at the legacy commission, to somehow have to prove to a Supreme Court judge that there is new and compelling evidence? Is that not another process—another piece of lawfare? Has he checked whether the Supreme Court thinks that is at all possible for a Supreme Court judge?

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I much prefer our amendments 123 to 129. I absolutely agree. That is exactly why we need a Committee to discuss these issues. We need to talk together about these issues. At the moment, I prefer what the Tories have submitted to what the Secretary of State has submitted, but I most certainly prefer amendment 123. But we need a Committee upstairs to discuss these things.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me try again. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that a Supreme Court judge should be making the decision?

[Mr Kohler]

As I said, I prefer our solution: amendment 123. But the Tories’ solution is better than the Secretary of State’s, which is simply far too vague. I strongly support our amendment 123, as does the SAS Regimental Association.

My party will also support amendment 23, tabled by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to ensure that the Omagh bombing—the deadliest single attack of the troubles—is brought into the scope of the commission. I do not understand the Secretary of State’s reasons for not doing so. I am also proud to support amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), that allows victims of sexual violence access to the legacy commission’s work. I sincerely hope that the Government will support that crucial amendment, to allow as many as possible to heal and move forward.

The events of the past month in Drumcree have highlighted that divisions still exist. Concerted efforts must be made to heal the old animosities and ensure that current and future generations are able to grow up in a society characterised by mutual respect and tolerance—

“A Northern Ireland where a unionist never has to apologise for being British. Where a nationalist never has to apologise for being Irish”,

as the right hon. Member for Belfast East so eloquently put it.

Despite the hundreds of Government amendments, I do not believe that the Bill delivers on its essential goals of protecting our veterans, promoting reconciliation and delivering answers to the families who have waited decades. General Parker and General Wall have concluded that no amount of “legal ingenuity” can fix the issues with the Bill. The only path forward is for the Secretary of State to show political leadership by withdrawing the Bill and entering into further dialogue with the various communities and stakeholders who must be satisfied to ensure that we achieve truth, justice and reconciliation across all the communities and stakeholders affected by the troubles.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman]

Order. I note that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) expressed disappointment about his amendments not being selected for a separate decision. May I remind him that selection decisions are a matter for the Chair and should not be questioned on the Floor of the House? I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his work on the Bill and for the way in which he engaged with our Committee, especially during our inquiry into the legacy of the troubles. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have heard at first hand from families whose lives were changed forever by the troubles and who decades later are still searching for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is why it is so important that we get the legislation right for all those who continue to carry the legacy of the past.

Amendment 286 reflects a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee following our extensive inquiry into the legacy of the troubles and speaks to the very heart of an issue we heard about time and again. Throughout our inquiry, victims, survivors and families spoke of the frustration of delay. Many have waited decades for answers, so we should be looking to remove obstacles to information recovery and not to create new ones. I pay tribute to Joe McVey, the Victims and Survivors Commissioner, who is in the Gallery, for the work he has done and for working with our Committee.

The Bill as drafted requires organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland to assess and classify material as “sensitive or prejudicial” before it can be transferred to the legacy commission. The Committee concluded that that requirement may be unnecessary and risks creating a substantial administrative burden. On a matter of principle, an independent commission should be trusted to make its own judgments about the handling and disclosure of information. If Parliament is establishing a body to investigate the past, that body should have direct access to the records it needs to do that work.

There is also a practical case for the amendment: much of the material needed for legacy investigations is actually held by the PSNI, often in records more than 30 years old and spread across multiple systems and archives. The chief constable has warned that locating, reviewing and disclosing such material is already a resource-intensive task, yet the Bill places further obligations on the PSNI to carry out sensitivity assessments before information can even reach the commission. Those concerns are not new. During our inquiry, the PSNI argued that direct access for the commission would be far more effective, pointing to Operation Kenova, which operated without such a requirement.

The chief constable recently wrote to the Government again to voice those concerns, warning that without dedicated capacity there is a material risk of delay and damage to confidence in the wider legacy process. Critically, no additional funding has been identified for the work, which creates a risk that resources are diverted from present-day policing to administer the past. The amendment would not remove safeguards for sensitive information. It would simply place responsibility where it belongs: with the independent commission.

Victims and families are not asking for additional bureaucracy; they are asking for answers, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out. If we are serious about delivering those answers, about building confidence in the process and about using public resources effectively, we should remove this unnecessary hurdle. I encourage the Government and the Secretary of State to reflect on the substance of amendment 286.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who speaks eloquently about this topic. I have spoken at length in almost every debate we have had about this matter, having served during the troubles myself, and I contemplated whether I should stand up and speak again today. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I do not want to say what has already been said over and over and waste time, but the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) spoke eloquently about the stories that never leave us. We have all heard the stories that never leave us.

17:34

I am standing up for the soldiers who served but who did not hear the stories because they were in the stories. They saw this at first hand. Our brave servicemen and women whom we sent to the troubles, or anywhere, had to do some of the most horrendous things in the name of freedom and protecting the country. I have seen that at first hand. Most of these veterans spend their time trying to forget the things that they saw. They come out occasionally, with a few mates around a couple of beers, or they do not come out at all, but we are asking them to relive those things, many years on.

I want to talk about amendments 44 and 47 and new clause 21. Amendment 44 is about following orders. I was a teenager when I deployed during the troubles, and I spent 18 months in Belfast. I was not naive, but I did not know about the political situation. It was completely irrelevant to me. I knew what I had to do. I knew the rules of engagement. We have heard about the training that I would have had as a teenager, and the intelligence briefs I had would have been the best available at the time. I was a young lad, but I was experienced and everybody around me was the same. We knew exactly what we had to do. I did not think, “Is that person a republican or a Protestant? Are they part of the IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army?” Whatever it was, it did not matter: if that person walked around the corner with a rifle, the same rules of engagement applied, no matter what their beliefs or what they were trying to do. There was no politics in it for me.

I was not an officer; I was a rifleman. I was not even at that stage a lance corporal. I was a junior rank. Actually, some would argue that a rifleman is the most senior rank you can ever achieve! As a rifleman, I was following orders. I did not choose where we went, what we did or who we stopped. If we got told to set up a vehicle checkpoint so that nobody could go through that place, nobody did. That was the process I had to follow. I might be there with my multiple or my brick—my team—and somebody might have a coffee jar bomb, which was a coffee jar with explosives and junkyard confetti; a whole host of stuff designed to kill and maim. If they were throwing it, I knew—following orders—that while it was still in their hands, I could engage that person and use lethal force to stop them killing me or my friends. The moment their hand had opened and it had left, I could not do that. If you are playing with your kids in the park and you see someone throw a ball, you can see that it takes a split second. You watch that movement—it goes so fast.

I would always have followed my orders, and throughout my operational tour, during the troubles and at any other time, I never witnessed or heard about anybody not following what they were supposed to do, according to the rules of engagement in the JSP—the joint service publication. We all knew exactly what we had to do. I was in Drumcree in ’96 when it kicked off, and it went from a very stable environment—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stuart Anderson]

Yes, I will.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is telling a remarkable story from his own experience and that of the officers he served with. One thing that this debate is perhaps not touching on, but should, is the number of lives that the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the PSNI saved. Indeed, many in this Chamber owe their lives to the investigations and the deterrent effect of the RUC and the British Army, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who had a bomb under his car, and myself as the Member for Strangford. The Castlewellan IRA unit were coming to get me, but they did not, because the RUC thwarted it. That is an example of the good things that they have done over the years, but that are never heard about. It is time they were.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises some valid points. A lot of people here have first-hand experience, and the RUC and the military did exceptional work during the troubles—beyond what it is possible even to explain here.

When I look at new clause 21 and amendment 47, I think about how we deal with memory and history. I will explain that in a bit more detail. The Secretary of State said that new clause 21 is illogical. I disagree. I believe that the bar should be exceptionally high.

I went to the Green Jackets reunion this summer. I had not been for 16 years, because—I have spoken of my history and my past—I had to have a break from my past. That is to say nothing against my friends, but I needed to move out of that environment until it was safe for me—given the violence, alcohol and other issues I have had—to go back into it. I had an amazing time at the reunion. I was with my colleagues, and people were telling me stories. Five of us all had exceptionally different memories of a story. People were telling me stories about when I got shot; I knew that they had joined the military five years after, but they were recounting it like they were there with me. It is not that they were making things up; they had heard it that many times that they believed they were there. You are reliving all of these points.

Let us have a look at what it was like to serve in Northern Ireland—this is the point that I want people to grasp in relation to amendment 47. I grew up in Hereford, and my dad was one of the first SAS soldiers to serve in Northern Ireland. We all knew people who had served in Northern Ireland. We knew young soldiers who would come back to the pub—I will not say what age I was first going to the pub—and people would say, “They’ve been over the water.” They did not talk about it; they did not want to talk about it. It was not that they were smashing the place up—some people did, but some reacted differently. They had seen things that their mind had not processed.

I have come through the other side of complex post-traumatic stress. I had therapy. I had witnessed and seen things in my life that my brain could not process. If you see something, you put it into a library in your brain. If you have a traumatic incident, you cannot process it and put it in the library, so it is sort of sat in the foyer. You cannot choose when you pull that up or when you do not. I went through therapy to reprocess all those things in my mind. I have many friends who I know have post-traumatic stress and have not dealt with it—they have just left those issues there. I went through EMDR—eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing— and cognitive behavioural therapy. That took me through things that I had no recollection of, but that the therapist was able to pull out of my brain. I had not remembered those things for many years.

We are going to ask people to go through that process with their memories. I am 50 now—I know that hon. Members are thinking, “You look a bit younger, Stu”—and I was at the very end of Op Banner. I was a teenager. We are asking one and two generations before me to recount things they might have suffered through post-traumatic stress—things that they do not want to remember or possibly cannot remember. If you ask two or three people about the same incident an hour after, they will all have a different reason for it. We have to stand for our veterans and draw a line under this. The Bill is not doing that.

The generals, some of whom I served with on operational tours, said that the Bill is a threat to national security, and I believe it is. It impacts on morale phenomenally. I am yet to find a group of veterans—people might disagree—who support it, and I have a very good network of people; my whole life has been spent in defence and security. I have not found anybody who supports what we are doing, and I believe that there will be unintended consequences. I do not believe that we are intentionally going after our veterans, but there will be unintended consequences and we will open the door to our veterans being in the dock for years to come.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking the time to meet me and a formidable local veteran from Ayrshire, Alan Middleton, who does fantastic work with the local Army Cadet Force under the West Lowland Battalion. My right hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and, most importantly, has listened to those of us who feel strongly about this legislation and to the veterans who have concerns, which deserve to be heard.

When the Bill was first introduced, many veterans feared that the new legacy framework would simply become another route to the repeated investigations that have caused so much anxiety, frustration and trauma over recent decades, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and that the amendments they have tabled significantly strengthen the Bill.

New clause 32, for instance, recognises the unique context in which members of the armed forces operated during the troubles. Amendments 192 and 195 help ensure that investigations are rigorous and evidence-led, with clear statutory duties on the director of investigations before cases progress further. Perhaps most importantly, new clause 45 protects veterans from unexpected or intrusive contact by investigators years or, in some cases, decades after their service has ended. It places safeguards in law, including the involvement of the Secretary of State, and helps to ensure that veterans are treated with the absolute dignity and respect they deserve.

Taken together, these changes have made the Bill more balanced and, as a result, have secured my support. Nobody is asking for immunity; nobody should be above the law, but equally, there should be no witch hunt against those who served our country honourably. Investigations should be driven by genuinely new evidence, not by the endless revisiting of matters that have already been examined time and again.

The conversations I have had with veterans in Ayrshire, including those who served during some of the most difficult periods of the troubles, have left me in no doubt about the anxiety that the repeated investigations, or even the prospect of such investigations, have caused for them even decades after their service has ended. What they seek is not special treatment, nor to be placed beyond the reach of the law; rather, they seek a process that is fair, proportionate and focused on genuinely new evidence.

Ultimately, this legislation must command confidence among victims and their families, the wider public, and those who served their country honourably. I believe that the changes made to the Bill will help us move closer to that objective. They strike the right balance between accountability and fairness. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Government’s approach, and I urge Members across the House to do so too.

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank you, Ms Ghani, for calling me so early. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), though I hope I might convince her not to follow the whole of the Government’s approach in respect of some of the amendments. I hope her ears are open, as well as her heart, to the arguments that we will make.

I indicated earlier in my interventions and, indeed, in the debate on the programme motion that the way in which we are considering these amendments today is far from optimal. In fact, we have had some good speeches and contributions already, and yet they did not touch on the amendments at all—that was subject to the Chair’s indulgence, of course—but were delivered in more general terms.

Amendment 52 was tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), and signed by me, my colleagues and those around me. Similarly, amendments 21 and 22 were tabled by me and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, and signed by those around us. Amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on a similar thread, and amendment 1 was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). There is a recurrent theme, yet whenever the Government table their own amendments to try to deal with the issues outlined in new clauses 33 and 34 they are totally deficient.

17:45

The hon. Member for North Down made the salient point that this is not just about somebody who may have had a terrorist past or conviction being approved by the Secretary of State to serve on the group, but that political support matters too. How outrageous is it that we still have people in political parties in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the United Kingdom, who glorify terror, and who stand over and eulogise terrorists, and who honour their name, their memory, and their sickening and bleak contribution to society and life in Northern Ireland? Yet in Northern Ireland we do not even enforce the same legislation about glorification, because apparently for successive Governments it is all just a bit too difficult. It should not be difficult, because what is right and what is wrong are pretty easy, fundamental concepts to understand. Children understand the difference between right and wrong, yet we wreck ourselves trying to placate the necessity of some to eulogise terrorism. I think that falls far short of what we as a society should expect.

Amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim, has our support, and it raises the issues around sexual crimes associated with the troubles. First, those existed, and secondly we have heard testimony after testimony from people who have gone through the most excruciating trauma, and revisited it time and again, yet legislation is before us tonight, and we hear that the Government want to resist the notion that sexual violence and sexual trauma form part of the troubles and therefore should not be able to be considered by the legacy commission.

[Chris Bryant]

To be clear, I do not resist the idea that sexual violence was part of the troubles. Indeed, one problem with previous legacy legislation was that it made it impossible for such things to be investigated anywhere. We are making it possible for such matters to be investigated by the police. All police forces in the United Kingdom have suitable teams that are able to deal with the specifics of those kinds of incidents, and it would be inappropriate for the legacy commission to take on that piece of work without being able to set up a whole new team specifically to look at that. However, the legislation does allow police forces to take forward those crimes, and if there is clear evidence that that was related to a death as well, or to serious injury, it would be able to be investigated.

[Gavin Robinson]

I disagree fundamentally with the Secretary of State. Let us put it like this: sexual violence was used to pursue the same aims by the same depraved people who were prepared to take life, and they did. Whenever we listen to Máiría Cahill, and her experience, we must remember that this was continual trauma inflicted by people who were exerting coercive control in her community, and who threatened her continually and repeatedly that she could not dishonour the virtuous— in their view—republican name. Yet she was repeatedly raped by the same people who were committing murder on our streets. On the notion that we can argue the toss and say, “Well she can go to the police”, is there no concept or understanding in this Committee that people like Máiría grew up in republican west Belfast or other places where going to the police is still an alien concept? This is being portrayed as the Human Rights Act and article 2-compliant mechanism that people can go to for truth and justice, but not if they happen to be a victim of one sort of crime—sexual crime—rather than the other sort of crime. That is shameful.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Máiría Cahill has been a doughty campaigner on this issue for many years. At the weekend, she responded to a former Member of this House, Michelle Gildernew, who represented the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Máiría Cahill indicated that she had reported that sexual violence to that former Member of this House —a Sinn Féin MP—who did absolutely nothing about it

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is right. Máiría Cahill was defending me from outrageous suggestions directed towards me in a tweet by Michelle Gildernew, who had the temerity to do so knowing that Máiría Cahill had confided in her in the 1990s and she did nothing. I thank Máiría for her steadfastness and her courage over many years on the issues that she has raised.

New clause 21 is another attempt by the official Opposition, among many others on the amendment paper, to ensure that any process understands the context of operations, the environment in which people served, the rules of engagement, the pressure and the threats. How often do we hear people talk of Bloody Sunday and never mention the days that preceded it—I say that not as an excuse or a challenge for what happened—and the two police officers who were murdered? Those two police officers, patrolling that city on a cross-community basis, were murdered on the streets.

I often remember a gentleman who was in the end very senior in the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland saying to me, “Gavin, I remember one day being out the top of the Land Rover. I heard a clink, turned around and thought I was going to be shot because two of my friends had been killed the day before. I nearly shot until I realised it was an elderly lady putting out two milk bottles.” What he was trying to indicate to me was that as a young, 20-year-old man he was so perplexed, scared and petrified—knowing he had lost friends yesterday, wondering whether he would get home that afternoon and not knowing the answer—that when he heard that clink first thing in the morning, he thought he was next and he nearly shot an unarmed civilian. Thank God he did not, but he shared that story with me so that I could understand. So I support new clause 21 entirely when it talks about “contemporaneous Rules” and the environment in which people operated.

The Government have tried to meet us on equivalence in some ways in their new clause 31, which replicates amendment 56 tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and amendment 10 tabled in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. New clause 9 has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who has put in efforts about “on the runs” and putting those beyond the pale. I understand that the Government have moved their position on that, but they could engage and support rather than always tabling their own new clauses.

New clause 5 deals with support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no apologies for saying that support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be before this House. We talk all the time about veterans, and rightly so. My grandfather served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, although not during the troubles. He served his community. Some 302 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary served their community and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is was right that they were honoured with the George Cross, but it was wrong that they were so disgracefully dishonoured through the changes that were brought about in policing. Yet here we are, just weeks away from celebrating or acknowledging 25 years of renewed policing in Northern Ireland, with questions around support for the police.

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). I acknowledge that he has engaged with many victims, but while he was speaking I received a text message from a member of a victims’ group who had hoped for a visit from him when he was Secretary of State. He did not visit, although he sent a junior Minister. I remember visiting that same victim on the main street in Omagh. He served as a police officer on 15 August 1998. He showed me the shop where he was laying bodies that day—28 people lost their lives, as well as two unborn children. He then took me into the entry next door, where he had had to bring other bodies because there simply was not sufficient room in the front of the shop. He and his colleagues have been demonised for years, but this RUC man was weeping when he was sharing with me the pain he still had, although that was not his intention, and the pain he still harboured from those days. He has asked the Government to support him and his colleagues whenever they engage with the Omagh inquiry. He has lamented the fact that the Omagh inquiry is but a partial piece of the jigsaw.

The Omagh inquiry has only the terms of reference that allow it to answer the question, “What could the British state authorities have done to prevent Omagh?” What could we have done to prevent an act of terror? Omagh was blown up because dissident republicans from the Republic of Ireland sought vehicles in the Republic of Ireland, moved through the Republic of Ireland and came to Northern Ireland to destroy that market town. And so they did. But our inquiry will answer only what we could have done to prevent that. Time after time we have raised the issue about the legacy commission’s dates. Why are we, as a House of Commons, still prepared to pass legislation that says that the troubles ended in April 1998, when we know the Omagh attack occurred on 15 August 1998?

Whenever we raise these issues, it is, “Oh, you are just having a go at the Irish. The Irish have promised that they are going to give information,” but no, they have not. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said earlier, this issue was raised at the Omagh inquiry last week in evidence given by John Ware, a “Panorama” journalist. He made reference to a call that was received by the Finner Irish army camp in Ballyshannon on 14 August 1998. Colleagues may remember me raising this last week, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised it as well. The reason John Ware made those comments was that he and core participants felt that the details he was about to outline in the inquiry were with them mistakenly, and that had he not read them out—and had the Irish Government realised they had let them slip—they would have been rescinded. That is why I got a call four weeks ago giving me the details on a similar basis, so that they could not be rescinded.

[Jim Allister]

Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government on how they were going to co-operate in the Omagh inquiry, yet we find they were sitting on information and when 50-plus questions were sent to them, they answered two.

[Gavin Robinson]

There is a recurring theme. We were told that the Irish Government would have a Garda legacy unit and that they would answer this mythical telephone, but they do not answer. They do not provide answers, they do not respond to emails and they still have an inter-state case against our Government—they expect much of us but give nothing in return.

On 14 August 1998, a telephone call was made to the Finner camp. According to an Irish army document—handwritten—the call came in at half-past 10, and a male caller,

“who sounded reasonable and did not appear to be drunk”,

said:

“Pay attention to the back roads around Kinlough”—

border control checkpoints 197 and 198—

“Inform the GS and NISF”—

Garda Síochána and Northern Ireland Security Forces—

“road leads to Enniskillen, Irvinestown and Clogher.”

Then he stopped and said:

“Forget Clogher, Omagh, Omagh, Omagh”.

Garda Síochána spoke to the barracks orderly sergeant and the barracks detachment staff, whose names are redacted, on 16 August, when they decided for themselves that it was not a warning—it was—with the most devastating consequences. Ten days later, there was another effort to try to retrofit the call. But why am I mentioning any of this? I am mentioning these things because there was Government knowledge, Garda Síochána knowledge and intelligence service knowledge of the call that came in on 14 August, yet Baroness O’Loan in the other place, who was the first Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, conducted an inquiry into Omagh. For two years, she investigated the Omagh bomb. Was she aware of those calls? No, she was not. The revelation last week was a revelation to her.

18:00

The Irish Government commissioned the Nally report in 2002, and it reported in 2004. It exonerated An Garda Síochána; they knew nothing. That is another report where no mention was made of the call that came in. But it will come out in the Omagh inquiry that An Garda Síochána did ask about these calls in 2002. A catalogue of information was presented to the boul Jennings: Dermot Jennings, Garda Jennings—the holder of truths and the keeper of dark secrets, somebody who did not give that information over to Nuala O’Loan or to the Nally report. He was the keeper of secrets—the man who knew who was stealing the cars, not just for the bombing campaign in Omagh, but in 17 incidents in the run-up to it. He was the man who had the information and could have prevented such a loss of life, and didn’t—and when he had the chance to share it, though it would have been embarrassing for his Government, he didn’t do so either.

When I ask colleagues to consider amendment 23, I do so for a number of reasons. First, the legacy commission has cross-jurisdictional abilities, but the Omagh inquiry does not. Secondly, the Omagh families are again in Dublin tomorrow with their judicial review, in the hope that they can secure truth and justice for their families. Let us remember that the Omagh families are not of one nation, nor are they of two; they are from Spain, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and others—of all creeds and none.

How often have we heard Secretaries of State, past and present, say, “The last legacy Act commanded no support from any party in Northern Ireland”? Well, here we have an amendment that is supported by the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, an independent Unionist, a traditional Unionist and an Alliance Member—I hope that I can add the Social Democratic and Labour party. We have unanimity among the Northern Ireland political parties, at least those represented in this Chamber, all of whom can see the practical and compassionate benefits to agreeing with amendment 23. They all recognise that we cannot allow the pain to continue in this case: the biggest single atrocity. That is not to put it above any other, but we certainly must recognise that, unless amendment 23 is agreed to, it will not be considered where others will.

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).

I thank the Government for putting forward their amendments. I support the no-equivalence measure, the highest bar for evidence and the double lock on prosecutions. I also thank the veterans who have come here today to observe this debate; all parties, for having a conscientious and solid debate on this issue; the Veterans’ Commissioners; and all those observing this debate from afar. If there is one takeaway from this debate, it is that this issue really should be above politics. It has gone on for so long, with so much pain among so many people, and coming to a solution in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland should be above politics.

I have tabled several amendments to highlight the overarching problems that I think exist in the Bill. Although I support many of the amendments brought forward by the Government, I am still deeply concerned that this Bill opens the floodgates for hundreds of lawyers to pursue what can only be described as a strategic effort to rewrite history, to paint the state as the aggressor and to use the process as a punishment to hit back at our brave servicemen and servicewomen who served in Northern Ireland.

I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. It was not the most kinetic environment then, but I went through the same training that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen went through before they deployed to Northern Ireland. There was a requirement for split-second decision making and to engage with a population that, in some cases, did not like us or want us to be there. It was a very difficult operating environment. I was a young troop commander at the time, but I went on to serve in Afghanistan and a multitude of other operational theatres, where those skills became very useful. I know what it feels like.

I went on to be the Minister for Veterans and People, and I was opened up to another side of the debate that I had not necessarily engaged with when I was a young troop commander in the Marines: speaking to victims. I spoke to victims of all sorts and all creeds, from different sides, who were seeking truth. Many had given up on the chance of justice, but they were seeking truth for loved ones and closure, usually in relation to people who had been lost during the troubles.

My new clause 55, which I do not intend to push to a vote, is quite simple: it would move all inquests into the legacy commission, creating one simple body for truth and reconciliation, with an acceptance that the likelihood of justice and “prosecutions” is vanishingly small. There is a question around justice, whether we are ever going to get it, and whether truth and reconciliation should be the priority. Overnight, my new clause would worry a great deal of lawyers in Northern Ireland, as it would cut off what has become an exceptionally lucrative business. With inquests costing hundreds of millions of pounds, not only would my new clause save the taxpayer a fortune, but I believe it would centralise and revitalise, and it would create one central mechanism for troubles-related incidents.

Why can that not take place? Because it breaks the framework agreement with the Irish. I am Scottish; I have an affinity with the Irish. But do we in this House—in this great place—expect the Irish to open up their police and military intelligence files and provide us with the wealth of information and intelligence that must exist on cross-border IRA activities over 30 years? Just think about that from a political perspective. We are all politicians here. Would we be keen to open up 30 years of evidence? Think of the political blowback. Think of the legal issues. Importantly, think about how that would potentially pull us or individuals involved back into the system.

There are many accounts, from various sources, stating that the Republic of Ireland was used to store capabilities, weapons and explosives, and even used for terrorists to flee security forces south of the border. Are we really going to see, as the framework agreement states, reciprocal evidence gathering and exposure of IRA activities from the Republic of Ireland? To my mind, the answer is that that is highly, highly unlikely. Doing so would result in every sliver of evidence being legally scrutinised, people being held accountable and the reputation of Ireland being called into question, and it would have political consequences. I just do not think that it is going to happen in the way in which we would want it to happen.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has conducted his campaign. As he knows, he has informed many of the amendments that we have tabled today. I do not want to give the Irish Government a free pass on this issue. We need to be ambitious. Just as there should be a duty of candour for us, so there must be a duty of candour for the Irish Government. Every time that I have raised this matter with my counterparts in Dublin, they have insisted that they intend to stand by their commitments, and I think we must make sure that they do.

[Al Carns]

I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has approached this Bill. The engagement with all parties has been second to none, and I absolutely support that engagement. I have so many people phoning me and talking to me about the positivity of that engagement, so the Bill is being taken forward through the right mechanisms.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member is right to bring up the role of the Republic of Ireland, and what it does or does not do. I think of the case of the two superintendents, Breen and Buchanan, who were murdered at the border. It was Garda Síochána who colluded with the IRA to let them know what was going on. Now we find that not only did the IRA kill those men, but the Republic of Ireland and its Government in particular fell very far short. There are many other cases—my cousin is an example —but I also think of Jack Lynch. If the hon. Member casts his mind back, he will remember that Jack Lynch was the Taoiseach for the Republic of Ireland who was going to arm nationalists against the Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is where the canker lies—at the very top.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and for his consistent analysis, scrutiny and support of all things Northern Ireland.

As my new clause is not going forward, we will continue —unfortunately, in my mind—with a twin-track approach. We will have the legacy commission on one hand, which in some cases is underfunded, and inquests on the other hand. We will waste a huge amount of money through that process, because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is very unlikely to come about. We will allow the process to drift on, potentially for up to 15 years. Think about what that means to someone who is 80, 75 or 70 years old—15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether they will be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form about an incident 30 or 40 years ago. Sometimes, I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. We will keep our brave veterans, who I think have served valiantly, waiting in limbo.

Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors, the first of which is the willingness of Ireland to support us. I completely support the Secretary of State’s move to hold Ireland to account for what it has said it will do, but let us see whether that happens. The second factor is the costs, which are astronomical. At minimum, an inquest costs £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go, and even if they go into the legacy commission, we are still talking about £5 million per inquest. That is significant. Then we have politics to think about. As this process progresses, it will consider Sinn Féin’s activity—either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland—and how that affects both the legislation and the agreements Sinn Féin have made recently. On top of all of that, if new evidence—new biometrics, the smoking gun—is found, people will only go to prison for two years, so what is the point?

As for information recovery, there is no new information unless it comes from Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood]

This is nonsense.

[Al Carns]

It is highly unlikely that there will be new evidence. We can say, “This is nonsense”, but the reality is that it is not going to happen. It has not happened for the last 10 years; it is unlikely to happen now, except in one or two cases.

[Colum Eastwood]

I respect the hon. Member’s opinion on this, but does he accept that over the last week and a half, there have been two former paramilitaries in court on the basis of things that happened long ago? It is not the case that these cases are not being brought forward. The hon. Member’s biggest complaint is that too many cases are being brought forward; now, he is saying that there is no chance of new evidence. I do not really understand this argument.

[Al Carns]

The likelihood of having a huge amount of new evidence that justifies the amount of money spent, and the pain and anguish that all these people are going to be put through, just does not weigh up. There needs to be one single delivery process; instead, we have a twin-track approach that is going to cost a huge amount of money, and the victims sat underneath cannot decide which way to go. It is completely contradictory. I agree that if there is new evidence, by all means bring it forward —of course we should do that. That is in line with the rule of law, but it has to be balanced with the greater aim, which is truth and reconciliation.

From my perspective—this is perhaps equally important —we will also allow those in Northern Ireland who were defeated in a military campaign to now engage in a political one—one that uses every operation to rewrite history, paint the state as the aggressor, and convince the good people of Northern Ireland that reunification is the answer to all of their problems. For a 15-year-old in Northern Ireland now, if they have to put up with five, 10 or 15 years of this going through the courts consistently, it will paint the state in a negative light. Morally and ethically, this approach does not support our veterans as it should, and strategically, it deals the best possible hand to our adversaries.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Before I make some brief remarks about a narrow section of the Bill, I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the quality of debate we are having. This is an incredibly difficult topic to deal with, and the vast majority of Members, particularly today, have engaged with it in the spirit in which it should be engaged with.

18:14

I will speak in support of amendment 103, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). Quite simply, it seeks to establish that where a case has already been investigated at an inquest, the director of investigations cannot reopen it unless “materially new evidence” has come to light. To be clear from the outset, speaking as a former soldier, anyone who wears our country’s uniform and commits war crimes should of course be prosecuted. Those standards, and that adherence to the rule of law, are what makes our armed forces the best in the world.

However, justice also has to be fair, and those who served made split-second decisions, as was brilliantly expounded by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). Those are conditions that many people cannot imagine, and where people have made decisions, been investigated for those decisions and been found innocent, we cannot then try them again without materially new evidence—investigation-changing, outcome-changing evidence—being brought to light. Amendment 103 ensures that is the case. It means that the file cannot be reopened by a different team, or the same questions be put to the same soldiers. It requires genuinely new evidence, and it draws a sharp line between justice and harassment.

I want to make a wider point about the standards that we judge by. During the troubles, fatal shootings by British personnel were investigated by the military police until 1973, and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary after that. Since that time, article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which created a duty to investigate deaths to a standard that did not exist in domestic law at the time, has been applied to UK courts through the Human Rights Act 1998. The courts have since applied that duty retrospectively, which in my view is wrong. We cannot judge historical allegations against more modern legal tests that did not exist at the time.

That is what sets allegations from Northern Ireland—from the troubles—apart from recent allegations relating to Afghanistan that are being tested in the Haddon-Cave inquiry. The Haddon-Cave inquiry is investigating allegations from 2010 to 2013, but those allegations pertain to a time when the law was the same as it is today; the same human rights duties existed, and the same investigative standards were extant. That is quite different from the situation we face with Northern Ireland veterans, and incidents that happened during the troubles, in the 1970s and 1980s, or even beyond. In the case of Afghanistan and the Haddon-Cave inquiry, nobody is being judged by rules that did not exist when they served; the Northern Ireland veterans are in quite a different position. I want to put that point on the record, because in discussions in the media and even in this House, those two inquiries are often conflated, and I think they are quite separate.

Finally, I want to remember how we got here. The previous legislation promised certainty; instead, the legacy Act passed by the previous Government was opposed by every party in Northern Ireland, by almost every victims group, and by the Irish Government, and was found to be incompatible with the law. Also, many veterans did not want immunity, because that put those in uniform, or veterans who had previously worn uniform, on the same footing as terrorists and paramilitaries who acted outwith the law.

My position is simple: those who commit crimes in uniform should face justice, bereaved families deserve the truth, and those who have already been investigated deserve finality. Those aims do not conflict, and a fair system delivers all three. Amendment 103, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would help to deliver that system.

[Colum Eastwood]

It is frustrating sometimes, going through these debates. I know from speaking to victims, as many of us in this House do—although not enough of us—how frustrated they have been by some of the language that has been used in our many debates on this issue. I feel that the first people we should always talk about are those who were murdered and those who were left behind, not those who did the shooting. That is what I feel.

We let ourselves down in this Chamber by focusing far too much on veterans. People in this place are entitled to be proud of the British Army if they want, but why is the focus nearly wholly on those who have been charged, or should be charged, with shooting children, for example? Some 26% of the children killed during the troubles were killed by somebody in a uniform. People would not really understand that, listening to some of those in this room. I get that Members want to represent veterans, and I understand the politics around all of that. Yes, veterans might be worried about getting a knock on the door, but there are other people who got knocks on the door over 30 years. They might have got only one knock on the door from a police officer and never heard from anybody else about the matter ever again. Those are the people we should be concerned about.

I listened this morning to the “Today” programme. Someone I know very well, Emmett McConomy, was on representing his brother, Stephen. How about this for a split-second decision? Stephen was 11 years old, playing with his friends in front of lots of witnesses on Fahan Street in Derry. A British soldier shot him in the back of the head with a plastic bullet. He died a couple of days later. The soldier was pulled in, interviewed for about half an hour and let go again. Not long after, the police and the Army raided Stephen’s mother’s house. The bishop of Derry at the time, Bishop Daly, said they were in the house longer than the soldier was in the interview suite. Was that a split-second decision? Should the soldier who did that not be hauled in front of a court? They would have been, if this had happened on the streets of Manchester, Liverpool or Edinburgh. People who most Members of this House would see as British citizens were shot and murdered by the British Army or a British police force. Should those people not be entitled to the same level of justice, if it can be achieved, as any other citizen in the United Kingdom? I do not understand the argument against it.

Many people have made the argument, including victims, that justice is becoming more and more difficult to achieve—I get that—and that many victims want different things. However, they are entitled to seek justice, and they should not be barred from seeking it by any Government; their rights should be upheld, just as any of us would expect our rights to be upheld.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), gave a fantastic and important speech. He reminded us who this debate should be about. He talked about Majella O’Hare. I spoke to her brother Michael today, as I do most times when these issues are coming up. I want us to remember what that was about. She was a 12-year-old girl going to chapel, to go to confession. She was shot by a member of the Parachute Regiment and killed. That was not a split-second decision. Majella did not have a rifle in her hand, or a coffee jar, or anything else.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) gave a powerful speech, and I understand his personal experience and I respect it, but he talked about the issue of memory loss, as have some others; I do not know about other Members in this room, but if I shot a child of 12 years old on her way to chapel, I would remember it until my dying day. That argument cannot be used as an excuse for not doing anything.

Last week, WAVE trauma centre, a fantastic organisation, brought some victims to this Chamber. I know that many people met them. They had good experiences and bad experiences with some of the people they met. Patsy Gillespie’s daughter Jennifer was among them. A braver family you could not meet. Jennifer was 12 when the IRA came into her house, held her and her mother at gunpoint, took her father Patsy away, chained him to a van full of explosives and made him drive that van into the British Army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry, killing Patsy and five soldiers. Patsy tried to warn the soldiers, but the IRA remotely detonated the explosives. Jennifer is no supporter of the republican movement. She wants truth and the justice possible for every victim that can get it.

We also met Mo Norton and her husband. Her brother, a soldier, was killed in the M62 bus bombing. She said a very powerful thing to me: “Why are we never talked about when they talk about veterans? What about all the soldiers and police who were murdered, or the families who were left behind? Are they not entitled to seek truth and justice?” That is where the argument that some people are making would lead us. I just do not understand why we do not talk about those soldiers when we talk about this issue.

I was at an event last week with the family of Sean Brown, who was the chairman of Bellaghy Gaelic athletic club. He was closing the gates when he was taken away and shot repeatedly and left outside his car. There have been two court cases already. Five High Court judges, the Lord Chief Justice included, have mandated this Government to open a public inquiry into what happened. We think 25-odd people were involved in that murder, and the state has admitted that they included state agents. Next week, we will have to go to the Supreme Court, because this Government are appealing the judgment that mandates this Government to bring about a public inquiry. I appeal to the Government today to take the opportunity to listen to what Bridie Brown has had to go through. She is an elderly woman, and her husband was brutally murdered. She is demanding a public inquiry, and she should be entitled to it, because the court has said that she is entitled to it. I ask the Government to drop that appeal.

One of the reasons why I am opposed to some of the disclosure elements in this Bill is that I looked at the files that were released to the Sean Brown family. It was black pages from start to finish. I have seen that a thousand times with victims. They have to fight and fight to get disclosure, and all they get are blanked-out pages. There are cases right now of dead children where the families still have not got access to their files and will not for many years.

We have issues with some of the provisions. We have issues with the national security veto, which has been used many times before. It is a national embarrassment and should not be used again. However, this is the last chance we have. I have been working on this issue for 20 or 25 years, and others have been working on it for much longer. Victims have had to think about it every day. I get that some veterans are worried, but my first concern is for the victims and those who were left behind. We have amendments, and we will support other people’s amendments—even people with whom we do not normally agree. The bottom line is this: if we do not pass this legislation, we will not pass any legislation on this issue. It will not happen. We saw what the last Government tried to do: they tried to close down access to truth and justice. Let us take this opportunity, despite all our issues with this Bill, to give those who have been left behind by the process some chance of truth, and the hope—the vanishing hope—of a prosecution.

[Dr Murrison]

We have heard some extraordinarily powerful speeches this afternoon. They have all been first rate, up to this point. I will start by laying out what I am. I am the Member of Parliament for a part of Wiltshire that has, I suspect, as many servicemen and ex-servicemen as any other part of the south of England—probably rather more so. I am proud to represent them. It is important I say that, because my perspective is probably very different from that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), given the people he talks to and the people I talk to, and we will differ. But that in no way takes anything away from my respect for the hon. Gentleman and the thoughts and sympathies that he has expressed.

18:30

I would like to take us back to the apocryphal Mrs Jones cited by the Secretary of State. Most of us will probably know somebody like Mrs Jones. We must not suggest to Mrs Jones that we have a remedy for her—that we can make this right for her. I am afraid that, at the distance of several decades, as the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said, it is unlikely that we will achieve what she wants. In my profession, the first rule is to do no harm. I fear that in pursuing the measures in this Bill in the way that the Secretary of State proposes, we may very well be doing some harm, in particular to our veteran community and to our national defence. I will go on to explain why.

As I have said before, I welcome the changes that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary have proposed, outlined in their letter of 12 October. I think they make a bad Bill better. I welcome the six new protections announced in September last year, but they are not enough. This Bill allows paramilitaries, particularly the IRA and its confederates, to continue the rewriting of the history of these islands to their entire satisfaction. However unwittingly, it promotes lawfare and damages our national security.

The Secretary of State says that he has met veterans, and I am sure that he meets them a lot. This morning, several of us had the privilege of meeting veterans in Parliament Square. Some of them are in the Gallery right now, watching. Their sons and grandsons and—if I may say so, as a father of two servicewomen—daughters and granddaughters are watching too. They will be working out whether they should join the armed forces of today. They need to know that the Government of the day and their successors will have their backs, when events of the sort that we are describing today come to light and are raked over by our friends in the legal profession and the high court of public opinion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State grimaces. It is the high court of public opinion, as articulated by our wonderful tabloid media, that influences opinion. I am afraid that is a reality. How we project this debate will influence how those stories are reported. It is important to keep that in mind.

The remedial order contained in the Bill—it is right that it has been absorbed in the Bill, rather than presented separately—opens a door again to civil and criminal jeopardy for servants of the state, with special forces particularly feeling the heat. At the moment, they are considering what Charles Haddon-Cave might have to offer. I suspect that when he has finalised his work, there will be some quite extensive material that may cause discomfort to many. It is important, however, to keep in mind the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those who are sent out to do extremely difficult things—things that I am very glad I did not have to do when I served in the armed forces. The idea that they would do these difficult, often split-second things, believing that if it went wrong, they would have their collar felt in their 70s and 80s, as Op Banner veterans now fear, is not a great recruiting sergeant.

In this place, national security is one of our prime imperatives. It must be the prime imperative of the Government, particularly when this country faces the threats that it does currently. We know that people are leaving the special forces right now. We have heard from people associated with the special forces who fear that this extraordinary part of our national defence will be degraded at a time when we are facing hybrid threats from Russia and other players. I think that is germane to this argument. The hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak mentioned the financial cost of a lot of the things we are debating. Well, the national security costs need to be borne firmly in mind too. I agreed with every single word of the hon. and gallant Member’s remarks.

This Bill should not bother too much the paramilitaries who wreaked mayhem and chaos on Northern Ireland for all those years. They never kept any records. They do not have any filing cabinets. Indeed, they went out of their way to destroy evidence, as they did in 1992, in the bombing of the forensic laboratory in south Belfast. We know that Governments, in the conduct of the 1998 agreement, went out of their way, wittingly or unwittingly, to destroy evidential material relating to decommissioned weapons and the use of people who might have been disinterred. That was forensic material that could have been used as admissible evidence.

My principal concern would be process becoming punishment. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak mentioned that. We have seen how punishment has been meted out to those who have served in our armed forces. Listening to veterans, that is the principal concern we hear time and again. It is the fear that they will be apprehended. Some right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned memory, recollection, and how memories fade with time. I am afraid that is right. The hon. Member for Foyle made a good point: you never forget if you shot someone—of course you do not—but you probably do not remember some of the detail around it. Indeed, you might shut it out. Others will remember things differently. With every year that passes, recollection and memory fades, and that is just the way it is.

To Mrs Jones, I would have to say, “I can’t give you what you want.” This material is from 50 years ago, and memories fade and change. The material submitted through the course of this process may be a pale reflection of the reality on the ground at the time. What we know is what was investigated at the time through the processes available then. That surely has primacy, because that was contemporaneous, not through the prism of 50 years. It is impossible to contemporaneously investigate events now.

That is one of the reasons why many of us are keen on having immediate justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Fifty years later, is someone going to get justice? I do not think they are. The version of justice that they end up with may be off beam and unsafe. That is one of my big concerns. We should always strive for it, and the Secretary of State is quite right to try to do his best with his Bill and his amendments, but we need to be realistic with Mrs Jones and say to her, “We are unlikely to give you everything that you want, much as we would wish it not to be so.” [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is twitching. I wonder if he wants to disagree with me.

[Chris Bryant]

I was not twitching; I was trying to intervene. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his case. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the first report produced by ICRIR into the murder of Rory O’Kelly. It was striking to me that, although it did not come up with perfect answers to everything, it was felt as an enormous release to Anne O’Kelly. Although I do not want to oversell what we can achieve, we should not underestimate the significance of this legislation in getting answers for families, including many armed forces families. Mrs Jones is as likely to be somebody whose husband served in the military or in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

[Dr Murrison]

I accept that point and I appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State framed Mrs Jones, and it is perfectly reasonable that he does so. My point is that we do ourselves and Mrs Jones a great disservice if we suggest that this process will bring answers, when answers there may very well come none—because of the passage of time, because of fading memories, because of people who have passed away, or because of evidence that has degraded or been deliberately or unwittingly destroyed.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the people involved in the Hillsborough campaign, the contaminated blood campaign and the many campaigns that have highlighted state cover-ups in this country should just give up because of the passage of time.

[Dr Murrison]

That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.

[Mr Francois]

The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity?

The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn.

In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.

18:45

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Al Carns]

If we step back and have a think about where we are, a terrorist, a solider or an individual who was engaged in the troubles over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, who remembers having engaged in kinetic activity—having killed someone or conducted something of violence—and who wants to seek solace and to give evidence, will be prosecuted if they do give evidence. It is just worth thinking about that when we talk about justice. A lot of people will want to come forward and clear the deck on the past. If they do, they will be dragged into the courts.

[Claire Hanna]

rose—

[Al Carns]

I cannot give way because I am intervening on someone else. We may just want to have a think about that. If we put ourselves in their position, the system now makes it much more difficult to get to the truth.

[Dr Murrison]

The question is how we can best recover the information—how we can extract it—even at this late date, so that we can give some solace and comfort to those who have been wrapped up in these terrible events, from whatever side of the divide they hail.

In the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast East, I would like to address one or two specifics on clauses 4 and 5, relating to the appointment of the commissioners and the directors of investigations. Clause 4(2) states specifically:

“In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must so far as practicable ensure that one or more of the Commissioners have experience gained outside the United Kingdom”.

That was not what the Secretary of State told me. He is quite right that, under clause 5, one director of investigations should have

“experience of conducting criminal investigations outside Northern Ireland”,

so it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they may be drawn from people operating in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that appears not to be the case in relation to the commissioners. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State, when he makes his winding-up remarks, was able to clarify that for me—or now, if he wants to.

[Chris Bryant]

Could the right hon. Gentleman just clarify what question he is asking? I am not sure whether he is asking about the commissioners or the directors of investigation. While I am on my feet, may I gently suggest to him that his figures about recruitment in the armed forces are wrong? Actually, for the first time in a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving. Recruitment is up by 7% and outflow is down by 7%.

[Dr Murrison]

I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on special forces, but I do suggest that he look at special forces specifically, which is what I was talking about earlier. If he wants to heap laurels on me, as a former Minister for defence people, since these things take a very long time, I am perfectly happy to take some of the credit. I am grateful to him for that, but I do not think that it was the intent of his remarks.

My question to him was about clause 4(2). He satisfied me in relation to the directors of investigations, but it is the commissioners about whom I am concerned. I think that, unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I should be grateful if he could clarify that for me at some point.

Government amendment 259 and new clause 34 concern, respectively, commissioners and members of the victims and survivors advisory group. There is a mandate that commissioners cannot have been convicted of an offence “anywhere in the world”. That needs a bit of further thought, because in some parts of our benighted world today, people are convicted by jurisdictions for which I do not think we would have a great deal of respect. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely—but convicted nevertheless—in such a jurisdiction. I feel that we may need to revise the wording, either here or in the other place, to be clear about the Government’s intent. Neither is there any mention of the rehabilitation of offenders. New clause 34 does at least place a limit of three months on a custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think that this part of the Bill needs a bit of redrafting so that it makes more sense.

Government amendment 162 touches on the provision of information via a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get-out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticability test. What I am not sure about, and what I seek clarification on, is what circumstances would make it “impracticable” for a person to provide information through live audio or video links.

Comments have been made about the part that the Irish Government play in all this through the framework agreement. There is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on the Bill, and we have heard—particularly in relation to Omagh—why that should be. I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Irish Government have not been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and, indeed, had not seen the amendments before their publication, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State expects the Irish Government to implement, through their legislative channels, the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary to provide some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point it has been untapped, and until it is tapped, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin in trying to provide answers to many of the problems about which we have heard today.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was right to say that this is all about victims. It is also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There must be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years. There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles, and it is our job to do what we can to remedy that, difficult and imperfect though the process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s endeavours—he approaches this matter in good faith, as did his predecessor —but I fear that what we have at the moment simply will not do.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill since he was appointed. He has built on the good work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in the Chamber but who gave a powerful speech about why the Bill is so important for victims as well as others who are affected. I think that it should reassure veterans that the process of repeated investigations is coming to an end, and it should give survivors and the families of victims—many of whom are soldiers and police officers themselves—a stronger route to finding answers, and a route to justice for crimes committed during the troubles.

I want to speak about the new protections for veterans, and about why I think they address the real concerns of those who were worried about repeated investigations. I also intend to mention concerns that victims groups have raised with me about their privacy and the anonymity of the process.

Let me deal first with the additional protections for veterans. I know how difficult it was to serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) spoke powerfully about the difficulties that those veterans faced. I did not serve there myself, but I worked alongside many soldiers and Marines who had, and some of them told me that it was more difficult to serve in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan because of the complexities of the environment in which they were operating. We should accept that, and we should thank the veterans, including those who were in the Gallery earlier, for the service that they gave. I think it right for the new legacy commission to consider that.

I strongly welcome new clause 32, which requires the commission or any inquest to take into account the context in which soldiers are operating. It is now made explicit that training, experience and perceived threats, among other factors, must be considered by the commission in any inquests. I also welcome the statement in the new clause that the investigators

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

Many people have made that point, and it is important for it to be in the legislation.

However, the biggest concern that I have heard about from veterans in Halesowen and veterans groups across the country, as well as many Members, is about repeated investigations. Under the existing legislation, soldiers have been worried about being asked to come back time and again to go over evidence that they have already given. Government amendment 192 directly addresses that by requiring the director of investigations to consider what information can be obtained from public authorities before unnecessarily duplicating work. That adds to the Bill’s existing protections against the duplication of previous investigative work.

When I discussed the veterans’ concern explicitly with senior members of ICRIR last week, they told me that many of these cases have been investigated in the past. There have been many inquests and other cases in which veterans have been accused of crimes, that more than enough evidence is already available in public bodies. They did not believe that the case of any veteran under investigation would be taken forward by the legacy commission under this new legislation, and I think that veterans should take reassurance from what has been said by the people who are involved in conducting these investigations.

At the same time, there have been improvements in evidence collection—for example, through DNA or technical evidence—since the 1970s and 1980s, when many of these crimes were committed. We know that ICRIR is examining the links between different types of evidence, looking at, for example, the campaign of bombings in England during the 1970s: the M62 bombing, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and the Guildford pub bombings and others. The commission thinks that there are connections that may lead to further investigations that might give answers to some of the victims. We should bear in mind that many of those victims are family members of servicemen who were killed in England.

ICRIR felt that, on occasion, veterans who were witnesses to those crimes might be asked to give evidence to the commission to add value to the new evidence that is coming forward. I think veterans would appreciate that, because they would be giving evidence that might give answers to the family members of their colleagues who were killed by terrorists. That is something that the commission is doing correctly. Indeed, it is protecting veterans while at the same time getting answers for victims.

There are other welcome amendments and new clauses. Government amendment 162 allows witnesses to give remote evidence, meaning that they would not have to travel to Northern Ireland, while Government new clause 45 and Government amendment 240 ensure that veterans will not be approached by the commission directly, so there will be there are no cold calls. I know that that was a big concern.

Although there are many improvements to the protections for veterans, some veterans’ groups have said publicly in the last few days that they still do not feel that the Bill goes far enough in providing those protections. The protections give a lot of support against repeated investigations, but there needs to be a backstop to ensure that they are working properly. That is why I am really pleased that new clause 53 requires, within two years, an independent review of whether the protections will give veterans the safeguards that they need against repeated investigations.

19:00

After the Bill passes, we will practise how it works, and veterans should be reassured that even though the protections are in place, the Government will look again after a number of years to check if they are working properly. I would like the Secretary of State to address what would happen if the review finds that the protections are not working as we intended. If additional investigations happen in a way that we would not like, what would the Department’s reaction be?

I also want to raise victims’ concerns about the process. I, too, met staff at the WAVE trauma centre last week. I heard very powerful stories from victims, and they put forward particular concerns about the anonymity of their evidence and privacy. I know that some of this is addressed in the Bill, particularly in new clause 41, which strengthens the privacy provisions that already exist. These include provisions for witness anonymity and safeguards before sensitive material is published, which gives victims control over how and if their personal statements will be published. New clause 41 strengthens those protections by allowing the restrictions to be in force while applications to protect people’s identity or evidence are pending. I think that gives a bit of extra reassurance to victims and family members of victims, but perhaps the Secretary of State could say how the amendments will protect victims and their families who want to maintain their anonymity in the process. Could he say a little more about how he will ensure that that is the case?

I welcome the Bill, the amendments that have been tabled to it, the increased safeguards for veterans, and how the reformed legacy commission will be better placed to give victims the answers they are asking for. I hope the Committee will support the Bill moving to Third Reading.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), and the Minister for Veterans and the former Minister of Veterans, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for their engagement on this Bill. It has been a long time getting to this stage, but there has been engagement. For Northern Ireland MPs, it has sometimes felt like a struggle to have our concerns heard. I thank Members who have spoken in today’s debate, because it has had a very different tone and tenor from the one that we had on the carry-over motion. As a Northern Ireland MP, I welcome that on behalf of veterans and victims’ organisations, who will be listening intently to how the debate is handled.

As we consider this legislation, I believe that our focus should remain where it belongs: those who bear the scars of the Northern Ireland troubles. It is not about veteran against victim or victim against veteran; it is about those people who suffered at the hands of terrorism and who have seen loved ones lost, loved ones traumatised and loved ones still carrying the scars, be they Northern Ireland victims or veterans. I know that some Labour Members think that the victims of war are on their side of the House and the veterans are on this side. Sometimes we feel that mismatch as well, because the veterans talked about by the Conservatives are not the same as the veterans we talk about. When we talk about veterans, it is about members of the Ulster Defence Regiment or the RUC, who did not serve a tour of duty and return home. It is about the veterans who, after they had finished a day’s work, went out and conducted the vehicle checkpoints that the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about earlier, and who still went in and did a day’s work the next day.

The challenge of this debate is that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned, sometimes we feel that our voice is not heard. That is reflected in the voices of our veterans and victims’ organisations. Rushing through legislation, or even attempting to force through measures without proper scrutiny and consensus, only deepens distrust. This is an opportunity to get the process right, to find a balance, to establish institutions that command broad public confidence, and to resolve these matters for good.

Mention has been made of ICRIR’s work and of its first published report, which is on Rory O’Kelly. A member of his extended family contacted me about the work that was done, and I raised it with the Secretary of State in the debate on the carry-over motion. What concerns me, which is not the same as what concerns those on the Opposition Front Bench, is that victims and their families have lost confidence in ICRIR, because they see yet another process and the creation of another body. I hope the Secretary of State can provide reassurance that the victims and families who do engage will receive full support, and that cumbersome bureaucracy does not mean that they have to restart the whole process over again.

[Chris Bryant]

I can absolutely provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. It is really important that we take from ICRIR what is good and build on that, but also that we sort out some of the problems that have existed. He will have seen the Peter May report and some of the problems that there have been in the courts. We will put all of that right, but we are not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reassurance, because some of the concerns are raised in the amendments. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned that the second director of investigations must have experience of working outside the UK, and the Secretary of State has provided reassurance on what that means in today’s debate.

I want to talk specifically about the amendments that I have tabled, supported by the Ulster Unionist party. I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, but I will start by focusing on amendment 4, which I hope will be for separate decision. I seek support for the amendment this evening, because it would give victims of troubles-related sexual violence the right to a legacy commission investigation. That proposal has support from parties across the House, but it has also been signed by Members from all the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in this place. I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for his comments and for supporting the amendment.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, in its report on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, included a recommendation for the Government to address the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. The response to that ask has been incredibly disappointing for victims, because the Government have advised that legacy commission investigations are only for those who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State reiterated that point earlier.

That is not good enough, because we have heard that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is overstretched and underfunded as things stand, and the chief constable has raised concerns about the duties that will be put on him and his officers through the legislation we are discussing tonight. The PSNI simply cannot provide the best possible investigation for such victims, because the trauma and the lasting physical and mental injury that these crimes have caused cannot be dismissed. We know that paramilitaries used rape and sexual violence to instil fear and maintain control, which has been overlooked for far too long.

Máiría Cahill, who is known by many in this House, is a victim of sexual violence at the hands of the IRA. Last week, she shared with me and others the real impact of these crimes. She told me:

“My abuser used a conversation about guns to frighten me into silence about his horrendous yearlong abuse of me as a 16-year-old.

His comrades in the IRA later forced me into the same room as him in a yearlong forced so-called investigation into that abuse. When I eventually went to the criminal justice system, it failed us so much that Sir Keir Starmer’s report led to an apology from the then DPP.”

She went on to say:

“Worse still, police intelligence showed that the RUC knew from the year 2000 that my abuser was abusing children—and did nothing. A retired Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that they would not have been interested in the child abuse aspect, because they were focused on the terrorism.”

Ms Cahill, like me, is worried that this Labour Government are going to ignore troubles-related sexual crime victims all over again. That is why amendment 4 is so important, because those victims must be central and they must have access to justice.

Another victim, Paudie McGahon, was raped by a north Belfast IRA man Seamus Marley, when he was in an IRA safe house. He threatened his victims that, if they told anyone about it, they would be found dead on a border road. Marley was later convicted in the Republic of Ireland, but the Provisional IRA members who forced their victims into a kangaroo court—some of them were from Northern Ireland—were not prosecuted. There are other victims out there for whom the criminal justice system is inadequate, because it cannot cope with paramilitary forced interrogations into victims of rape or abuse.

In Máiría Cahill’s own words:

“Sexual crimes have for too long been swept under the cloak of conflict—as have paramilitary actions. If Labour votes down this amendment, my abuser can access the shield of this Troubles Bill and seek amnesty for any of his IRA activities carried out while abusing me—but it affords me no protection whatsoever as his victim.”

Almost 30 years later, Máiría wanted me to share with the Committee that she is still receiving psychological care because of what happened to her as a 16-year-old. These victims deserve an investigation and they deserve justice.

Máiría also asked me to remind Labour Ministers that the then shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), convinced the Conservative Government to include troubles-related rape in the last iteration of this legacy Bill. He raised a fundamental concern that the legislation, as originally drafted, could allow perpetrators of rape and other sexual offences committed during the troubles to benefit from immunity from prosecution. He warned that the Bill contained no specific prohibition on immunity for sexual violence, so he tabled the then amendment 115 to exclude certain sexual offences explicitly from the immunity provisions. That amendment was supported in Committee, and the Government subsequently brought forward a replacement provision expressly excluding troubles-related sexual offences from immunity.

I will work with the Government and the Secretary of State in remedying this, but it is important that amendment 4 is made tonight, because the context matters. It would demonstrate that Parliament has previously recognised the need to address sexual violence explicitly in troubles legislation, rather than simply assume that existing provisions will adequately protect victims. My amendment addresses an equally important gap in the current Bill, because it would allow victims of sexual crimes committed as part of the troubles, who suffered physical or mental harm, to request an investigation. We must not allow sexual violence or abuse to become an overlooked part of the history of the troubles, nor should victims be left without an effective route to seek answers about what happened. That intervention demonstrated the importance of putting protections into the legislation itself, and I am asking this Committee to apply the same principle on the right of victims to seek an investigation.

This is not about party politics; it is about recognising the experiences of victims, ensuring that sexual violence is properly acknowledged in the historical record and making certain that the legislation does not leave that behind. If Parliament has accepted that sexual offences require explicit protection in the context of immunity, it should also give serious consideration to ensuring the victims of those offences are not excluded from the process of seeking truth and accountability. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she was the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, acknowledged in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that in conflict societies sexual violence should be recognised as part of the reality of conflict. She added:

“Of course, anyone who suffered sexual violence because of conflict should be taken account of.”

She also stressed that victims’ experiences must be handled sensitively to avoid retraumatisation.

The hon. Member’s evidence reinforces the principle behind my amendment, because victims of sexual violence during the troubles deserve recognition and the opportunity for their experiences to be properly investigated. I listened to the Secretary of State this morning when he said he wanted to bring forward

“a balanced Bill which gives as many people answers as possible”.

So I ask him to listen to those people. I have tabled a number of other amendments about different factors, but that is the main one I want to put forward.

19:09

[Chris Bryant]

I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member. I hope he understands that I think everybody in the Committee wants to ensure that people are not barred from taking forward these issues through the commission. However, as he has just said, this may need to be dealt with so sensitively that the legacy commission might not be the place where they want it to be addressed—they might want it to be addressed somewhere else. I am not sure that his amendment is necessary to achieve what he is trying to achieve. I am very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I am just not sure that this measure is necessary.

[Robin Swann]

With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, the reason I want to put this into the Bill is that it is not there. When we look at the list in clause 27(3), we see:

“‘Serious physical or mental harm’ means…paraplegia;… quadriplegia;…severe brain injury or damage;…severe psychiatric damage;…total blindness;…total deafness;…loss of one or more limbs;…severe scarring or disfigurement.”

The list does not include sexual crime, which does not fall under any of those harms. Previous answers from his Department said that this would cover people who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That could be said about any victim coming forward in this regard. I ask him to seriously consider where sexual violence and crime could fit into the Bill. It is not a wide section of victims, nor will it add multiple cases, but it will bring reassurance to some. I seriously believe that is what the Government want to bring about with this Bill, so I am keen to work with them in regard to this specific experience of many victims and survivors.

We do not feel that the amendment regarding the second investigator or the director of investigations in the commission is necessary, because it undermines the current provision. There has been no serious complaint about the operation of either the commission’s chief executive or the director of investigations that we see would make a second position necessary. I ask Members to support my amendment 4.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I support this Bill for victims and veterans. I support this Bill for truth, justice and the rule of law. I support this Bill for Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and peace. I welcome the amendments from the Government. I know they have come about following deep and constructive engagement with many people in the House and outside it, and I think they strengthen what we have before us.

The Good Friday agreement is rightly one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It changed the course of history. While praise is understandably lavished on the politicians who negotiated its terms, they would be the first to tell us that its success is not theirs to own, but that it is owned by the people of Northern Ireland, who, day in and day out, make that progress possible. They do so without fanfare and they embrace it. It is not that they have forgotten the pain and suffering—how could they?—but they chose a different future, and in so doing they wrote a different story for Northern Ireland.

What a story the people are writing! The economy is exciting, and the creative industries, the defence sector and technology are booming. They have the lowest unemployment in the whole of the UK and the highest growth. Excellent schools are helping to equip the next generation—a generation not growing up knowing the sound of a bomb, and not growing up to fear a Protestant or a Catholic. Brilliant charities and community groups are helping a generation to see that they have more in common with one another. I believe that, if we are to protect that progress, we need a legacy process that commands confidence, and I think that is helped by these amendments.

None of that, of course, is to pretend that there are not problems in modern day Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have shown us that the peace we have is not a replacement for the pain, and it has not changed what happened in the past—that can never be changed, and we should never ignore it. Let us be clear: that pain will also be known by those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the police, and by their families. The amendments that I support, including stopping repeat investigations, matter a great deal to them, and I will always be in admiration of those who stood in harm’s way to keep people safe. They lost far too much; the way they were tested in their service of our country, I would wish on no person.

Whenever the issue has been debated before in this House, there has been a contingent of veterans in the Public Gallery. Each time, I have learnt so much by going to speak to them. I have learnt about the horrors they encountered. I have learnt how rightly proud they are of their service, and how frustrated they are about the injustices that they, their friends and their comrades faced. Our conversations often turned to whether they would want immunity for that period; they do not. They told me that they fought to defend the rule of law, not to be above it. They simply want equality before it.

Surely, we in this House agree that it is all those people—those who have helped to make Northern Ireland what it is today and to make peace possible—who we should put first. If the Bill helps a father in his late 80s end the torture of not knowing what happened to his daughter in her final moments, can we say that he is not worth our support? Should we tell him how glad we are that he never allowed his grief and devastation to stop his commitment to a peaceful Northern Ireland, but we cannot pass those provisions for him? If the Bill helps a widow of a veteran murdered by a terrorist group get the justice that she has been denied for decades, can we say that that is not worth our support? Should we tell her that her pain and anguish—her children having to grow up without knowing their father—is really awful, and we are sorry, but we cannot do this for her?

It is clearly not right that those brave veterans who helped contain the worst of the violence should be forced into the dock to relive the worst day of their life, when they have already been cleared by an investigation that looked into all of the evidence. They were asked by our state to act; they do not deserve to be tried again and again until a different result is found. That is precisely why the protection from repeat investigations is so important. It is why I welcome the amendment set out by the Secretary of State that strengthens that very protection. That is how we honour the sacrifice of people who went out to defend the rule of law, without cruelly and needlessly making them relive the very worst moment of their lives.

I do not think this Bill will be as totemic as the Good Friday agreement. It will not go down in the history books in quite the same way. But it can deliver with fairness for all those who I mentioned at the start of my speech. This Bill might bring answers—maybe even justice—to people who have lived with very deep pain for many, many years and put their country first. They put peace first. Those are the people who make progress possible, each and every day. I am proud to support them, and I am proud to support the Bill.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I want to make some remarks on the amendments that I have tabled, and some more general remarks, given the debate so far. I will discuss amendments 39 to 42, which, in my opinion, the Government amendments have not addressed.

Amendments 39 to 42 provide for judicial panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Judicial appointments should remain within NIJAC’s remit to maintain independence and public confidence in the process, as well as to safeguard against future politicisation. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government’s amendments make no provision to address this, despite concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and UN experts. Indeed, the Committee on the Administration of Justice also notes that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appointing judges would reverse the process put in place after the Good Friday agreement reforms, which created NIJAC as an independent body to appoint the judiciary.

The Secretary of State’s broad powers mean that a future Secretary of State for Northern Ireland opposed to an independent rule of law legacy investigation could make further appointments to frustrate the legacy commission’s purpose. One example would be appointing judicial commissioners to write the findings of legacy commission reports after investigations. Indeed, there is precedent for the risk: the irregular appointment of the second police ombudsman was followed by a lowering of the office’s independence in legacy investigations, leading to an independent inspection and suspension of the historic function of that office.

I will now turn to some of my greatest concerns in the amendments we are discussing today—there are also concerns about what we will discuss tomorrow. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has already started to tease out some of the issues with the national security veto, as has the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This issue really bothers me, and I feel that it should bother other Members. The veto can hide state involvement in killings. Indeed, it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge and start to deal with that aspect of our past. The Bill lets the Secretary of State redact legacy commission reports to families on national security grounds. That is not limited to protecting lawful covert methods; it can conceal the role of state agents and informants in killings currently attributed solely to non-state actors.

If you will briefly indulge me, Madam Chair, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and his amendment 4, which I will support—as I have done already. We discussed that amendment within the realms of paramilitary offenders—the hon. Member eloquently articulated that point—but there were also state agents who were paedophiles and operated with impunity. We were told after the fact that they were involved in saving numerous lives. That is obviously a question of hindsight, and very conveniently difficult to disaggregate. However, on record there are paedophiles who were used by the state. Indeed, it is often a mirror image, but they were there to serve a purpose. We knew about the paedophilia and child abuse, but we let that go because we felt there was a security value. I will just let that sit with Members for a moment.

The relevant Secretary of State could be marking their own homework. The joint framework suggests that the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary could also redact reports, even though MI5 and Military Intelligence are potential subjects of the investigations in question. That has already been found unlawful, but the Government have pressed ahead anyway. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found the equivalent provisions in the legacy Act 2023 incompatible with the ECHR—in the Dillon judgment. The Government’s appeal is before the Supreme Court but undetermined, yet they have still included the provisions and certified the Bill as ECHR-compatible on the strength of an “expectation” of winning.

There is a conflict with international and ECHR standards. UN special rapporteurs warned that the veto could curtail victims’ right to know the truth and be incompatible with international law. The Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” stance—earlier this year much maligned, to the stage of being mocked, with the Stakeknife case—showed that the involvement of agents at all should not be disclosed. This cannot be squared with the ECHR duty to hold effective investigations capable of establishing state agents’ involvement in a death. No comparable jurisdiction gives Ministers that power over transitional justice reports.

I want to draw attention to a theme that has been present throughout this debate and many others. We live with this every day in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that those veterans who live in England or further afield do not either—but this dictates our policy in Northern Ireland of how we do things today. It is still there. As other Members have alluded to, those members who served for Northern Ireland did not get to leave. They did not go away; they served their tour of duty on their home patch.

The reverse is true as well: many victims of paramilitary violence will still see the perpetrators today. Many of them will know things through hearsay, rumour or gossip, but they are not quite sure. If the Bill provides a way to try and give those people the knowledge and understanding of who pulled the trigger, and where and when, then I will support it.

I thank the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn); I am glad that he is in his place. I want to get something off my conscience that has bothered me since the day and hour that I set foot in this House and took part in these debates: we have not done justice to all the victims through these debates—we just haven’t—and it hurts, and I think it is shameful. I stand here as somebody who has veterans in her house. I am proud of them; I do not try to diminish or do away with that. But I also stand here as part of a family who have suffered from paramilitary violence, through nothing other than sectarianism. I am not going to pretend that that was an unusual happening.

19:30

I am really glad that my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, said something in this debate that is never said—and I will say it: this happened in the United Kingdom, in the modern day. He mentioned the Hillsborough law. We would not for a second in this House think twice about whether that was sensible or not, whether we should be the arbiters of whether the families would find it useful, or whether the passage of time was too great. We simply would not take that decision upon ourselves. I am glad that I was involved in the passage of the Hillsborough law, and I pay tribute to the campaigners, but there seems to be an othering of Northern Ireland. It seems that we are saying that a national security veto should be in place. Are we saying that the family of Julie Livingstone, the teenager shot and killed by a plastic bullet, should not receive the file until 2054? She was murdered with a plastic bullet; they know that. Why is retaining the file a national security issue? That does not make any sense to me.

I also think about the families I know of people who were in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the regular Army—families who are part of my life and my friendship group. I have in my office, to the side of this Chamber, a medal from the Army Benevolent Fund—an Army charity that I volunteered with for many years. It is the Sefton medal; obviously, we remember the story of Sefton and all those murdered in that attack. Someone gave me the medal because they said it was about the triumph of good over evil. I worry about the narrative that is emanating. My party did not agree with violence at any stage of the troubles. We did not care whether it came from paramilitaries or a state actor—all of it was wrong, and we have said so many times. The hon. Member for Foyle has mentioned the Reavey family. I also have in my office a memorial plaque from Eugene Reavey, whose brothers were so brutally murdered. I first met Eugene nearly 10 years ago, and I was proud to be in court with him earlier this year.

It is really important that we say this out loud. Families were stained for years; people said, “Oh, there’s got to be something there; they must have been killed because they were in the IRA. Oh, they were Catholic? Okay, well, something else must have gone on.” Actually, nothing other than a sectarian murder had taken place, and the slurs and the cover-up hurt even more. I sat in court in Belfast in the opening days of the Ballymurphy inquest; never more in my life did I understand where people were coming from whenever they said, “Whatever happens, this is about correcting the public record.”

If we want to talk about rewriting the past, as far as I am concerned what we say should apply right across the board. I do not want anybody in Northern Ireland to think that terrorism was ever an alternative at any stage. But I also do not want anyone to think—as they probably would more here, across the water—that it was acceptable for anyone who wore a uniform to think that the state would back all their actions in perpetuity, without stopping to ask whether they were legal. That implies another point. The caution around veterans almost implies that every single one of them at some stage acted illegally or wrongly. I just do not think that is the case. I know many of them—many of them are related to me. Many of them are very close to me and, believe you me, they did not break the law as part of an ongoing plan—it simply did not happen—but we would also be wrong to say that it never happened.

I thank the Government for their work on the so-called on-the-runs. I was proud to play my part in lobbying to bring that work forward; it is really important. Whenever we talk about the issue, it cannot be that we accept that that distortion and perversion of the law was ever acceptable. I am glad that it will be on the record that there will be no hiding place—no cup of tea and a sit-down—for terrorists. As far as I am concerned, that is absolutely non-negotiable.

I also want to talk about a group of campaigners who reached out to me ahead of this debate: the Birmingham pub bombing families—Julie and those other incredible campaigners. I feel it is remiss of us, whenever we have this discussion, if we do not pay tribute to their calls for a public inquiry. On that point, like so many others, I want to mention Michael Gallagher; in the last weeks, he has suffered a stroke due to the stress and pressure of participating in the Omagh bombing inquiry—although he would still participate in it every day of his life. His example brings home the stress and pressure that everybody in Northern Ireland lives with.

I want to conclude by talking about an incredible group of people we met today through the Commission for Victims and Survivors. Two of them—very different people—were constituents of mine. There was incredible woman called Mary, a veteran. Her husband was a UDR soldier gunned down and murdered in cold blood. The other constituent came from the Lagan part of the constituency. His relative, an RUC officer, was murdered at mass. Those two people are my constituents and I do not discriminate between them, and neither should anybody else in this House, but too often I feel that that the opposite narrative has swept into the public consciousness, though I am sure that Members would not want that. It is important that we put that on the record.

It is difficult to know what to say in these scenarios, because everyone on these Benches, no matter what our politics, feels this personally—in our home and in our communities. We never feel that we have done the issue justice. I say to Members from across the House: know that this is not going to be perfect. Know that we will all want things that have not come to pass, and that we will all be seeking to influence the other place; but know also that if we do not do this, it will never get done.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). She made a powerful speech. I commend her for her honesty, and for sharing her personal experiences. I also commend the many other Members who have done so in this important debate.

The Bill is about one thing: how do we deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland? In my view, we cannot deal with that legacy unless we focus on three things: truth, justice and, ultimately, reconciliation. Everyone affected by the troubles deserves truth and justice—that seems to be the core of what the legacy commission is about—but if we are honest, the difficulty achieving an adequate balance between the two fundamentals of truth and justice is why this Bill and the last Government’s legacy Act 2023 have been so contested. It is why, at times, there has been more heat than light in debates. It is why victims and veterans have so often been rhetorically pitted against each other in these debates. As we have seen today, that is a false dichotomy. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made a good point: so often, veterans are victims of the troubles.

We have to ask: why is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill necessary at all, 28 years after the Good Friday agreement? The answer is that all parties to the conflict have failed to take the steps necessary to deal with its legacy, so here we are, literally re-litigating the troubles.

First, truth is important, and the legacy commission will enable important work to establish the truth, including for hundreds—arguably thousands—of veterans and their families. Regardless of what has happened in their life, many victims and survivors of the troubles need the closure of knowing who did what, when, to their loved ones. Both the reformed legacy commission and the independent commission on information retrieval, which will be discussed tomorrow, create the possibility of our learning those truths. Furthermore, in the legacy framework, there is a seminal commitment by the Irish Government to introducing new legislation that ensures the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities on legacy issues, including through a new Garda unit. That opens up new opportunities to uncover the full truth and is truly historic.

The commitments made by our partners in the Irish Government must be followed through with. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to confirm that the entirety of the framework, including our pledge to reopen a limited number of paused inquests, is contingent on the Irish Government putting their commitments under the framework into Irish law at the same time as this Bill becomes law.

The second key foundational element is justice. As we have heard, justice is so necessary, but the people of Northern Ireland really need to determine what form of justice will satisfy them. We heard from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), about the South African truth and reconciliation commission. The Good Friday agreement avoided any extensive public or social quasi-judicial process, so we have been left with not just the legacy of the troubles but the legacy of the last 28 years of smouldering, pent-up frustration about the lack of justice for, and at times even acknowledgment of, the events of the preceding 30 years.

In part 5 of the Bill, the legacy commission allows for the uncovering of truth in a quasi-judicial setting through an “inquisitorial proceedings” approach. Suspected crimes that are uncovered in that way can be referred to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that the criminal justice route remains possible for troubles-related crimes.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is not in his place, talked about giving false hope to Mrs Jones, but at times, it is the absence of a process, as much as anything else, that brings people fear, disappointment and frustration. Even if they cannot get full justice—whatever that may be, and however we define it—the opportunity to look into how their loved one was affected, killed or maimed is itself part of justice.

It is important that any attempts to wage lawfare against veterans are confounded. I therefore welcome new clause 50, under which the Attorney General would have to give consent to all serious troubles-related prosecutions. I also welcome new clause 32, on the explicit requirement on coroners or the commission to recognise the operational circumstances in which veterans served—the fact that they had to make split-second decisions, and so on—and amendment 192, which requires the commission to consider whether there is compelling new evidence before contacting witnesses. But the question must be asked: at what point will we all realise that we cannot litigate or prosecute our way out of the legacy of the troubles?

I come to my last point, on reconciliation. The missing piece in Northern Ireland—the whole reason why we are in the Chamber—is the failure to pursue and deliver what we might call positive peace. In many ways, the Good Friday agreement has been a huge success; it stopped a large majority of the violence we saw in the troubles, and there is no question but that Northern Ireland is a better place today than it was in 1998—I saw that improvement with my own eyes, as I lived there between 2002 and 2007—but the mere absence of violence is not enough to enable us to deal with the legacy of the past, let alone build the future that Northern Ireland deserves. That is the reason why, despite the much more peaceful society that we see today, Northern Ireland still feels frozen to some degree at a moment in time—in 1998, to be precise. How else can we explain the visceral response we witnessed so recently on Garvaghy Road?

Some may say that Governments cannot make people or communities reconcile. That is correct, but that cannot mean that Governments, and politicians like us, cease to have a role in fostering reconciliation. Clause 11 outlines that the first principle of the legacy commission is that reconciliation must be promoted. However, there is scant, if any, detail thereafter on how that will be achieved, even if part 4 of the legacy Act is taken forward. That is why I put my name to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and grouped for consideration tomorrow, which would commit the Government to engaging seriously with efforts to foster reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the troubles.

Some people want to see justice done; others want to see truth uncovered. Those are legitimate desires, and the Bill seeks to help them come to fruition, but when it comes to the legacy of the troubles, there is clearly a great social and corporate need for acknowledgment, and even contrition, on all sides. A generation after Trimble and Hume won the Nobel peace prize, our ambitions for reconciliation have fallen silent. We politicians need to lead by example. This is not familiar territory for any Government; truth and justice are easier to deal with than the fragilities of confession, forgiveness and, ultimately, love.

When President Mandela spoke in Cape Town cathedral at the commissioning service for the South African truth and reconciliation commission, he led by example, acknowledging:

“The whole South African nation has been a victim, and it is in that context that we should address the restoration of dignity and the issue of reparation. The healing process is meant for the individual, the family and the community. However, above all the healing process involves the nation, because it is the nation itself that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself.”

I ask us: what could it mean if the people of these islands—Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland—could convene moments in which we could acknowledge, repent and heal? What could it achieve if the UK, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments convened, resourced and facilitated memorialisation of the troubles and symbols of forgiveness and reconciliation? As we have seen throughout the world, it is only Governments who have the scale and authority to create such spaces and moments.

19:45

Above all, it starts with us. We politicians need to step up and model relational humility—to be willing to forgive, and to ask for forgiveness. The missing ingredient in dealing with the legacy of the troubles is summed up in one word: sorry. Even if we have played no direct part in the troubles, the roles we play as political leaders give us a responsibility and an opportunity to lead by example. So, for my part, as little as it may mean, as a British parliamentarian, I am sorry for the times when the British Parliament has made things more difficult for the people of Northern Ireland. I am sorry if there have been times when my rhetoric or misunderstanding has hurt colleagues in the cause of peace.

I hope that the reconciliation gap can be closed, at least in part, in legislation. I also hope that when we pass the Bill, all of us—that includes political leaders here, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland—will take up the mantle and be the generation of leaders who finally deal with the legacy of the troubles, leading by example through our interpersonal and political relationships to bring true reconciliation.

[Alex Easton]

I have examined clauses 1 to 72 and the Government’s amendments with care and as best I could in the short period we had, and I regret to say that I still have grave concerns. The central question is whether clear blue water is drawn between those who served to protect the public and those who pursued terrorism. Security forces were responsible for about 10% of troubles-related deaths and terrorist organisations were responsible for about 90%, yet many who served have lived with the prospect of being summonsed to court while some suspected of terrorist offences received so-called letters of comfort, as has been addressed. For veterans and their families, that contrast has created a deep sense of injustice.

I am not asking the House to place anyone above the law—where there is evidence of wrongdoing, that must be examined—but a fair legacy process must recognise the profound difference between someone who wore a uniform to protect life and someone who deliberately set out to take it. Nor should the Republic of Ireland’s role escape scrutiny. Families seeking answers about attacks planned or supported across the border deserve meaningful co-operation and access to relevant information. A legacy process that looks only where it is easiest will not command confidence. Justice must not stop at the border.

We can look at the recent examples that have come out where the Republic of Ireland’s Government failed to give information. We see what has happened with Omagh. We know that in the early part of the troubles the Irish Government supplied weapons to the IRA. We know about Breen and Buchanan, the superintendents murdered on their way home from Dundalk. The Garda Síochána were involved, yet they were never brought to justice and no information was given to our Government.

I welcome the Government’s decision to bar former paramilitaries from the victims and survivors advisory group and to provide a place for a veteran—I hope that it will be more than just one veteran. Those are important changes and they have partly engaged with my amendment 52, but they do not fully address my concerns about appointing someone who belongs, or has belonged, to a political party linked to or supportive of a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. Victims and survivors must be able to trust the independence of those appointed to speak on their behalf. I implore the Government not to divide the House on my amendment. We cannot allow those from any political party to go on to the victims and survivors advisory group if they believe that the troubles were justified, that the murder of a PSNI officer was justified, that the murder of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces was justified, or that a civilian murder was justified for their cause. Murder is never justified, no matter who took part.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Easton]

Let me get on a wee bit; I will maybe let the hon. Member in later.

If such individuals were allowed, even unintentionally, they would make a mockery of the victims and survivors advisory group. They would use it for their own agenda, and nobody would have any confidence in that group. I ask the Secretary of State please to do the right thing and not divide the House on this amendment. It would strengthen the Bill, not weaken it. We must not allow anyone to be on the victims and survivors advisory group who believes that a terrorist campaign was right or give them the opportunity to use that position to rewrite history, because if they are allowed on it, they will do that.

Magna Carta declares:

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

That promise must always apply to every family seeking answers, and to every veteran who has lived for years under the shadow of possible prosecution. Passing a Bill is not in itself progress. The test is whether it delivers a process that is fair, credible and worthy of the trust of those it is meant to serve. I recognise that no legislation can undo the grief of the troubles, but this House has a duty not to compound it. We owe victims the truth, veterans fairness and the public a process that distinguishes service from terrorism without placing anyone beyond the reach of the law.

The Government’s amendments are a step, but they are not enough. For this reason, I cannot support the Bill. I implore the Secretary of State to listen to what I am saying. As a Unionist, throughout my life I have watched politics coming through Westminster and all the different deals that have been done. From the Belfast agreement and the Anglo-Irish agreement right through to the Windsor framework, I have seen every successive Government not listening to me or my predecessor Unionists about our concerns. We feel unloved. We feel that we are never listened to. Secretary of State, you have a chance here to reach out to Unionism and our genuine concerns. Please listen to us, because we have to get this right. If we do not, it is just going to be a complete disaster.

[Ian Byrne]

As we debate this Bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose decades-long fight for truth and justice has brought us here: mothers who have waited 50 years to understand why their children were killed; siblings told to move on; widows denied information about their husbands’ deaths; and children who grew up without a parent and still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones but whether parts of it were involved in, enabled or concealed what happened. Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to repair the damage caused by the legacy Act, but that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know.

The Government published substantial amendments shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes will have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet Members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles-related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests were met, a Government Law Officer could withhold consent.

I agree with Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families’ confidence. Where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power, families will understandably question why a Government member should have the final say. Whatever the Government’s intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear.

We must also remember the Dillon litigation. The courts in Northern Ireland found the legacy Act’s immunity provisions incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force. The Government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respects their human rights obligations. The protections underpinning the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. As a Labour Government, we have a particular responsibility to protect that achievement and never, ever undermine it.

Nor do the concerns end with prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State’s control over sensitive information, restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings and the independence of appointments to the judicial panel. These are fundamental issues: who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe that state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence. The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear.

That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part 4 of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both Houses. The principle is straightforward: public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant evidence and actively help to establish the facts.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to be absolutely clear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of candour. Just as we argued for it in the Hillsborough law—which is still making its way through the House of Lords; it is still in Committee stage down there—so I want us to be as open and transparent as possible. I undertake to work with him and others in this House to ensure that principle is adhered to when we mesh together the two Bills—this Bill and the Hillsborough law—in the House of Lords.

[Ian Byrne]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out in the House of Lords is the Hillsborough law, that it does exactly what we wanted and that it applies to Northern Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions whose conduct is being examined, or face a lesser standard of candour because their case is before the legacy commission rather than a coroner.

Amnesty International UK has highlighted the importance of disclosure, transparency and accountability in legacy cases. The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report on this Bill recommends that the Hillsborough law duty of candour must apply equally to revived coroners’ inquests and proceedings conducted by the legacy commission. New clause 56 would apply these principles directly to these proceedings, and I thank the Secretary of State for his words.

An investigation can establish the truth only if evidence is brought forward. If public bodies withhold information, provide incomplete accounts or protect themselves, families are forced to fight the same battles again and again. That is how allegations of collusion remain unresolved, suspicion becomes distrust and justice is denied for generations. We should do everything possible to prevent that. As a survivor of Hillsborough, I know the damage caused when the state closes ranks against the people it has failed. Ninety-seven people were unlawfully killed. Their families and survivors endured decades of lies, smears and cover-up. The consequences continue today.

Families should never have to fight to establish why their loved ones died. Survivors should never have to defend themselves against lies. Public authorities have a duty to tell the truth and assist in establishing it. Instead, those same institutions protected themselves. Evidence was withheld, and the truth obstructed. That experience is why we fought for, and fight for, the Hillsborough law to require public bodies and officials to be honest, to disclose evidence and to assist the search for truth, not block it.

20:02

That duty must apply fully in Northern Ireland. Families there know the pain of losing loved ones and spending decades seeking answers from the state. They know what it means to suspect that the state may have concealed, enabled or colluded in the wrongdoing that they are trying to understand. They deserve the same candour and assistance as any other family, and their right to truth must carry equal weight. We cannot ask families to trust new proceedings while leaving uncertainty about whether those holding the evidence must assist them.

The Prime Minister has promised to change the culture of the state to make it more open, honest and accountable. The Bill provides a real opportunity to put that commitment into practice. That means accepting scrutiny, requiring institutions to disclose evidence even when it exposes their failures, and properly investigating allegations of state collusion, rather than leaving questions buried in classified files or unresolved inquiries. Above all, it means putting bereaved families at the very heart of the process.

New clause 56 asks the Government to apply the principle embodied in the Hillsborough law to proceedings under the Bill, and I urge Ministers to accept it. I also urge them to listen to wider concerns raised by families and their representatives. We were elected to repair the damage caused by the legacy Act. We must deliver legislation that earns the confidence of those who suffered that damage. These families have waited decades. Many have lost parents and grandparents who died without the answers they deserved. They should not spend the rest of their lives fighting for what the state should have provided a long time ago: truth, justice and accountability. Those are not unreasonable demands. They are the very least that bereaved families are entitled to expect.

We must ensure that this legislation does not repeat the failures of the past, that the search for truth is not obstructed by those responsible for providing it and that no family are left wondering whether the state has again put its interests before their right to justice. The Government must honour their promise to these families. They must deliver accountability, uphold human rights and ensure that the truth can no longer be withheld behind the power of the state. This Bill must honour the families.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I must start by declaring an interest: this legislation would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland, serving in the Scots Guards. The first was in Belfast in 1992. We lost Guardsman Damian Shackleton—murdered by the IRA. We lost Guardsman Andrew Wason—murdered by the IRA. We also had two guardsmen who were subsequently convicted in a Diplock court for murder and given life sentences for a judgmental shooting situation in north Belfast.

On that tour, as a platoon commander, I remember being at a pig point just outside the Divis flats—basically, a vehicle control point, stopping ingress to and egress from the city centre. My road man, who was the guy who stopped the people at the checkpoint, called over to me. He had his hand on the driver’s shoulder. He said, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” This guy looked me in the eye and said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this vehicle.” Now, fortunately, I knew that he was lying, but the drill at the time was that you grabbed a hold of this witness, took him out of the car and did not let go until the bomb disposal people turned up, because they needed to question them to find out what the situation was and how long the vehicle had been taken away to get the bomb in the back of it. The IRA’s tactics at the time were all designed not only to kill and maim, but to put the British forces and the police on the horns of a series of dilemmas to make their job incredibly difficult.

On my second tour, I was an operations officer in east Tyrone, on a tour that spanned the ceasefire. Right up until midnight on the day the ceasefire kicked in, the IRA was trying to mortar, bomb and murder our people in RUC Pomeroy. I was then a company commander, accompanied by my wife and children, and we were based out of Ballykinler. We would go away for five weeks at a time, predominantly to south Armagh and Portadown, particularly Drumcree. My last job was for two years as a policy officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland in Lisburn.

Through that progression, the challenges I faced and the insights I gleaned were very different. By the time I got to the top—John Reid was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time—we were doing the demilitarisation of south Armagh and the Golf towers. There was the Downing Street declaration. I asked my boss, who was a brilliant civil servant, “Who won?” He did actually answer that question, but the answer he gave me is probably not something that would help our debate today. Suffice it to say that the Good Friday agreement left that out there as a question—who won? That was necessary; it was a peace agreement. It was very important not to rub people’s noses in it—that one side had very clearly won and another side had very clearly lost.

Because of that grey area, people subsequently have sought to use various ways of answering that question not just to relitigate the case, but to rewrite history. I particularly remember an instance when Stormont had to be recalled to debate the colour of flowers. It was Easter recess, and someone had put some flowers in the lobby at Stormont. Everyone had to be recalled to debate the colour of the flowers. That sounds absurd but, of course, the colour of those flowers was an answer to the question, “Who won?”

The trouble is that our considerations today are not as apparently innocuous as the colour of flowers. Our debate is about the way in which those four guardsmen I mentioned went to Northern Ireland, received orders and had rifles strapped around their necks. They were given very few powers additional to those of a private citizen. They were told to go out into the streets of the United Kingdom and protect the police while people tried to kill them. It is in that context that I see the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled.

What we are witnessing is an extension of the troubles by other means. The Secretary of State, I think in good faith, has been attempting to bring various parties together and ensure that this legislation has—I think this was the phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—the confidence of all parties. The trouble is that it does not. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), various veterans’ organisations have said that they do not have confidence in this legislation or the amendments to it. The former Secretary of State said that “if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this.” Well, I do not want perfect, but I do want something that protects our veterans from the rinse and repeat. This is not it, as the Secretary of State well knows.

I introduced a private Member’s Bill that said there should be no new investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless there was new compelling evidence in the eyes of a Supreme Court judge. The Government successfully talked that out, so our Front Benchers have brought forward new clause 21, which essentially re-presents it. I wish that the Government had taken me up on the offer, and simply had it as one of their amendments. This is the crucial amendment that has the support of all the veterans organisations—because they wrote it. That is how I know they support new clause 21.

The word “essential”, which has been substituted for “new and compelling”, does not do it for me, because I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning, saying, “‘Essential’ to my mind means completely new evidence or a new forensic procedure,” but that is the Secretary of State’s interpretation of it. Who is to say how this non-legalese word “essential” will be interpreted in the future? There are just far too many cracks in the pavement into which our service personnel could again fall and be rinsed and repeated.

The fact is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has admitted that the Bill does nothing to stop the Loughgall inquest going ahead. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that when he came in front of the Defence Committee last week. I asked him whether anything in the amendments trumped the requirement under the framework for Loughgall to go ahead, or whether the inquests would automatically be restarted. I asked,

“will the interpretation of ‘essential’ be, ‘Well yes, because we have committed to it in the framework’?”

The Secretary of State for Defence said,

“In terms of those particular inquests, there is just not a way of circumventing that particular issue that is consistent with our treaty obligations. With the amendments we have laid, we have got to a place where it deals with some of the fundamental concerns that I as a Member of Parliament, let alone colleagues, had.”

So both Secretaries of State admit that these amendments will not stop that inquest going ahead.

The combination of veterans’ groups not supporting the Bill and the fact that, by their own admission, the Government cannot get round what they have already given away in terms of those inquests means that I cannot support the Bill, and I will be supporting new clause 21.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member referred to his own private Member’s Bill, which said that a Supreme Court judge should decide whether something was “new and compelling” evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he, indeed, approached the Supreme Court?

[Lincoln Jopp]

Funnily enough, I have not actually approached the Supreme Court, but that is the sort of thing the Secretary of State should have been doing, because that is what the veterans told him would be a sufficiently high bar for them to have confidence in this legislation.

Hon. Members across the Committee are being asked to vote tonight. I was going to ask the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether, when he was considering all the people affected by this legislation, he thought that the 1,572 veterans in his constituency just do not matter. All hon. Members have veterans who live in their—

[Ian Byrne]

That is a very poor point. Of course they matter, but lots of people are speaking out for veterans tonight. I wanted to give the families the voice and give my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability, so that is what I focused on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoken about veterans with great expertise and, of course, I have met veterans in my community and sat down with them, and I have friends who are veterans. It was a pretty poor point that the hon. Member just made.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do not think it is a poor point, because we all have to make judgments in this place and to vote with our conscience.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I understand where you are coming from in part—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Where he is coming from.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I apologise. I have mentioned veterans tonight who I know are prepared to support the Bill, and there are veterans’ groups who have a different view of it. I completely appreciate that there are veterans’ groups that are absolutely against it—some of them are my constituents, too. It would be wrong to say, though, that there is a homogeneous view among all veterans, and I think that is worth restating. I would just express my gratitude for the hon. Member’s service—it sounds like he was very close to my home whenever he was in Lisburn. He will remember that last week was the 30th anniversary of the bombing of Thiepval Barracks, in which one soldier died. I completely understand where he is coming from.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogeneous group, but the closest we can approximate to that is the veterans’ organisations that have come together and spoken with one voice, saying that they do not think there are sufficient protections in the Bill for them not to suffer the rinse and repeat. For that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.

20:14

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)]

I am pleased to be able to participate in today’s debate. I did not serve in Northern Ireland, but I did spend time as a Parachute Regiment reservist—an experience that laid the foundations of my path to becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford. It afforded me opportunities I would never have otherwise experienced, and I know the same is true for countless others.

Paratroopers served alongside members of our armed forces and the Northern Irish security forces throughout Operation Banner, often in the most dangerous situations. They were asked to do an immensely difficult job in the hope of delivering lasting peace. Many of those soldiers, now in their 70s and 80s, have spent decades fearing a knock at their door. The unjust reality is that most who are fearful of historical prosecutions are largely working-class men who served in their late teens or 20s.

I want to speak to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) about justice for victims and civilians, which I fully understand. What I would say is those young service personnel are victims, too. They saw and experienced things that they cannot unsee. They were deployed to Northern Ireland on the instructions of the British Government and fulfilled their duties as commanded by their chain of command. That is why I feel so passionately about the Bill and the protections it must offer.

For more than a quarter of a century, the job of properly addressing the legacy of the troubles has been kicked down the road by successive Governments. This legislation is an attempt to end that unwillingness and to deliver justice to all those affected. What it is not is an attempt to unfairly target British soldiers with legal proceedings or to reopen wounds that are barely healed. The truth is that if this legislation is not passed, those who served in Operation Banner would be completely exposed to spurious prosecution and would lack the immunity that they were falsely promised.

This legislation will offer veterans new protections, including strict guidelines on what can be considered new and compelling evidence, measures to adequately recognise the context in which soldiers were operating, and the explicit rejection of equivalence between service personnel and insurgents. That is why, despite my concerns about certain details of the Bill, I have worked extensively with the veteran community, most notably the Parachute Regimental Association, throughout this process. I commend it for the good-faith nature in which it has engaged.

This Bill is not perfect, but it is a marked improvement on the flawed legislation passed in 2023. The consequences of not getting this Bill right are very real, and while the failure of the process would belong to us all, its impact will be felt hardest by those we claim to support. If we are unable to talk, listen and make good-faith compromises, we risk repeating the mistakes that this legislation seeks to correct. No one here wants to see our children and our grandchildren patrolling the streets of Belfast again. We have a duty to prevent that cycle of violence from reigniting. I want this Bill to go even further in protecting our veterans, and I will keep working with the veteran community and the Government to make that happen. We do need justice, we need closure, and families need answers, but, most of all, we need long-lasting peace.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I would like to speak to amendment 130 and clause 36. My son, myself, my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather—and pretty well all my ancestors forever—have served in the Army. I was a subaltern in Northern Ireland at the peak of the troubles in 1984, and my regiment, the Queen’s Own Highlanders, saw the death of the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel David Blair, and 17 more soldiers who were killed in the two explosives in Warrenpoint in 1979. The pain of those deaths was still very live among many of the regiment who were serving five years later when I was serving, but despite the pain, I do not recollect a single person who felt any desire to take revenge. The professionalism of the British soldier could be depended on.

I have a son who has just left the Army after several years as a trooper. I told him that I was coming to this debate, and he told me an anecdote. He said, “Well, let me tell you a story. There are four guys, all armed, and they are clearing a building in the middle east. They go upstairs, and as they go along the corridor, out of the back of the building comes a man, and in front of him is a female. Over her shoulder he is firing AK-47 bullets, and spraying them. They shoot that man and that woman—they kill them, but they had no option. It happened on the spur of the moment, and they could not really decide how to get out of it, or they would all have been dead.”

Is there any chance that those British soldiers could be charged with murder? If there is, I would strongly recommend the young I meet not to join the Army. British soldiers in my day were always able to depend on the support of the British public, the Government and the judiciary. In my time in Northern Ireland, we knew that we had our backs covered, and that we had to abide by the law. What we did not have then was sharp-suited lawyers looking for any opportunity to pursue us in court, possibly for decades. The recruitment of soldiers is extremely poor at the moment, and unless the concerns of those serving, and of veterans, are put to rest, we will not be able to rebuild our fighting force to the strength we need.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the challenge of legacy remains unsolved. That is so important to remember when agreeing on the amendments tonight and moving forward with the Bill tomorrow. It is an honour to be part of a process that will be so historic for the future of Northern Ireland. I praise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for all their work on the Bill and for bringing us to this place. I also thank the victims groups and individual victims, many of whom have not spoken out in this process, but of whom we are thinking.

I praise the veterans—my grandfather is from Northern Ireland and served in the British Army—as well as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are bringing forward legislation all the time to create a peace for Northern Ireland, and the community leaders who are building that peace every day. I say to people across Northern Ireland that we hope that passing this Bill and agreeing to the Government amendments, which I support, will bring us closer to the permanent peace, justice and reconciliation that everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the UK, can build on.

As we proceed this Committee stage, every clause and amendment should be judged by one simple test: will it help victims and bereaved families to finally get the answers that they have waited decades to receive? They have woken up waiting for those answers every single morning, and although they do not want to, they are passing that wait on to future generations—to their own children—and looking ahead to it being passed on and on with despair. We want to draw a line, and the Bill should enable peace and reconciliation to set everyone in Northern Ireland free from the dark past. Earlier this afternoon, members of the Victims and Survivors Forum spoke to MPs about parents, siblings and grandparents killed during the troubles. One victim said:

“It has now been 53 years since my father was murdered. I have moved on from justice. I just want the truth.”

That window of truth, and the potential for getting that truth, is closing.

More than 3,500 people lost their lives during the troubles, and nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved. Behind every case is a family still living with those unanswered questions. The greatest risk before us is delay, so for those Members who are considering voting no to the Government amendments and no to the Bill, that is what is before us. Every year that passes makes establishing the truth harder. Witnesses pass away, memories fade and evidence is lost. Doing nothing means accepting that some families may never learn what happened to their loved ones, instead of accepting this carefully balanced Bill. The former Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have stopped and listened so carefully to victims, and have brought forward the Bill and the amendments.

As has been said, the previous legacy Act failed to command confidence across Northern Ireland. It closed down routes that families had pursued for years and left many feeling further away from truth and accountability. The Bill takes a different approach. The reformed legacy commission will have stronger investigative and disclosure powers, and a clear focus on providing families with as much information as possible, as well as learning from the Kenova inquiry and that victim-led process—a way of taking action that means asking victims at every stage what they want to know. Not every case will lead to a prosecution. Many are now 40 or 50 years old. However, where prosecutions are possible—it has been proven already that they are—families should have the fullest possible account of what happened.

I welcome Government amendment 192, which ensures that documentary evidence is considered before witnesses are contacted, and requires compelling new evidence before individuals are approached. I welcome new clauses 33 and 34, and amendments 148 and 149, which establish a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. This is so important—I see that it has come from many conversations with WAVE, which has been mentioned before, as well as other victims groups. Those groups have asked for a statutory place where victims’ voices will be heard. If the process is to command confidence, victims’ voices must be at its heart, as they will be with the new advisory group. I also welcome new clause 35, which states that the legacy commission must carry out its duties

“in a way that avoids any unnecessary cost”,

because too often, lawyers are the only winners in this process. However, can the Secretary of State explain how unnecessary costs in the process will be checked and reported to the House?

The provisions relating to inquests are equally important. Families who have fought for years for answers deserve a process that is effective, independent and focused on delivering outcomes. Alongside that victim-centred approach, the Bill contains important protections for veterans. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—we have gratitude for them—did so with courage, professionalism and distinction. I welcome the statutory duty to avoid the unnecessary duplication of previous investigations—the rinse and repeat clause—as well as new clause 32, which recognises the operational circumstances in which veterans served. These amendments provide real clarity for some things that were in the Bill already but were needed to provide assurance.

I welcome amendment 240 and new clauses 45 and 46, which protect veterans from inappropriate cold-calling by requiring contact to be made through the Ministry of Defence. The provisions protecting older witnesses are also sensible and proportionate, and a result of many conversations with veterans groups. Supporting victims and protecting veterans are not competing objectives—there needs to be a careful balance, and a credible legacy framework must do both. It was never going to be easy, but the Bill achieves that balance.

The Secretary of State has reiterated in this debate that there can be no moral equivalence between those who served lawfully in our armed forces and police service, and those who carried out acts of terrorism. The IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Irish National Liberation Army were responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths during the troubles. Nobody involved in such acts should receive immunity from accountability. I therefore welcome the removal of the previous Act’s immunity provisions and the restoration of routes to accountability under the rule of law.

I also welcome the greater consistency and oversight sought through new clauses 49 and 50. However, on new clause 50, which would require the Attorney General’s consent for serious troubles-related prosecutions, victims and survivors have raised with me concerns about independence and how the safeguard will be perceived. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the new clause will not create the impression that there is a special hurdle for Crown-related cases, and that prosecutorial—that is a hard word; I must practise it more—decisions will continue to be taken independently, and will be applied equally to all those under investigation? This is about being equal under the law.

[Chris Bryant]

I might as well answer that now: yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.

20:27

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful clarification, which will be welcomed by many of the victims and survivors I have spoken to.

More than 25 years after the Good Friday agreement and 12 years after the Stormont agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed, as I saw time and again, and as I see now. Growth is much higher than in the rest of the UK and unemployment is lower; there is much to build on. However, too many families still carry the burden of unanswered questions, and that holds Northern Ireland back in many ways. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the passage of time does not become the final barrier to truth. I also welcome part 4 of the legacy Act. It has been mentioned only one other time in the debate, but it is a really important part of the legislation.

I support the Government’s approach, because it offers the best chance in a generation to deliver what victims and families have sought for far too long: answers.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

In the seven years that I have been a Member of this House, I do not think that I have been in a more respectful, positive and high-quality debate. There have been some absolutely outstanding contributions from across the House. I am not going to reach that standard, but I am proud to participate in the debate. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made by colleagues from Northern Ireland. Having visited a number of times recently, I can attest that they do politics pretty well there; there is a standard of speech-making that reflects the seriousness of politics there, and we have all benefited from that this evening.

My observation about the Bill and the amendments brought forward by the Government is that they essentially still fail on a core moral principle, which I will come to. The amendments that have been adduced as improving the Bill and addressing the concerns that have been raised do not, I am afraid, offer new protections. Many of them relate to measures that are already in force and could be applied, particularly those on the opportunities for anonymity and remote hearings.

The amendments and the new clauses are mostly simply important moral statements of what should be obvious. In particular, new clause 32 states that there is no equivalence between terrorist action and legal actions. It is extraordinary that it needs to be said that “a relevant person” in an inquest or proceedings

“must have regard to…the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent unlawful violence”.

And what a thing to need to say that lawful action is not equivalent to terrorism! Why would that have to be stated in law, unless the Bill might be thought to suggest the opposite—that the law as it stands, and the Bill, could imply that equivalence?

At the heart of why the Bill remains inadequate is the essential imbalance in the legal procedures that the legacy of Northern Ireland applies. I pay tribute to a group of veterans I met recently—some special forces and some others—led by Dr Robert Parr, an academic at Oxford who was a Royal Marine and in special forces. He has written a very powerful paper that makes the simple point that the legal system—this is not addressed by the Bill; in fact, the Bill consolidates it—

“privileges the claims of former paramilitaries over those of the men and women who served the Crown”.

Of course, that is not intentional—the intention is to provide equity and parity—but the problem is structural.

The fact is that only a 10th of the deaths that happened during the troubles were caused by the security services, but it is men and women in uniform who must bear almost the whole institutional burden under the law as it stands, and that will not change under this Bill. The IRA and other paramilitary organisations got letters of comfort, early release and pardons. They had their weapons decommissioned without any forensic testing being done. Meanwhile, the British Army kept its records—indeed, it operated under the chain of command. It had accountability built into the work that it did; in fact, it had all the elements that made its decisions as safe as possible, as a military operating under the laws of a democracy. It is those elements that are now used against the Army, and that is the structural imbalance we face. That was apparent right at the beginning, when the Good Friday agreement was being implemented.

A letter has been released recently from John Reid, the Northern Ireland Secretary in 2001. He was writing to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and he made it clear that the proposed arrangement, in which an amnesty would be offered to terrorists but not to British veterans, was asymmetric and unjust, but that for reasons of political necessity, that is how it had to be. As Dr Parr has pointed out, the asymmetric exclusion of the security forces was therefore not the product of principled legal reasoning or an honest assessment of comparative culpability; it was the price of republican acquiescence in a political settlement. Just consider the insult that that represents to our soldiers.

I pay tribute to and honour the point that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made. Our soldiers beat the IRA to a standstill. They fought it to the negotiating table, and then they had to take the final indignity, which is that they, not the IRA, would face the threat of the law and of prosecution.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Member pays tribute to the armed forces of the time. Does he agree that we enjoy peace today partly because of the work that many of our special forces did in penetrating paramilitaries, to the point that we found out only later about people such as Stakeknife? That was the reason why the paramilitaries were forced to the peace table; it was not that they voluntarily sought peace.

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right.

There was a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) earlier about who won. The answer is that, in so far as this was a military conflict, we know who won: it was the British Army, particularly with the help of special forces, but it had to suffer that indignity in consequence. It accepted as the price of peace the indignity and injustice of being exposed to the principle of liability and the threat of prosecution, while the IRA was indemnified. That was a bitter enough pill, but the actual practice of repeat prosecutions on the scale that we have seen—not the threat, but the reality—is unacceptable. That is not what was expected or accepted at the time, but back in those days, people reckoned without the European convention on human rights, the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the lawfare that the convention has brought into reality in our time, in this century. In particular, article 2 of the ECHR applies retrospectively to the investigations, based on the inadequacy of the investigations under standards that did not apply back in those days. That is the essential injustice of the law as it stands and of this Bill; there is a fundamental violation of the principle of legal certainty. Let me quote Dr Parr again. He says that

“the requirement that individuals be able to foresee the legal consequences of their actions at the time of those actions”

is itself

“a foundational element of the rule of law to which the ECHR is ostensibly committed.”

In passing, let me turn to one other indignity and injustice that, I am afraid, has been consolidated by this Bill. No accountability has ever been forthcoming from the Irish state, elements of which were arguably responsible for enabling, colluding with and covering up the actions of terrorists during the troubles, and none is expected in the future, despite the warm words of the Secretary of State. Thanks to this Bill, though, the Irish Government will play a crucial role in our own justice system. That is wrong.

What is happening is that the Government—and I honour them for doing this—are trying to reconcile common sense and decency, and the obvious appeal for justice on behalf of veterans, with the human rights framework that we have. I am afraid to say that that simply cannot be done, so I will end with a few thoughts about the future and the system that we need. We must start by reverting to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and to the principles that Tony Blair oversaw back then. He chose peace over justice, and he was right to do so. That was the right principle. Now, in our time, we need to choose truth over individual justice for people who can never realistically hope to attain individual justice. That is the way to heal a community; evidence from transitional justice programmes around the world, particularly in South Africa, demonstrates that that is the way to achieve healing in a community. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) put it very well when he talked about the need for positive peace—national peace and reconciliation. Mrs Jones, the lady we have adverted to throughout this debate, is not going to get justice through the law, but if we genuinely open the archives—including the archives in Dublin—and encourage truthfulness, she could get the truth.

Going forward, we need to stop all future prosecutions of the sort that have persecuted our veterans, and we need a Bill that draws a line under the Northern Irish troubles, as well as the Haddon-Cave inquiry. We need a new process for war crimes under English law, and a new legal basis for military conduct without European law. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and the private Member’s Bill he has introduced; I think that Bill goes in the right direction, but we can go even further. It particularly emphasises—this is the core point—that the chain of command is ultimately responsible for the actions of soldiers on the ground, and Ministers are ultimately responsible for the use of force, not the poor bloke who had to take a decision in a split-second, at risk of life.

I suggest that something more is needed even than what the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington suggests. We need to go further—we need to pull out of the ECHR altogether. There are many reasons for leaving it, and my party makes those points repeatedly. It protects terrorists and stops the deportation of illegal immigrants, but the most important reason is that it enables the prosecution of our soldiers. On those grounds, we must leave it.

[Chris Bryant]

It is absolutely integral to the Good Friday agreement.

[Danny Kruger]

We are very familiar with that argument. I do not think this is the time to have that debate, but I am confident—and there has been a lot of learned advice to this effect—that it is totally possible to withdraw from the ECHR while maintaining our obligations under the Good Friday agreement.

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate. On the whole, the debate has been wide-ranging, honest and balanced, recognising the complexity of this matter. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for his honest and personal account, which reminded us that everybody—regardless of our background and the roles we have played—reacts as a human being. Regardless of the circumstances we have lived in and come to this debate from, when we are scared, we can react differently at times. Nobody should be held to account for being scared.

We have talked a lot about WAVE and the other victims groups. Many survivors and family support groups have given evidence and lobbied, whether in the past couple of weeks, over the past year in which we have been debating this Bill, or before that. They are people who come from very different perspectives, with very different backgrounds.

However, all of those people have given their time and talked about their experiences, their trauma and their families’ trauma. They have said how they are trying not to pass that trauma on to the next generation, but the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren cannot help but experience what their families have lived through, because of everything that we carry with us. I thank them for every time that they have addressed us and every time that they spoke to those who came before us. I hope to God that they never have to come back to this place after this Bill is passed to do it again.

20:44

I hope that we can make that difference, because these people are drawing on their own trauma. They also draw on their cynicism. They do not believe anything will ever change, but have that teeny-tiny bit of hope that actually it will. The expectations of the hypothetical Mrs Jones who we have talked about have not gone so sky-high that we have to manage them; actually, we have to drag them back up from the depths. We might actually get this right, and that is what they deserve.

What is striking about the victims, survivors and family groups that we meet is the fact that, regardless of their background, they support each other. They recognise that this is not one community against the other. Things are often within communities and are class-based, including the working class. They were often attacked by people from their own community. They might run into the person who they believe killed their family when they go down to Tesco to do their shopping. The connection among these people might just be the fact that the island of Ireland will always be part of them, even if they have never been there, because it is part of their family history.

I turn to amendment 286, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). She has given the reasons for tabling the amendment, so I want to talk about some of the practicalities. I started my first job in the NHS in the 1980s in the medical records library. I know how difficult it can be to find records. They have to make sure they are put in the right place so that they can be traced and used. Things had been done in exactly the same way for 20-odd years at that point. In the following 30 years, how we stored and kept records, and how we maintained all of those processes through building after building and from move to move, changed.

The practicality now is making sure that we still have those records, so that people can get the information they need. The processes need to be in place so that the commission body, the commissioners and the investigators can get that quality information. Operation Kenova showed that being able to work with the highest level of information was the important factor. That information was what the families found to be helpful, because an absence of information is when paranoia builds and assumptions get made. One of the most important aspects is being able to have that trust in investigators, so that the families have somebody who they can go to and say, “I have heard this—is this true? Can you verify that?” Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. The benefits of Kenova and the Kenova approach have come through loud and clear in our work on the Select Committee.

Briefly, I want to address amendment 4, in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). Sexual crimes—rape and sexual assault—are a well-documented instrument of war and conflict. There has not been a war or conflict where it has not been used. It has no boundaries, whether it involves members of the same or different communities, or members of security forces. It is not on. The tactic is inherently shrouded in silence and shame. It is intended to silence and to shame, and we cannot let it go without recognition.

I urge the Secretary of State to look kindly on how we address this important issue. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, we need to try to find a solution. I am not convinced that this amendment is the right way, but I would like a commitment to finding another way, because the traditional approach to dealing with sexual crimes will not work in these circumstances, as the hon. Member for South Antrim and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) discussed. We are not serving women well in dealing with sex crimes anyway, and certainly not in this case. I will, however, certainly support the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.

[Jim Allister]

There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.

It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:

“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”

Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.

I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:

“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.

It is the one that records the fact that we

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s

“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”

the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that

“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,

whether it appeared that the

“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,

and the extent to which they

“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”

Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?

We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that

“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.

Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.

The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.

There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.

21:00

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The issue that we are discussing today goes back decades, and we in this place still have unfinished business to deal with. Today is an attempt, although not a perfect one by any means, to do our duty. It reminds us of our duty of care to the people of the whole of this country—in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere—who have been so badly affected, so traumatised, with lives lost, as a result of what is euphemistically called “the troubles”. Today I have listened to harrowing accounts from Members of what they have experienced themselves or have heard from others. We, as Members of this place, have a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves—those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles, and those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth of, or justice for, what happened to their loved ones.

Today we are once again trying to right some of those wrongs of the past, but let us be clear about the fact that we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is ensure, or try our best to ensure, that people who have suffered in all their different ways can, if not get closure—we have heard about that again today—at least find out more about what happened to those they lost.

During the debate it has been said a number of times that we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our Government to try to keep the peace—because that is what it was to start with: an attempt to keep the peace, not to fight and win a war, because nobody won out of those troubles. The end of those troubles began, apparently, in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, but the violence went on, did it not? Since then, successive Governments have tried to bring about some form of justice, some way of bringing back the truth about the people who suffered in that violence, and time and again, that has not happened. I wish to God that, as a Member of Parliament elected only two years ago, I did not have to deal with this, but I know that, actually, I do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it.

I cannot speak for all the victims, but we have heard much about them today. I want to focus on a group of my constituents who have come to me and asked for answers and reassurance. They are a group of local veterans who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They were not trustful, because they saw an attempt to take away their protections under the legacy Act and thought that we in this place were going to leave them exposed. I said, “Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s find out about this.”

I can tell Members that when we sat down, it was a very tense environment. I thought, “I’d better not talk now. I’d better just listen.” I listened to them go through, one by one, what had happened to them when they were serving for Her late Majesty in Northern Ireland. Each had their own traumatic experiences, and a couple were in tears. One said to me, “Will this ever end? I still live this trauma, and I don’t see how you or this Government are going to protect me.” I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to the Government. We went through their concerns, and we summed them up in just two points. They were not saying, as has been said before, that we should not talk about the past or that we should just brush it under the carpet and repress it. They wanted to know that if and when anyone asks them, “What were you doing there?”, they will not be judged guilty from the start but will be protected.

The veterans were scared of receiving a letter from a commissioner, a lawyer or whoever, and one said, “Will the MOD not protect me?” I took that question on board. Another said, “What happens if I do have to give evidence or get involved in proceedings that I don’t understand? Will the Government be there to give me the support that I need?” I took those points away, and I know that the Government have been listening to many individuals, groups and Members of this place since then. I am pleased to see that there is progress on that. I am particularly pleased that we will not be cold-calling veterans, who still need support. I have said that I will give them that support, and after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again. I will listen to them again and say, “Does that give you reassurance?” If it does not, I am pleased—and I will say this to them—that it does not end here. We cannot ever draw a line under the troubles, and we must remember that. We will listen again, and I am pleased that that provision is included in the Bill.

We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served and all the people we represent, who expect us to do the right thing. We should not talk about “traitors” or “betrayals”. We are trying to do the best we can, because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. We have a chance again to make things a bit better, and some of the amendments that have been tabled do that. I will support the Government amendments later, but it does not stop here.

I want to say to everyone listening, whether they are a victim, a veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening: we have a duty of care to you all.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I will always stand on the side of innocent victims and with those who put on a uniform to protect them, but regardless of whether this Bill passes or not, veterans sadly continue to live in a state of uncertainty and are continually faced with the threat of future lawfare and vexatious investigations. We need only recall the outrageous persecution of Soldier F. Despite the slurs and inaccurate comments from Members in this place last week, I want to remind the Committee that Soldier F was acquitted. He was found not guilty of murder, but how much of his life in his elderly years was spent defending himself against a prosecution in which the evidence fell well short? Veterans live with this fear every single day, and while some of the amendments may be superficially attractive, the Secretary of State must explain how they will actually protect those who serve. We cannot accept provisions that are, in substance, legally ineffective.

Loughgall has been mentioned throughout the debate. The Secretary of State’s clarity is stark, and it is not lost on veterans. Those in the East Tyrone IRA killing wing were bloodthirsty. They went to that police station armed to the teeth with guns and a bomb. They were not scouts going to the police station. They went there to kill, and they met real soldiers, who stopped them and saved hundreds of lives as a result. We cannot allow their murderous intent to be forgotten while those soldiers face further proceedings almost 40 years later.

There has already been an inquest, which concluded in 1995, and there is no need for a further inquest. The Secretary of State is not taking the opportunity to protect those who saved countless lives, because this Bill will allow for the 2015 proceedings to resume. I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), which I and my hon. Friends have signed, to prevent this resumption. Those soldiers were sent by this country to confront the IRA, and they did so courageously and bravely. This Government now need to explain what protection they are actually going to give them.

On further protections for veterans, we are told that they will get a warning before being contacted and can give evidence via video link. Under new clause 45, the warning procedure does not even apply when someone is contacted because they are suspected of an offence, but that is exactly what many veterans fear. Even for witnesses, contact can proceed after 14 days whether or not the warning has reached them. The ability to give evidence remotely remains subject to whether that is considered practical. Does the Secretary of State think that veterans will stop worrying because they can answer questions from their living room? The veteran’s family will still be living with the same fear about what comes next. Basic courtesy and a broadband connection are not meaningful protections for our veterans.

Amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which I have signed, would prevent people being appointed to the victims and survivors advisory group if they are or have been members of political parties with links to or that support paramilitary or terrorist organisations, past or present. Why should innocent victims be expected to accept people with those political associations on a group established to represent their interests? They should not, and I, along with my hon. Friends, will be supporting that amendment.

On the on-the-run letters, the Secretary of State will know that I tabled new clause 9, supported by my hon. Friends, to make it clear that the on-the-runs administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution. I am pleased—the Secretary of State should take note, because that does not often happen—that the Government have tabled new clause 51 to prevent criminal proceedings being stopped or decisions to prosecute being quashed on grounds founded on the content of those abhorrent letters. Leaving aside the fact that this rotten scheme should never have been secretly contrived by the Blair Labour Government in the first place, it is welcome that the Government are legislating to have their legal effect extinguished.

However, I do have one concern. The Committee will be aware of the ongoing prosecution of John Downey, who previously escaped justice for bombing England via reliance on the OTR letter he had received. He is currently being prosecuted for other terrorist offences, and this prosecution has commenced. Therefore, new clause 51 must ensure that its provisions encompass proceedings that have already commenced but not concluded. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity tonight to expressly confirm that? Will he also confirm that no transitional or saving provision will preserve reliance on those letters in such cases? We cannot see another prosecution stopped because of an OTR letter issued under the Labour Government’s abhorrent scheme.

There are also serious shortcomings in the scope of the Bill. By its definition, the troubles end on 10 April 1998. That leaves out the Omagh bombing, the single deadliest atrocity of the troubles. Members have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) give his commentary on that important issue, and I urge them to support amendment 23. On 15 August 1998, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins—31 lives were taken. It is simply wrong that an atrocity of that magnitude falls outside the scope of legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles. The Government should accept the amendment. I sincerely ask sincerely: what is the problem?

20:28

The Omagh bombing inquiry continues, and the evidence heard last week raises stark questions for the Irish authorities—the authorities that this Government are placing so much trust in and pandering to. The inquiry heard about a warning call received at Finner Camp in County Donegal before the bombing. The caller urged that the Irish police and the security forces in Northern Ireland be informed and patrols deployed. The message ended with the words, “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh”. We should ensure tonight that we do not continue to retraumatise the victims of the Omagh atrocity by not agreeing to amendment 23.

That brings me to the significant partnership with Irish Government that is woven throughout the entire process. Why are this Government so willing to take Irish assurances at face value? We have been here before. Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan were murdered by the IRA after leaving a meeting at Dundalk Garda station. The Smithwick tribunal found clearly that there had been collusion in their murders, yet those families are still waiting on answers. Then there was Ian Sproule, murdered by the IRA outside his home near Castlederg in 1991, aged just 23. His family’s solicitors have raised the IRA’s possession of Irish police documents containing his photograph and personal details. His family have long suspected collusion and have fought for a proper investigation, yet they are still waiting for answers.

The Committee will also be aware of the difficulties facing the ICRIR in obtaining information from the Irish authorities. In July, this Government acknowledged that the lack of information-sharing arrangements was impacting a number of commission investigations. That means that families who asked for investigations were being held back by the absence of Irish co-operation. However, the Irish Government have had the bare-faced cheek to bring an international case against the United Kingdom while such serious questions remain about their own record; after 40 years of hiding terrorists, colluding and cover ups, this House is asked to put our trust in them.

Government amendment 251 requires a statement on the actions taken by both Governments under the joint framework before the principal operation provisions come into force. We need more than a statement; we need the information, the files and the evidence. The Irish Government cannot demand accountability here and avoid it at home. The same scrutiny must apply on both sides of the border.

I will always endeavour to stand with innocent victims and those who served this country against terrorism. Those families have waited long enough for answers; our veterans have lived long enough with the threat of further proceedings hanging over them. The Secretary of State needs to deal with the concerns that remain and give further assurances from the Dispatch Box tonight.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues.

As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order.

We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.

We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation.

Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented

“a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”.

However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded:

“The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.”

As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them.

The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made.

We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key.

To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case.

The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs.

I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee.

As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined.

The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members.

Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.

[Jim Shannon]

It is indeed a pleasure to speak in the debate. I will focus on the victims and justice—justice has never been delivered, actually—and those who are no longer here but gave their lives for Queen, King and country. The Secretary of State will know that I have mentioned my cousin and Daniel McCormick. That was 55 years ago, and I have given an example of what that means: the legal mechanisms of this land have seen no justice.

I think of the Ballydugan four—the four UDR men—three of whom I knew personally. I think of John Birch, who was a twin. I am old enough to remember the day he was born. I also think of Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop; I knew him well. The day I saw him, I said, “He’s going to be a soldier,” and he was. He joined the Territorial Army, which I was in for a number of years, and him and I did a guard duty together up at Magilligan camp. I remember well the time we had together. He is dead, murdered by the IRA.

I think of Steven Smart, a Newtownards man—his family is well known in Newtownards. He was also murdered in the Ballydugan bomb in April 1990. I did not know John Bradley. Those are examples of men who served in uniform and gave their lives for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think of the Kingsmill massacre, where again civilians were murdered because they were Protestants. Where is the justice for them in this process and the Bill before us tonight?

I think of the La Mon fire in my constituency, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I had our party conference a while ago. I well remember the night of that fire bomb. I was in Comber with my friend when the news came over the air. Again, those people were killed by the IRA team from Belfast and nobody was ever made accountable. When it comes to justice for victims, I do not see that coming through whatsoever.

Private Robert William Hill, a 22-year-old part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment—a young man who I never knew but whose family are constituents of mine who live in Ballynahinch—was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 1 July 1996 by an under-car booby trap bomb outside his girlfriend’s home. The ferocity of the bomb was such that the personal weapon he carried was blown to pieces; we can understand what happened to him. Again, his family have no justice. There is a victim who served in uniform and delivered for this great country—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and his family have never had justice.

I think of Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever killed—outside my Aunt Isobel’s gate down in Clady. As the IRA team reversed down the road, that was probably the time when the reality came to many. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun out of the back window of a car. He was in uniform, serving this country. No justice. Again, just where does this end?

21:30

I also think of young Stuart Montgomery, a police officer. His dad was Billy Montgomery, a councillor in our party who represented Comber. I knew Billy very well, and I remember him saying to me one day, “Jim, every morning when I wake up, I think of young Stuart, and when I go to bed at night, I think of Stuart.” Stuart was killed by the IRA in Pomeroy. No justice. So I ask myself this question: where does it end? It is a theme of mine: victims, and justice never delivered. There is no equivalence between their murder and the actions that they took. They were protecting life. If this is not enshrined in the Bill, the Bill fails. I am very keen to get an assurance from the Secretary of State and from the Government in relation to the victims—those who served in uniform, those who gave their life, and those who seek justice today.

I think of those who escaped across the border. I think of the person who killed Winston Donnell. They escaped into Clady village, across the bridge and across the border. I think of the three-man IRA team who killed my cousin and his companion and friend, Daniel McCormick. They fled across the border as well. On that December morning—10 December 1971—two of them went down the lane. It was cold and there was frost in the air. They stopped to pick up a third man. The third man had set the two of them up, and the three of them then escaped across the border. Justice for victims and for those in uniform—where do I see it in this Bill?

When it comes to accountability, I very much want to see the Republic of Ireland sharing information with the authorities here. The Secretary of State tells us that a framework has been agreed, but I stand to be convinced of that, in relation to what the Republic of Ireland has done in giving sanctuary to those who crossed the border. In relation to the Omagh bomb, what mechanism is in place to ensure that Ireland stops hiding the perpetrators and hands over all the information that it holds? Other than our getting access to all historical documentation from the Irish intelligence sector and the Garda Síochána, there is no reason that the Republic of Ireland should be involved at all, as it has no role in the governance of Northern Ireland. What is it doing, and where is the assurance from the Republic of Ireland that those who have carried out crimes and crossed the border will be held accountable?

I am glad that the Government have moved amendments to ensure that the lawful actions of our armed forces are not legally equated with terrorism, and to prevent the unacceptable, distressing cold-calling of our elderly veterans. Our veterans deserve protection from vexatious, repeated investigations, yet even now, a veteran is going through his fourth round of judicial investigation. What is the point of this Bill if it is not to stop the abuse of the process? Let us fix the foundations of the legacy commission as well. Others have spoken about the structure and design of the commission. How can my constituents be assured that this body will truly hold perpetrators to account?

I am conscious that there is one more to speak in the debate, and I want to ensure that they have time to do so. I mentioned innocence earlier, and I mentioned Raymond McCord in an intervention, but I want to place this on record again. Raymond McCord’s son, Raymond, was murdered by the UVF in the Shankill Road in Belfast. Again, no accountability. He has fought a campaign since his son was murdered on 9 November 1997, and he seeks justice. There are many others like him across the Province of Northern Ireland.

Clause 17 gives formidable, sweeping investigative powers to the commissioner’s office and officers. I have made my views very clear on that. We must ensure that these powers will not be disproportionately weaponised against the state that kept records, while republican and loyalist terrorists who kept no records walk away scot-free. I am keen to see justice for those who served in uniform—those who I knew personally and those who I did not know—and for those families who grieve today. As the MP for Strangford, I want to see justice for the Ballydugan Four, for Stuart Montgomery and for others across the Province. I want to see justice for them, but in this process, the Secretary of State has yet to convince me that it is coming.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I tabled a dozen amendments. There is not time to go through any of those now; in the few minutes I have, let me briefly explain what those amendments were all about.

I do not think anyone else in the Chamber was here in ’97 and ’98 when the Good Friday agreement discussions were taking place. It was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. People had to go out, convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process. Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners, which was a huge breakthrough. They were prisoners on all sides—it was not sectarian. One of the constituencies we had to convince, as well as part of the Irish diaspora in this country, were the families of victims on all sides. We had to try to get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. To be frank, I do not believe that we can have peace without justice.

I desperately want to support this legislation, but I am struggling. I am worried about the message that we are getting from victims. I do not know whether people have seen the letter from the Relatives for Justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that—we have veterans among us—but we need to take heed of the victims. Let me quote very briefly from the letter, which is from 200 families. It states:

“We have listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict.

We have read government statements and press releases and followed debates in parliament and recent media interventions made on the legacy—our legacy.

It is as if we don’t exist and the only ‘real victims’ are veterans.”

I worry that, if we lose the confidence of the victims’ families, we lose the confidence in the overall process. The architecture that we designed was intended to give them confidence. One of the key elements of it was the independence of the legal system. In 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations that we installed in part of the agreement. It stated that

“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.”

It is also stated:

“The functions of the Director”

of Public Prosecutions

“shall be exercised…independently of any other person”.

The problem is that we are now undermining that architecture. We are giving power to the Attorney General to determine cases and, if necessary, even to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward; power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information; and power over appointments to the judicial panel. I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave with regard to the exercise of that power, but that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the term “national security”. We are no longer talking about the threat to actual national security. We are talking about the “risk” to national security. That puts into people’s minds a concern that the breadth of the interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of decision making. We have even undermined our own legislation, which I believe we supported, in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein decision making, for instance, about the issuing of warrants on national security grounds is at least determined by a test of whether it the warrants are necessary and proportionate. That test is not built into the Bill.

The debate has been dominated by the issue of veterans. As someone said, 300,000 veterans served. Between 2010 and 2024, there have been 25 prosecutions. Six of them were of veterans, and there was only one conviction. Let us get this in context. Victims are standing to one side, thinking that they are not even being heard or listened to. The independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. We are on a dangerous edge here, and I hope that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that can restore confidence, not just for the victims and their families, but for some of us who were here during that very difficult and precarious period in which peace was secured.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Secretary of State.

[Chris Bryant]

This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate.

A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital. In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them.

I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury. There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way, if the hon. Member does not mind, because I need to make progress. The other point I would make to him is that I am not sure that we have quite got this right yet. I am happy to work with him on ensuring that we do get it right. I do not think his amendment works, simply because clause 27(2) says,

“Where conduct forming part of the Troubles caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”

I think that already includes precisely the incidents that he is talking about, but if we have not got that right, and if we have not been able to provide enough assurance, then I am happy to work with him and others—I am quite happy to gather people from all across the House—to ensure that we get that right in the House of Lords. That is a firm undertaking from me and the whole ministerial team. We will get that right when it gets to the House of Lords.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked why the equivalence issue and the operational context do not apply to prosecutors. He will know, because he is a very clever man, that many of the aspects of the clause are already well-established tenets of criminal law, which we are putting beyond doubt for the specific role of the commission and coroners. I think these things are already in existence.

My great and hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee, asks on behalf of the Committee, through her amendment 286, about the pressures on the PSNI. I am very aware of them, and my predecessor made commitments about trying to get to the right place, because I do not want to overload the PSNI when it already has a very difficult workload. I will work with her and the team to try to get to the right place. I do not want to completely surrender on this point yet, but I am happy to work with her.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised the timing of the Omagh bombing inquiry. The terms of reference for the Omagh bombing inquiry are very clear. They refer directly to authorities in the Republic of Ireland on two occasions, and make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the bombing. The Irish Government have passed legislation to enable co-operation with the inquiry, and they are co-operating. However, the inquiry clearly expects more and has made that clear, and has explicitly stated that it will push the Irish for more and continued co-operation. I will ensure that that co-operation will be forthcoming.

21:45

Along with other Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Alex Baker) —she is unable to be here today—for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), I engaged with a large number of veterans and a variety of different organisations. The key things they were asking for were, first, a direct reference to there being no equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and others; secondly, the operational context—[Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is trying to say. [Interruption.] Oh sorry. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was unable to be here but she is here. I am grateful—thank you for pointing it out.

The second thing the veterans wanted was a reference to the operational context in which people were serving, which is important. Thirdly, they wanted to ensure that there could be no repeat either in the commission or in inquests—a lot of hon. Members seem not to have noticed this, but we are also saying that in inquests there can be no repeat of processes that have already been undergone elsewhere, unless essential. They wanted us to ensure that there could be no cold calling of veterans, and that any approach would go not to the individual but to public authorities first, so that all evidence that public authorities might have should be garnered first. They wanted us to use the term “new and compelling evidence”, which we have put precisely in the place where it makes a difference, meaning that nobody can be called as a witness unless there is compelling new evidence. They wanted us to put into statute a proper review of all the instances, and to say that we would get rid of the supposed protections that the “on the run” letters afforded, as in amendments tabled by other hon. Members.

[Mr Francois]

Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?

[Chris Bryant]

It does actually, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands quite how our amendment operates. Let me turn to new clause 21, which I think he thinks is key, and which we oppose for several reasons. First, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews, and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. That includes cases in which the Government have already been found by the European Court of Human Rights to have failed to discharge their obligations. The Opposition have clearly learned absolutely nothing from their own legacy Act.

Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required, and that creates more legal process not less. That is why the Government have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Opposition new clause seeks to introduce a judge—a Supreme Court judge no less—at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, thereby changing long-standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court. I note that having asked everybody who has advocated for this new clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court there is absolute silence from Opposition Members, because they know perfectly well that it is a completely and utterly unworkable proposal.

Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that

“individual personnel acted in good faith”

unless

“the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.”

This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process: that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because his proposal is completely and utterly incoherent and irresponsible—[Interruption.] I am not giving way to him.

Several hon. Members have referred to the issue of candour, which is really important. Candour matters first because it is a fundamental principle that all officers of the state should always show complete candour. More importantly, it matters because we as a House and as a country have to be absolutely honest about our past. Both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have always known that and recognise it fully. They apologised for the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, in Ballymurphy and in Springhill.

Indeed, I remember sitting in the House when David Cameron made his apology for Bloody Sunday—it was one of the finest moments that I can remember in this Chamber. As he said then,

“we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]

He was absolutely right. I yield to nobody in my respect for those who have served, and have served with honour, in our security forces. More than 300,000 served in Operation Banner and I say to them, “Thank you for your service.” Incidentally, I say that to all those in the House who have informed our debates because they served themselves, not least the former Veterans Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke earlier.

Finally, some have said that so many years have passed since the troubles that there is no point to all of this—they say it is completely irrelevant because how could anybody possibly remember what happened all those years ago. I simply do not buy that argument. Nor do I buy the argument that some have made that somehow members of the wider armed forces family do not deserve answers because somehow or other their service was their service. I do not buy either of those arguments.

Trauma, especially the trauma of losing a close family member in violent circumstances, has a very long tail. Any psychiatrist, any child psychiatrist or anybody who has worked with families in Northern Ireland will tell people that. Sometimes the anger, the grief and the feelings of revenge or the desire for revenge surface many years after or in new generations. The sins, we might say, of the fathers are often visited on future generations and for many generations to come.

I want to turn the argument about so many years having passed that we cannot possibly deal with this completely and utterly on its head. Just as the Hillsborough families had to wait for far, far too long to get their answers, so have thousands of families in Northern Ireland had to wait far, far too long. We can put that right. We can only put it right with a balanced set of amendments and a balanced Bill, but we must put it right. We can do it tonight, which is why I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments that we have tabled and support the Bill when we come to the final vote tomorrow evening.

Amendment 143 agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Meaning of “the Troubles” and related expressions

Amendment proposed: 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.—(Gavin Robinson.)

21:24

Division 91

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 169

Noes: 327

22:07

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

The Legacy Commission

Amendments made: 144, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

Clause 3(3) is replaced by the subsection inserted by Amendment 146.

Amendment 145, page 3, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert

“and the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (e) in exercising functions,”

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Amendment 146, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

“(5A) In exercising functions under this Act, the Legacy Commission, the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (e) and the oversight board must have regard to the need to secure public confidence in their work.”

This subsection replaces clause 3(3) and extends its application to the members of the Legacy Commission (acting in their particular capacities) and the oversight board.

Amendment 147, page 3, line 21, leave out “the Legacy Commission’s functions.” and insert

“the functions of the Legacy Commission, the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (e) and the oversight board.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment clarifies clause 3(6).

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

The Legacy Commission etc.

Amendments made: 252, page 80, line 11, at end insert—

“(b) the functions of the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission), and

(c) the functions of the oversight board.”

This amendment provides for the Legacy Commission to do anything it thinks necessary or expedient in connection with further functions.

Amendment 253, page 81, line 15, at end insert—

“(3) Any relevant function of the Chief Executive Officer may be exercised by a Legacy Commission officer, other than a Director of Investigations, who has been authorised (whether generally or specifically) by the oversight board for that purpose if—

(a) the Chief Executive Officer is unable to exercise that function, or

(b) the role of Chief Executive Officer is vacant.

(4) The Chief Executive Officer’s “relevant functions” are—

(a) their functions under Part 3 of this Act,

(b) their functions under paragraph 17(2) of this Schedule, and

(c) any function of the Legacy Commission which the oversight board has authorised the Chief Executive Officer (by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)) to exercise.”

This amendment makes provision for circumstances where the Chief Executive Officer is unable to exercise certain functions.

Amendment 254, page 82, line 21, after “convicted” insert “(anywhere in the world)”

This amendment clarifies that a conviction within or outside the United Kingdom prevents a person’s appointment as a Commissioner.

Amendment 255, page 82, line 29, leave out “as a Commissioner” and insert “to a relevant role”

This amendment, Amendment 256 and Amendment 257 provide for paragraph 9(2) and (3) (reappointment permitted except after removal from office) to apply in connection with various senior roles.

Amendment 256, page 82, line 30, leave out “as a Commissioner” and insert “to a relevant role”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 255.

Amendment 257, page 82, line 32, leave out “as a Commissioner.” and insert

“to a relevant role.

(3A) Appointment “to a relevant role” means appointment as a Commissioner, Director of Investigations or judicial panel member.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 255.

Amendment 258, page 83, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

“(3) In this Schedule a reference to a person holding a “relevant office” is to the person—

(a) holding an office which is a relevant elective office or relevant Scottish elective office, as defined by section 37 of the Elections Act 2022,

(b) holding an office to which a person may be elected by a municipal election in the City, as defined by section 191(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (municipal elections in the City of London), or

(c) being a member of—

(i) the Dáil Éireann (House of Representatives of Ireland),

(ii) the Seanad Éireann (Senate of Ireland),

(iii) a city council, county council or city and county council in Ireland, or

(iv) the European Parliament.”

This amendment simplifies paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 by referring to lists of offices in the Elections Act 2022 (and, in doing so, makes additional kinds of offices relevant to paragraph 10).

Amendment 259, page 84, line 36, after “convicted” insert “(anywhere in the world)”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment clarifies that a Commissioner may be called on to resign if convicted within or outside the United Kingdom.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Victims and Survivors Advisory Group

Amendment proposed: 52, in clause 8, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has been, or is, a member of a political party that has any links to, or supports, any paramilitary or terrorist organisations past or present.”—(Alex Easton.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:09

Division 92

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 108

Noes: 327

Clause 8 disagreed to.

Clause 9

Consultation about appointments

Amendment made: 149, page 6, line 10, leave out “section 8” and insert

“section (Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group)”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment NC34.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Actions of the Legacy Commission and its officers: safeguards

Amendment made: 150, page 6, line 15, after “Legacy Commission” insert

“, the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission) and the oversight board”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment extends the application of the duty in clause 10(1) to the members of the Legacy Commission (acting in their particular capacities) and the oversight board.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Duty to exercise functions consistently with certain principles

Amendments made: 151, page 6, line 34, leave out

“The Legacy Commission must, in exercising a function”

and insert

“The relevant persons must, in exercising functions”.

This amendment and Amendment 152 extend the application of the duty in clause 11(1) to members of the Legacy Commission (acting in their particular capacities) and the oversight board.

Amendment 152, page 7, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

“(2) The relevant persons must also, in exercising functions under this Act, have regard to the need to act—

(a) independently,

(b) impartially,

(c) transparently,

(d) objectively,

(e) in a manner that establishes credibility,

(f) with integrity,

(g) professionally, and

(h) consistently.

(3) In this section “relevant person” means—

(a) the Legacy Commission,

(b) the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission),

(c) the oversight board, and

(d) a Legacy Commission officer, other than a person mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e), exercising functions in connection with an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment reproduces the duty in clause 26(1) and extends its application to the Legacy Commission, all members of the Commission (acting in their particular capacities) and the oversight board. It also includes interpretative provision for Amendment 151.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Operational powers of Legacy Commission officers

Amendments made: 153, page 7, line 24, after “may be exercised” insert “only”.

This amendment clarifies the intended effect of clause 12(3).

Amendment 154, page 7, line 25, leave out from “any” to end of line 28 and insert “relevant function.

(3A) In this section “relevant function” means a function of—

(a) the Legacy Commission, except a function under section 86 or 87 (producing the historical record);

(b) a Director of Investigations;

(c) a judicial panel member.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment clarifies that Legacy Commission officers may exercise police powers in relation to the functions of the Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 13

Full disclosure by relevant authorities to the Legacy Commission

Amendments made: 155, page 8, line 6, after “in such manner” insert “and by such time”

This amendment allows Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members to require that relevant authorities make information available by a particular time.

Amendment 156, page 8, line 6, at end insert—

“(3A) A document or other thing required by a person to be made available under subsection (1) is to be made available by such time as that person may require.”

This amendment allows Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members to require that relevant authorities make documents and other things available by a particular time.

Amendment 157, page 8, line 8, after “the manner in which” insert “and time by which”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 155.

Amendment 158, page 8, line 10, after “subsection (3)” insert “or (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 156.

Amendment 159, page 8, line 19, after “subsection (3)” insert “or (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 156.

Amendment 160, page 9, line 2, at end insert—

“(ca) the Presiding coroner, appointed under section 2A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment makes the Presiding coroner in Northern Ireland a “relevant authority” for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Supply of information

Amendments made: 161, page 9, line 17, leave out “(2) and” and insert “(1A) to”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 162.

Amendment 162, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) The relevant person may by notice require a person (P)—

(a) to provide information through a specified live audio link or live video link, at a specified time;

(b) to attend at a specified time and place to provide information, but only if the relevant person considers that it would be impracticable for P to provide the information through a live audio link or live video link.”

This amendment enables a person to be required to provide information through a live audio or video link, or in person if it would be impracticable to provide the information through a live audio or video link.

Amendment 163, page 9, line 24, leave out from second “a” to end of line 26 and insert “specified time and place—”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 162.

Amendment 164, page 9, line 31, leave out “such period as appears” and insert “a specified period (appearing”.

This amendment is a drafting change, for consistency with other provisions of the clause as amended.

Amendment 165, page 10, line 11, after “Legacy Commission” insert “or the relevant person”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 150.

Amendment 166, page 10, line 20, after “section” insert—

“(a) “live audio link” means a live telephone link or other arrangement which enables the person providing information, and the person to whom information is being provided, to hear each other;

(b) “live video link” means a live television link or other arrangement which enables the person providing information, and the person to whom information is being provided, to see and hear each other;

(c) “specified” means specified in a notice under this section;”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 162.

Amendment 167, page 10, line 21, at end insert—

“(8A) Information obtained by the relevant person or a Legacy Commission officer under this section is to be—

(a) treated (for the purposes of this Act, except section 18) as obtained by the Legacy Commission, and

(b) held by the Legacy Commission.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment clarifies what becomes of information provided under clause 14 to a Director of Investigations, judicial panel member or Legacy Commission officer.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Supply of information: enforcement

Amendments made: 260, page 97, line 29, at end insert

“, or

(d) sending it by email to the person’s email address.”

This amendment allows the Legacy Commission to give notices under Schedule 3 by email.

Amendment 261, page 97, line 35, at end insert—

“(3) A person’s email address for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is—

(a) an email address identified for the time being by that person as an address for contacting that person, or

(b) if an email address is not so identified, an email address which the Legacy Commission believes is used by that person.

For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, a person “identifies” an email address by providing it to the Legacy Commission or publishing it.

(4) A notice sent to a person by email is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4) “working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment contains supplementary provision for Amendment 260.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15

Admissibility of material in criminal proceedings

Amendments made: 168, page 10, line 32, leave out from “any” to “, and” in line 34 and insert

“function of the Legacy Commission, a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member”.

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Amendment 169, page 11, line 1, leave out from “Commission” to end of line 3 and insert

“, a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member of any function,”—(Chris Bryant.)

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 17

Disclosure of information: general power and prohibitions

Amendment made: 170, page 12, line 41, at end insert—

“(11) Any function of the Legacy Commission under this section or Schedule 5 may be exercised on behalf of, and in the name of, the Legacy Commission by a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides for Director of Investigations and judicial panel members to exercise the Legacy Commission’s powers of disclosure on its behalf.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Permitted disclosures of information

Amendments made: 262, page 101, line 17, at end insert—

“(da) a National Crime Agency officer;”.

This amendment adds National Crime Agency officers to the list of persons to whom the Legacy Commission may disclose sensitive information under paragraph 4.

Amendment 263, page 101, line 17, at end insert—

“(da) the inspectorate, for the purposes of, or in connection with, an inspection under section (Inspections of the Legacy Commission);”.

This amendment enables the Legacy Commission to disclose sensitive information to the inspectorate.—

Amendment 264, page 103, line 33, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) in any case—

(i) the Legacy Commission;

(ii) any relevant family member of any person whose death was caused by the conduct to which the investigation relates;

(iii) any person caused to suffer serious physical or mental harm by that conduct or, where such a person has subsequently died, any relevant family member of the person;

(b) where the investigation is carried out pursuant to a request under section 28, the person who requested the investigation;

(c) where the investigation is initiated under section 32, any person who could request under section 28 an investigation of the conduct to which the investigation relates.”

This amendment restates rights to appeal against decisions to prohibit disclosure in final reports and extends that right to family members of seriously injured persons who have subsequently died.

Amendment 265, page 103, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person (F) is a “relevant family member” of a person (D) who has died if—

(a) F is a close family member of D (see section 93), or

(b) F is another member of the family of D and—

(i) the investigation is being carried out pursuant to a request by F under section 27(1)(b), or

(ii) the relevant court (as defined by paragraph 10) considers it appropriate for F to bring the appeal.”

This amendment defines “relevant family member” for the purposes of provision inserted by Amendment 264.

Amendment 266, page 104, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (6).—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment removes provision which is superseded by Amendment 265.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Legacy Commission’s use of information obtained by it

Amendments made: 171, page 14, line 5, leave out from “by” to end of line 8 and insert

“a relevant person only for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any relevant function.”

This amendment and Amendment 172 clarify that information held by the Legacy Commission may be used by its various officials in connection with their functions.

Amendment 172, page 14, line 10, leave out from “by” to end of line 11 and insert

“a relevant person only for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of a relevant function under Part 3 or 4.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 173, page 14, line 11, at end insert—

“(2A) Information or material that has been obtained by the Legacy Commission as a result of assistance provided under an assistance agreement (within the meaning of section (Assistance agreements)) may be used by a relevant person only—

(a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of a relevant function under Part 3 or 4, and

(b) so far as the use is not prohibited by the assistance agreement.”

This amendment, which is consequential on new clause NC40, makes provision about the use of information or material obtained as a result of an assistance agreement.

Amendment 174, page 14, line 12, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2A)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 173.

Amendment 175, page 14, line 12, leave out from “authorise” to end of line 13 and insert

“a relevant person to disclose information to any person other than a relevant person.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 171 and Amendment 172.

Amendment 176, page 14, line 14, leave out “and (2)” and insert “to (2A)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 173.

Amendment 177, page 14, line 22, at end insert—

““relevant function” means a function of—

(a) the Legacy Commission, except a function under section 86 or 87 (producing the historical record);

(b) a Director of Investigations;

(c) a judicial panel member;

“relevant person” means—

(a) the Legacy Commission;

(b) a Director of Investigations;

(c) a judicial panel member;

(d) the oversight board;

(e) a Legacy Commission officer.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment defines terms used in Amendments 171, 172 and 175.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Guidance and protocols relating to information

Amendments made: 178, page 14, line 24, leave out from “guidance” to “functions” in line 25 and insert “about the exercise of”.

This amendment and Amendment 179 extend the application of guidance issued under clause 20(1) to all persons required to comply with clause 10(1)(a).

Amendment 179, page 14, line 26, after “Legacy Commission” insert

“and other persons required to comply with section 10(1)(a)”.—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 178.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Biometric material

Amendments made: 180, page 16, line 3, leave out from “any” to end of line 5 and insert “relevant function;”.

This amendment and Amendment 182 clarify that biometric material preserved under clause 22 may also be used in connection with the functions of Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members.

Amendment 181, page 16, line 12, leave out from “after the” to end of line 14 and insert

“exercise of relevant functions ceases.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 180.

Amendment 182, page 16, line 42, at end insert—

““relevant function” means a function of—

(a) the Legacy Commission, except a function under section 86 or 87 (producing the historical record);

(b) a Director of Investigations;

(c) a judicial panel member.”—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 180.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Independent reports on Legacy Commission’s performance of its functions

Amendment made: 183, page 18, line 4, leave out from “of” to end of line 5 and insert

“functions of the Legacy Commission, the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission) and the oversight board.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment extends the functions which will be reviewed and reported on under clause 24.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Conclusion of the Legacy Commission’s work

Amendments made: 184, page 18, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert

“the exercise of the functions of the Legacy Commission, Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members has ceased.”

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Amendment 185, page 19, line 8, leave out

“Legacy Commission’s performance of its functions”

and insert “performance of functions”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 183.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Investigations: general duties

Amendments made: 186, page 19, line 32, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes a duty which is reproduced (in clause 11) by Amendment 152.

Amendment 187, page 20, line 4, after “by” insert “the Legacy Commission,”.

This amendment and Amendment 188 clarify the application of the duties in clause 26.

Amendment 188, page 20, line 16, at beginning insert “The Legacy Commission,”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 187.

Amendment 189, page 20, line 20, leave out from “sections” to end of line 23 and insert

“43 to 47 (see sections 44 and (Working with prosecutors: policy statement) for the Legacy Commission’s duties to publish separate statements about those functions).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment NC47.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Requests for investigations by family members and seriously injured persons

Amendment proposed: 4, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Where conduct forming part of the Troubles—

(a) caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, or

(b) caused a person physical or mental harm as the result of being the victim of a sexual offence,

the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”—(Robin Swann.)

This amendment would enable victims of sexual crimes that were committed as conduct forming part of the Troubles to request an investigation under Part 3 of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:31

Division 93

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 175

Noes: 319

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Managing the investigation caseload

Amendments made: 190, page 28, line 16, leave out

“by virtue of any of its functions.”

and insert

“or a Director of Investigations by virtue of any function under this Act.”

This amendment expands the range of persons whose views are relevant for the purposes of clause 35(3).

Amendment 191, page 28, line 19, leave out “reasonably practicable” and insert “practicable”—(Chris Bryant.)

This is a drafting change for consistency.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Conduct of investigations

Amendment made: 192, page 29, line 17, at end insert—

“(9A) Before imposing requirements under section 14 on witnesses, the Director must—

(a) in respect of each relevant authority, determine whether a requirement under section 13 (full disclosure by relevant authorities) should be imposed on the authority for the purposes of the investigation,

(b) impose each such requirement that the Director determines should be imposed, and

(c) ensure that the information, documents and other things made available in response to each such requirement imposed are reviewed.

(9B) In deciding whether to impose a requirement under section 14 on a witness, the Director must, in addition to complying with subsection (8)(b) (where relevant) and section 69 (welfare of witnesses), give particular weight to—

(a) whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist, and

(b) the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information further to that already obtained by the Legacy Commission.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment requires a Director of Investigations to (a) gather information from relevant authorities before seeking information from witnesses for the purposes of an investigation under Part 3 and (b) when deciding whether to seek information from a witness, to give particular weight to certain factors.

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Notifying family members and others about conduct of investigations

Amendment made: 193, page 30, line 8, at end insert—

“(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where—

(a) the investigation was requested under section 27(2) by a seriously injured person who has subsequently died, or

(b) a seriously injured person, previously identified under section 33(2)(c) and notified under section 33(3)(a) in connection with the investigation, has subsequently died.

(4B) The Director must—

(a) take reasonable steps to identify each close family member of the deceased (see section 93),

(b) if there are no close family members of the deceased, take reasonable steps to identify a family member of the deceased, and

(c) notify the following about the decision—

(i) each close family member identified in accordance with paragraph (a), or

(ii) the person (if any) identified in accordance with paragraph (b), if the Director considers it would be appropriate to notify the person.”—(Chris Bryant.)

If a person who was seriously injured by the conduct to which a Part 3 investigation relates dies after the investigation is requested or initiated, this provision requires that their family are notified about the conduct of the investigation.

Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Production of reports on the findings of investigations

Amendment made: 194, page 30, line 24, leave out “on the Legacy Commission”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 150.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Referral to prosecutors

Amendments made: 195, page 35, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) Before exercising a power of referral and notification to a prosecutor under any of subsections (2) to (4), the relevant Director of Investigations must request the prosecutor’s advice on whether the prosecutor is likely to decide to prosecute any person for a relevant offence.

This does not apply to a referral and notification made pursuant to a direction under subsection (5).

(5B) In subsection (5A) “relevant offence”, in relation to a proposed referral to a prosecutor, means—

(a) a suspected offence to be notified to the prosecutor in connection with the proposed referral, and

(b) any other offence which the conduct to be referred constitutes.”

This amendment requires a Director of Investigations to seek a prosecutor’s advice before referring conduct to the prosecutor following an investigation under Part 3.

Amendment 196, page 35, line 31, leave out “this section” and insert

“any of subsections (2) to (4)”—(Chris Bryant.)

This is a drafting change for consistency with the new provision inserted into this clause by Amendment 195.

Amendment proposed: 47, page 35, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the referral for prosecution concerns a veteran of—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the Special Forces),

(b) the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Services or Government Communications Headquarters,

(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(d) the Police Service of Northern Ireland

the written permission of the relevant person as set out in subsection (6B) is required.

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), the relevant person is defined as follows—

(a) the Director of Service Prosecutions (in the case of paragraph (a)),

(b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom (in the case of paragraph (b)), or

(c) the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d)).

(6C) When determining whether to give the permission required under subsection (6A), the relevant person must consider whether prosecution would have a negative impact on the proposed defendant’s mental or physical health, giving particular attention to—

(a) the proposed defendant’s age and health;

(b) any trauma that the proposed defendant suffered as a result of their service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles;

(c) any medical evidence from the practising doctor; and

(d) the number of times that the individual has been previously investigated or given evidence to an investigation.”—(Mr Francois.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:46

Division 94

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 166

Noes: 328

Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 44 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

No determination of liability

Amendment made: 197, page 39, line 2, after “proceedings” insert

“or producing a final report (on the findings of proceedings)”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment and Amendments 198 to 249 and 201 draw a clearer distinction between proceedings under Part 4 (at which witnesses will give evidence etc) and associated work, such as preparing for those proceedings and producing a report after those proceedings.

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Conduct of inquisitorial proceedings

Amendments made: 198, page 40, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Where inquisitorial proceedings in respect of a death are allocated to a judicial panel member, they must—

(a) ensure that the proceedings are carried out, and

(b) preside over the proceedings.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 199, page 40, line 7, leave out from “section 60,” to end of line 9 and insert

“it is for the relevant judicial panel member to decide how the proceedings should be carried out, including—

(a) the steps to be taken in preparation for the proceedings, and

(b) the procedure and conduct of the proceedings.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 200, page 40, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) If a judicial panel member to whom inquisitorial proceedings are allocated considers that those proceedings should be carried out in conjunction with other inquisitorial proceedings which are also allocated to them, the proceedings may be carried out in conjunction with each other.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 201, page 40, line 29, leave out “conducted” and insert “carried out”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 202, page 41, line 4, at end insert—

“(10A) For the purposes of this Act, inquisitorial proceedings are “carried out” during the period—

(a) beginning with the allocation of the proceedings to a judicial panel member, and

(b) ending with the conclusion of the proceedings.”—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Evidence via live link

Amendment made: 203, page 42, line 5, leave out subsection (5).—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment removes a subsection which is superseded by provision inserted by Amendment 223.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Public access to proceedings and information

Amendment made: 204, page 42, line 34, after “provided to” insert

“the relevant judicial panel member or the Legacy Commission in connection with”.—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Restrictions on public access etc

Amendments made: 205, page 43, line 8, after “provided to” insert

“a judicial panel member or the Legacy Commission in connection with”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 206, page 43, line 10, before “a “restriction notice”)” insert “in this Part,”.

This is a drafting change (defining “restriction notice” for the purposes of Part 4).

Amendment 207, page 43, line 12, leave out

“end of the inquisitorial proceedings;”

and insert

“final report (on the findings of the proceedings) is published;”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 208, page 43, line 13, before “a “restriction order”)” insert “in this Part,”.

This is a drafting change (defining “restriction order” for the purposes of Part 4).

Amendment 209, page 44, line 1, leave out subsection (6) —(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Restriction notices and orders: further provision

Amendments made: 210, page 44, line 11, after first “in” insert “connection with”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 211, page 44, line 12, after second “in” insert “connection with”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 212, page 44, leave out line 16 and insert

“final report (on the findings of the proceedings) is published.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 213, page 44, line 18, leave out

“end of the inquisitorial proceedings in question.”

and insert “final report is published.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 214, page 44, line 20, leave out from “restriction” to “(a “disclosure restriction”)” in line 21 and insert

“within section 56(1)(b) or (c) that is imposed by a restriction notice or order”.

This amendment provides that “disclosure restriction” covers restrictions under clause 56(1)(b) (as well as clause 56(1)(c)).

Amendment 215, page 44, line 23, leave out “relevant” and insert “restriction”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 214.

Amendment 216, page 44, line 24, leave out

“at the end of the inquisitorial proceedings”

and insert

“when the final report is published”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 217, page 44, line 26, leave out “relevant” and insert “restriction”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 214.

Amendment 218, page 44, line 28, leave out “end of the proceedings” and insert “final report is published”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 219, page 44, line 34, leave out “end of the proceedings” and insert “final report is published”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 220, page 44, line 39, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment removes the power of the Legacy Commission to revoke or relax a restriction order after the end of the inquisitorial proceedings.

Amendment 221, page 45, line 2, leave out subsection (8). —(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on amendments 206 and 208.

Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Legal representation and other expenses

Amendment made: 222, page 45, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Where—

(a) the relevant judicial panel member is determining whether an award under this section should be made in respect of a person’s legal representation other than joint representation, and

(b) the judicial panel member considers that the person could have been (or could be) jointly represented instead,

the judicial panel member must take that into account when determining whether the award should be made and the amount of any award.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment requires judicial panel members to take into account that a person seeking a financial award for their own legal representation could have been jointly represented instead when deciding whether to make the award and the amount of the award.

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Regulations about procedure and evidence

Amendment made: 223, page 46, line 28, at end insert—

“(A1) For the purposes of Article 3 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (N.I. 19))—

(a) inquisitorial proceedings are to be treated as a judicial proceeding in Northern Ireland even if held elsewhere;

(b) a statement made on oath and given in evidence to inquisitorial proceedings through a live audio link or live video link is to be treated as having been made in the proceedings.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides for all sworn statements given to inquisitorial proceedings to be subject to the law of perjury in Northern Ireland, regardless of where the proceedings are held or whether the evidence is given in person or remotely.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Production of report on the findings of proceedings

Amendment made: 224, page 48, line 20, leave out “on the Legacy Commission”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 150.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 63 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Personal statements by persons affected by deaths etc

Amendments made: 225, page 53, line 8, leave out

“presiding over the inquisitorial proceedings;”

and insert

“to whom the inquisitorial proceedings are allocated;”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 197.

Amendment 226, page 53, line 10, leave out from “Commission” to end of line 11 and insert

“or appropriate judicial panel member by virtue of any function under this Act;”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment expands the range of persons who are eligible to provide a personal statement under clause 67.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Referral to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Amendment made: 227, page 55, line 17, at end insert

“and notifies the Legacy Commission of that request”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the Legacy Commission’s duty in clause 70(6) applies.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Investigation by the Ombudsman following section 70 referral

Amendments made: 228, page 55, line 27, leave out

“an investigation under section 56”

and insert “a formal investigation”.

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 229, page 55, line 32, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (6)—

(i) in the definition of “conduct forming part of the Troubles”, for “has the same meaning” substitute “and “Troubles-related offence” have the same meaning”;

(ii) in the definition of “formal investigation”, omit from “(whether” to the end.”

This amendment defines a term used in section 50A of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 and adjusts the definition of “formal investigation” in that section to include investigations arising from referrals under clause 70.

Amendment 230, page 56, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—

“(b) the Director;

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions (for England and Wales);”

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 231, page 57, line 3, leave out from “under” to end of line 4 and insert

“paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(g) of that paragraph, and”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This is a drafting change.

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 32

Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) the conduct of a person (“P”) is (or may be) investigated or otherwise scrutinised in the course of an investigation under Part 3, inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 or a resumed inquest,

(b) P’s conduct included the use of force which caused another person’s death or caused another person to suffer physical harm, and

(c) the use of force was in connection with P’s duties as a member of the armed forces or a police force.

(2) When exercising a function for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest and in relation to P’s conduct, a relevant person—

(a) must have regard to—

(i) the capacity, as a member of the armed forces or a police force, in which P was acting,

(ii) the fact that P’s conduct occurred in the context of violent political unrest, and

(iii) the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent unlawful violence, and

(b) must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.

(3) When assessing P’s conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including—

(a) P’s training and experience,

(b) the duties which P was undertaking,

(c) any orders or other instructions given to P,

(d) the information available to P,

(e) whether it appeared to P that any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence,

(f) whether it appeared to P that the immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm, and

(g) the extent to which P acted in accordance with any rules of engagement, or guidance regarding the use of force, that were then applicable.

(4) In this section—

“relevant person” —

(a) in relation to an investigation under Part 3, means the Legacy Commission, a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member;

(b) in relation to inquisitorial proceedings, means the Legacy Commission or a judicial panel member;

(c) in relation to a resumed inquest, means a coroner;

“resumed inquest” means an inquest resumed in accordance with—

(a) section 16AA of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, or

(b) a direction given to the Presiding coroner under section 16AB of that Act,

(which are sections inserted by section 84 of this Act).” —(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause sets out principles which apply to investigations, inquisitorial proceedings and inquests to be carried out under this Bill and concerning the conduct of members of the armed forces or police. It provides, in particular, that relevant persons must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Victims and Survivors Advisory Group

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a group, to be called the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group (“the Group”).

(2) The Group’s purpose is to provide general advice to—

(a) the Legacy Commission,

(b) the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission),

(c) the oversight board, and

(d) the Secretary of State,

about exercising their functions under this Act in such a way as to meet the needs and uphold the rights and interests of victims and survivors of conduct forming part of the Troubles and their family members.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) give the Group a document setting out proposed terms of reference for the Group (which are to describe the scope of its work),

(b) inform the Group of the period for making representations to the Secretary of State about the proposed terms of reference,

(c) when finalising the terms of reference, take account of any representations made by the Group within that period, and

(d) give the Group, and publish, the finalised terms of reference.

(4) When exercising functions under this Act, the persons listed in subsection (2)(a) to (d) must have regard to the views given to them by the Group in accordance with its terms of reference.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause reproduces provision from clause 8 concerning the functions of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. It also expands the range of persons who must have regard to the Group’s views.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group

“(1) The Group established under section (Victims and Survivors Advisory Group) is to consist of at least 3 but not more than 7 members appointed by the Secretary of State (one of whom is to be appointed chair).

(2) In appointing members, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to secure support from the different communities in Northern Ireland for the Group and its work.

(3) A person may not be appointed as a member if—

(a) the person has been given (by a court anywhere in the world) a sentence of imprisonment or detention for an offence other than a sentence of imprisonment or detention for a term of less than 3 months, or

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the person has been a member of an organisation, or given support to an organisation, while it was a proscribed organisation.

(4) The Secretary of State must so far as practicable ensure that—

(a) the members consist of—

(i) victims and survivors of conduct forming part of the Troubles, and

(ii) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims and survivors of such conduct,

(b) the members include at least one person who—

(i) is a victim or survivor of conduct forming part of the Troubles and was a member of the armed forces or a police force during the Troubles, or

(ii) appears to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of such victims and survivors, and

(c) membership is balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.

(5) Each member is to hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment.

(6) The Secretary of State may call on a member to resign from the Group if—

(a) the member is given (by a court anywhere in the world) a sentence of imprisonment or detention for an offence other than a sentence of imprisonment or detention for a term of less than 3 months, or

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the member has been a member of an organisation, or given support to an organisation, while it was a proscribed organisation.

(7) If the Secretary of State calls on a member to resign, the member must immediately resign.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “proscribed organisation” means an organisation proscribed under terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom;

(b) it is immaterial whether the sentencing, membership of an organisation or giving of support described in subsection (3) or (6) occurred before or after the coming into force of this section.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause reproduces provision from clause 8 concerning members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. It also makes provision about eligibility for appointment to, and continued membership of, the Group and requires the Secretary of State, when appointing members, to have regard to the need to secure cross-community support.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35

Duty to avoid unnecessary costs

“(1) The Legacy Commission, the persons mentioned in section 3(1)(a) to (e) (members of the Commission) and the oversight board must, in exercising a function under this Act, do so in a way that avoids any unnecessary cost.

(2) A relevant Legacy Commission officer must, in exercising a function under this Act in connection with an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings, do so in a way that avoids any unnecessary cost.

(3) In this section—

“relevant Legacy Commission officer” has the meaning given by section 10;

“unnecessary cost” means an unnecessary cost to public funds or to witnesses or others.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause requires the Legacy Commission and its members, oversight board and officers to exercise functions in a way that avoids unnecessary costs (to any person).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

Inspections of the Legacy Commission

“(1) His Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary (“the inspectorate”) must from time to time carry out inspections of the Legacy Commission.

(2) The Secretary of State may require the inspectorate to carry out an inspection of the Legacy Commission—

(a) generally, or

(b) as regards a particular matter.

(3) The duty in section 10(1) (safeguards) applies to the inspectorate in the exercise of the inspectorate’s functions of inspection and reporting under this Part (“the relevant functions”).

(4) Paragraph 2, other than sub-paragraph (7)(b), and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996 (inspection programmes and inspection frameworks) apply to the relevant functions as they apply to other functions of inspection and reporting.

(5) The inspectorate may require the Secretary of State to pay reasonable costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the inspectorate in connection with the exercise of the relevant functions.

(6) The Legacy Commission is not to be inspected under this section, and its efficiency and effectiveness is not to be reported on under section (Reports following inspections), as regards its functions—

(a) in connection with inquisitorial proceedings, or

(b) under section 86 or 87 (producing the historical record).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This clause, Amendment NC37, Amendment NC38 and Amendment NC39 provide for the inspection of the Legacy Commission by the inspectors of constabulary and the production of reports.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37

Powers of inspection

“(1) The inspectorate may exercise the powers in this section for the purposes of, or in connection with, an inspection under section (Inspections of the Legacy Commission).

(2) The Legacy Commission must make available to the inspectorate such information, documents and other things as the inspectorate may require.

(3) Information required by the inspectorate to be made available under subsection (2) is to be made available in such manner and by such time as the inspectorate may require.

(4) A document or other thing required by the inspectorate to be made available under subsection (2) is to be made available by such time as the inspectorate may require.

(5) Subject to that, it is for the Legacy Commission and the inspectorate to agree the manner in which and time by which information, a document or other thing is to be made available under this section.

(6) A requirement under subsection (3) or (4) may (in particular) require, and an agreement under subsection (5) may (in particular) provide, that the Legacy Commission is to—

(a) give the information, document or other thing to the inspectorate;

(b) give a copy of the information, document or other thing to the inspectorate;

(c) allow the inspectorate to access the information, document or other thing while it is held by the Legacy Commission.

(7) The inspectorate may require the Legacy Commission to secure that the inspectorate is given access (at such time as may be specified by the inspectorate) to—

(a) premises occupied for the purposes of the Legacy Commission, and

(b) documents and other things on those premises.

(8) The Legacy Commission is not required to comply with a requirement imposed—

(a) under subsection (2), (3) or (4) before it is practicable to do so;

(b) under subsection (7) at the specified time where there are reasonable grounds for not complying at that time (in which case the Legacy Commission must comply at a time specified by the inspectorate after there cease to be any such grounds).”—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment NC36.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38

Reports following inspections

“(1) This section applies where the inspectorate has carried out an inspection under section (Inspections of the Legacy Commission).

(2) The inspectorate must produce a report about the Legacy Commission’s efficiency and effectiveness—

(a) generally, or

(b) in the case of an inspection under section (Inspections of the Legacy Commission)(2)(b), as regards the matter to which the inspection related.

(3) Before producing the report, the inspectorate must—

(a) give a draft of the report to the Secretary of State, and

(b) when giving the draft, identify any sensitive information or protected international information in the draft which was disclosed to the inspectorate by the Legacy Commission.

(4) The Secretary of State may require the inspectorate to exclude from the report—

(a) any sensitive information or protected international information, and

(b) anything which, if published, the Secretary of State considers—

(i) would risk damaging, or would damage, the national security interests of the United Kingdom,

(ii) would risk putting, or would put, the life or safety of any person at risk, or

(iii) would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on any actual or prospective criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom.

(5) If the Secretary of State decides not to impose a requirement under subsection (4), they must notify the inspectorate of that fact.

(6) After excluding from the report anything which the Secretary of State requires to be excluded, or being notified under subsection (5) in relation to the report, the inspectorate must—

(a) give the report to the Secretary of State and the Legacy Commission, and

(b) publish the report.

(7) The Legacy Commission must—

(a) prepare a document setting out its response to the report, and

(b) publish its response before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which the report is given to it under subsection (6)(a).

(8) If the report includes a recommendation, the Legacy Commission’s response must include an explanation of—

(a) the action that it has taken or proposes to take in response to the recommendation, or

(b) why it has not taken and does not propose to take any action in response.

(9) The inspectorate must not publish the report or give it to any person except in accordance with this section.

(10) The inspectorate must not, in publishing the report, contravene a restriction notice or a restriction order (within the meaning given by section 56(2)) given or made in connection with inquisitorial proceedings.

(11) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(iii) criminal proceedings are “prospective” at any time if, in the view of the Secretary of State, the proceedings are likely to be brought within a reasonable period after that time.”—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment NC36.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39

Disclosure of sensitive or protected international information by the inspectorate

“(1) Where the Legacy Commission discloses sensitive information or protected international information to the inspectorate (as permitted by Schedule 5), the inspectorate may not disclose the information except as permitted by this section.

(2) The inspectorate may disclose the information to the Secretary of State in a draft of a report given under section (Reports following inspections)(3).

(3) The inspectorate may disclose the information in a report published under section (Reports following inspections)(6) if the Secretary of State does not require the inspectorate to exclude the information; but this is subject to section (Reports following inspections)(10).”—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment NC36.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

Assistance agreements

“(1) The Directors of Investigations acting jointly may make an agreement with the chief officer of a police force for the provision, by the chief officer, of assistance in relation to investigations under this Part which are carried out as criminal investigations.

(2) Where an investigation under this Part is being (or to be) carried out as a criminal investigation, the relevant Director of Investigations may make an agreement with the chief officer of a police force for the provision, by the chief officer, of assistance in relation to the investigation (as a criminal investigation).

(3) An agreement under subsection (1) or (2) (an “assistance agreement”) may provide for the Legacy Commission to make payments to the chief officer in respect of costs incurred in connection with the provision of assistance under the agreement.

(4) An assistance agreement may be made only if the Directors of Investigations are, or the relevant Director of Investigations is, satisfied that the agreement contains provision to secure that—

(a) when acting for the purposes of an assistance agreement, a relevant person—

(i) does not do anything within section 10(1) (actions damaging national security etc),

(ii) acts in a way that is consistent with the principles mentioned in section 11(1), and

(iii) has regard to the welfare of any person who gives evidence to or otherwise participates in a relevant investigation, and

(b) arrangements are in place to identify cases where—

(i) a relevant person may have a conflict of interest in relation to a relevant investigation, or

(ii) a matter may otherwise affect the ability of a relevant person to carry out work in connection with a relevant investigation fairly and impartially,

and to ensure that in such cases the relevant person does not carry out work (or further work) in connection with the investigation.

(5) An assistance agreement may be made only with the consent of the oversight board.

(6) Assistance may be sought under an assistance agreement only if the relevant Director of Investigations considers—

(a) that there is a realistic prospect of obtaining, as a result of the assistance, information or material which could be given to a prosecutor under section 43, and

(b) that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining the information or material without assistance being provided.

(7) A relevant person must not, when acting for the purposes of an assistance agreement, do anything which a Director of Investigations could not lawfully do.

(8) In this section—

(a) “relevant investigation”, in relation to an assistance agreement, means an investigation for which assistance is to be, or is being, provided under the agreement;

(b) “relevant person”, in relation to an assistance agreement, means the chief officer with whom the agreement is made or anyone under their direction and control;

(c) a reference to the chief officer of a police force includes the Director General of the National Crime Agency.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause, to be inserted into Part 3, provides for assistance agreements, under which the chief officer of a police force or the Director General of the National Crime Agency may provide assistance to the Legacy Commission in connection with criminal investigations (if the condition in subsection (6) is met).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41

Effect, pending determination, of application for restriction order

“(1) This section applies where an application is made for a restriction order that—

(a) contains a disclosure restriction, or

(b) varies a restriction order (“the initial order”) so as to—

(i) add a disclosure restriction, or

(ii) extend the period for which a disclosure restriction in the initial order applies.

In this section “disclosure restriction” means a restriction within section 56(1)(b) or (c).

(2) For the application period, a restriction order containing—

(a) in a case within subsection (1)(a), the disclosure restriction mentioned there, or

(b) in a case within subsection (1)(b), the variation mentioned there,is treated as made.

(3) But in that period, the relevant judicial panel member may disclose the identity of the witness or (as the case may be) the evidence or documents, to a person to whom the disclosure could not otherwise be made if—

(a) the judicial panel member considers that disclosure to the person is necessary for the determination of the application, and

(b) the judicial panel member has given the following an opportunity to make representations about whether disclosure to that person should be made—

(i) the witness or (as the case may be) the person giving, producing or providing the evidence or documents to the inquisitorial proceedings;

(ii) the person making the application.

(4) In subsection (2) “the application period” means the period—

(a) beginning with the making of the application, and

(b) ending with the determination or withdrawal of the application.

(5) In subsection (3) a reference to the witness, evidence or documents is to the witness, evidence or documents that are the subject of the disclosure restriction in question.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause provides for restrictions, or additional restrictions, on the identification of a witness, or on disclosure or publication of evidence or documents, to be treated as imposed for the period beginning with the making of an application under clause 56 and ending with the determination or withdrawal of the application.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 42

Information for registrar of deaths following inquisitorial proceedings

“(1) This section applies where the Legacy Commission publishes a final report on the findings of inquisitorial proceedings.

(2) The relevant judicial panel member must, as soon as practicable, send to a registrar of deaths a certificate including all particulars concerning the relevant death which—

(a) are known to the judicial panel member by virtue of any of their functions under this Part, and

(b) a coroner would be required to include in a certificate under section 23 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

(3) The certificate under this section is to be treated by the registrar as a coroner’s certificate under that section.

(4) Where the registrar is required by legislation to register information about, or refer in a register to, a coroner or an inquest, the registrar must register information about, or refer to, the judicial panel member or (as appropriate) the proceedings.

(5) In this section—

“registrar of deaths” means any person holding an appointment under Article 6(1) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1041 (N.I. 14));

“relevant death” means the death to which the inquisitorial proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) related.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause requires a judicial panel member, after the final report on the findings of inquisitorial proceedings into a death is published, to provide information concerning the death to a registrar in Northern Ireland (which is where all deaths to which inquisitorial proceedings will relate are registered).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43

Time limit for applying for judicial review

“(1) An application to a court for a judicial review of a decision made in relation to any particular inquisitorial proceedings may not be brought after the end of the relevant period, unless that time limit is extended by the court.

(2) “The relevant period” is the period of 14 days after the day on which the applicant becomes aware of the decision.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where an earlier time limit applies.

(4) In subsection (1), the reference to a decision made in relation to any particular inquisitorial proceedings includes a decision made in relation to the final report on the findings of the proceedings.

(5) But subsection (1) does not apply to an application made after the publication of the final report, if the application is for a judicial review of—

(a) a decision as to the contents of the final report, or

(b) a decision of which the applicant could not have become aware until the publication of that report.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause imposes a time limit on applications for judicial review of decisions made in relation to inquisitorial proceedings.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Intercepted communications etc

“(1) In section 56 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc)—

(a) in subsection (1) for “or Inquiries Act proceedings” substitute “, Inquiries Act proceedings or inquisitorial proceedings”;

(b) in subsection (5) after the definition of “Inquiries Act proceedings” insert—

““inquisitorial proceedings” has the meaning given by section 48 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026;”.

(2) In Schedule 3 to that Act (exceptions to section 56), after paragraph 26 insert—

“Inquisitorial proceedings under the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026

27 (1) Nothing in section 56(1) prohibits—

(a) a disclosure to a judicial panel member to whom inquisitorial proceedings have been allocated, or

(b) a disclosure to a legal adviser to any inquisitorial proceedings,

where the judicial panel member has ordered the disclosure to be made to them alone or (as the case may be) to them and any legal adviser to the proceedings.

(2) An order for disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only if the judicial panel member considers that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential to enable them to examine all the circumstances of the death to which the proceedings relate.

(3) In this paragraph, a reference to a “legal adviser” to any inquisitorial proceedings is to—

(a) a person acting as counsel to the proceedings, or

(b) a Legacy Commission officer or Legacy Commission contractor who—

(i) is a lawyer (within the meaning given by section 51(10) of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026), and

(ii) is providing legal advice or assistance, in connection with the proceedings, to a person acting as counsel to the proceedings or the judicial panel member to whom the proceedings have been allocated.

(4) In this paragraph “inquisitorial proceedings”, “judicial panel member”, “Legacy Commission contractor” and “Legacy Commission officer” have the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026.

28 (1) Section 56(1) does not apply in relation to so much of any inquisitorial proceedings as are restricted proceedings.

(2) Inquisitorial proceedings are “restricted proceedings” for the purposes of this paragraph if restrictions imposed under section 56 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2026 are in force prohibiting attendance at the proceedings by any person who is not—

(a) the judicial panel member to whom the proceedings have been allocated,

(b) a legal adviser to the proceedings,

(c) a person who is a relevant party to the proceedings,

(d) a person representing such a person for the purposes of the proceedings, or

(e) a Legacy Commission officer or Legacy Commission contractor performing functions necessary for the proper functioning of the proceedings.

(3) But sub-paragraph (1) does not permit any disclosure which has not been made in accordance with paragraph 27(1).

(4) In this paragraph “relevant party”, in relation to any inquisitorial proceedings, means—

(a) any person who, in accordance with paragraph 27(1), is making a disclosure within paragraph 27(1)(a) or (b);

(b) any person giving evidence to the proceedings in circumstances where, in the absence of sub-paragraph (1), the prohibition imposed by section 56(1) would be breached;

(c) any person whose conduct is the interception-related conduct (within the meaning of section 56) to which the disclosure or evidence relates (whether or not that conduct has in fact occurred);

(d) any other person to whom the subject-matter of the disclosure or evidence has been lawfully disclosed in accordance with section 58.

(5) Paragraph 27(3) and (4) (definitions) apply for the purposes of this paragraph.””—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause makes provision relating to communications intercepted in the course of transmission by means of a postal service or telecommunication system.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) for the purposes of an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings, a relevant person decides to contact a person (“P”) in connection with P’s conduct as a member of the armed forces which is conduct forming part of the Troubles, and

(b) a relevant person has not previously contacted P for the purposes of the investigation or proceedings.

(2) This section does not apply if the relevant person decides to contact P because they suspect that P may have committed an offence.

(3) The relevant Director of Investigations or (as the case may be) relevant judicial panel member must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the decision to contact P,

(b) the conduct forming part of the Troubles to which the investigation relates or the death to which the proceedings relate, and

(c) P’s contact details (so far as known).

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after being notified under subsection (3), take all reasonable steps to make P aware of the relevant person’s decision to contact them.

(5) If the Secretary of State makes P aware of the decision, the Secretary of State must notify the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member of that fact.

(6) A relevant person may not contact P for the purposes of the investigation or proceedings until whichever of the following occurs first—

(a) the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member being notified under subsection (5) that P is aware of the decision, or

(b) the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State is notified under subsection (3) of the decision.

(7) In this section—

“contacting a person” includes—

(a) imposing a requirement on the person under section 14, or

(b) otherwise requiring the person to provide information or produce a document or other thing;

“relevant person” —

(a) in relation to an investigation under Part 3, means the relevant Director of Investigations or another Legacy Commission officer;

(b) in relation to inquisitorial proceedings, mean the relevant judicial panel member or a Legacy Commission officer.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause requires (a) the Secretary of State to be notified of a decision to contact, as a witness and for the purposes of an investigation or inquisitorial proceedings, a person who was a member of the armed forces during the Troubles and (b) the Secretary of State to take steps to make that person aware that they will be contacted.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

Initial contact with police officers

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision corresponding or similar to—

(a) section (Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses), or

(b) section 16ADA of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (which is inserted by section 84),

in relation to decisions to contact a person in connection with their conduct as a member of a police force which is conduct forming part of the Troubles.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to negative procedure.”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause confers on the Secretary of State a power to make provision, equivalent to that inserted by amendments NC45 and 240, for decisions to contact persons who were police officers during the Troubles.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47

Working with prosecutors: policy statement

“(1) The Legacy Commission must publish a statement setting out how the following functions are to be exercised—

(a) any power of referral and notification to a prosecutor under section 43,

(b) the duty under that section to request a prosecutor’s advice before exercising such a power, and

(c) any power of referral and notification to a prosecutor under section 61.

(2) The Legacy Commission must keep under review any statement published under subsection (1), and may from time to time publish a revised statement.

(3) A Director of Investigations or judicial panel member must, when exercising a function to which any statement published under subsection (1) relates, have regard to the statement.

(4) A duty to comply with a direction given by the Lord Advocate under section 43(5) or 61(5) is not subject to this section or any statement published under subsection (1).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause requires the Legacy Commission to publish a statement setting out how the powers of referral to prosecutors (in connection with investigations under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings) will be exercised.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48

Defamation

“(1) This section applies for the purposes of the law of defamation.

(2) The publication—

(a) under this Act of a final report or a draft of a final report,

(b) of any other statement for the purposes of any investigation under Part 3, or

(c) of any other statement in, or otherwise for the purposes of, any inquisitorial proceedings,

is absolutely privileged.

(3) The publication of a fair and accurate report of, or copy of or extract from, a final report is privileged unless the publication is shown to be made with malice.

(4) Subsection (3) is not to be read as limiting any privilege subsisting apart from that subsection.

(5) Inquisitorial proceedings in public are to be treated as proceedings in public before a court to which—

(a) section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996, and

(b) section 9 of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 10),

apply (accordingly, a fair and accurate report of those proceedings is absolutely privileged).

(6) In this section—

“final report” means a final report produced under section 38 or 62;

“publication” has the meaning it has for the purposes of the law of defamation generally.” —(Chris Bryant.)

This new clause protects persons making statements (including witnesses and judicial panel members) for the purposes of Legacy Commission investigations or inquisitorial proceedings from claims of defamation. It also protects fair and accurate reporting about final reports and of inquisitorial proceedings in public.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Protection for conduct carried out in accordance with contemporaneous Rules of Engagement in respect of Troubles-related conduct

“(1) No criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries shall be commenced in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland by—

(a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces),

(b) the Secret Intelligence Services,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

unless the condition in subsection (2) has been met.

(2) The condition is that—

(a) there is new and compelling evidence, that was not available at the time of the conduct in question; and

(b) the evidence has been certified as “new and compelling” by a Supreme Court Judge.

(3) In any legal proceedings, it is to be presumed that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness of the Rules of Engagement and orders they received, unless—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) has been met; and

(b) the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.

(4) No civil action against any party identified in subsection (1) shall be commenced, unless in a prior criminal case related to the conduct in question—

(a) the condition in subsection (2) was met; and

(b) a criminal conviction against that specific party in relation to conduct in question was obtained.

(5) Where it can be shown that the operational directives or Rules of Engagement given to a party listed in subsection (1) were unlawful under the domestic law that was in force at the time of the conduct in question, criminal or disciplinary investigations, or proceedings, may only be commenced, or continued, against those individuals who authorised, or approved, the Rules of Engagement or directives, and not against individual service members who acted in good faith in following those directives.”—(Mr Francois.)

Brought up,

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

23:04

Division 95

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 167

Noes: 327

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

That the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 21 October (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 21 October (Standing Order No. 41A).

Glasgow School of Art: Mackintosh Building

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

23:19

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box for what I believe is her first time as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Some might argue that 11.20 pm on a Monday night is just the right time for a Minister to make their debut at the Dispatch Box, and perhaps the right time to make the kind of speech I am about to make. I assure her, though, that we on the Labour Benches are very proud of her, and I am sure Members across the House will appreciate her talents and skills as they relate to the Scotland Office, other parts of Government policy and other parts of the world, where her dedication and leadership have been shown before.

That is where the praise stops, because the ask I am about to make may well go beyond the Minister’s briefing and the Scotland Office’s budget. However, I hope she will be no less ambitious than I am, or my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and for all points in between who have stayed on tonight to show their support not just for the Minister, but for an idea that would define not only a building or a city, but a country, and leave a legacy for this reforming Government that she and I serve in.

For many, I hardly need detail the catastrophe that has befallen the Glasgow School of Art’s Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, and the pall it has cast over Scotland’s largest city for more than a decade now. I will quickly summarise the brutally cruel circumstances that led us here.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. Does he agree that it is shameful that the Glasgow School of Art has been left in this state, leaving a cultural void in Glasgow’s architectural heritage, and that innovative solutions should be explored to right this wrong?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will detail and explore some of those options later in my speech. She is right: it is shameful that we have this shrouded ghost on Garnethill casting a shadow over the city.

To summarise, the fire that brought down the Mackintosh building broke out in 2014, as art students were finalising their end-of-year degree show. That fire was devastating and heartrending—I was in a meeting of another cultural board as the news broke, and people cried in that meeting as the smoke rose above Garnethill. Around 70% of the building was saved, although the library and the famous hen run—that glazed passageway so beloved by generations of art students—were lost. Despite that blow, the Glasgow School of Art and its patrons across the globe rose to the occasion and committed themselves to the faithful restoration of the building. That was painstaking and specialised work, but it was moving on apace when a second and much more devastating fire swept through the building in 2018, engulfing not just the Mackintosh building but the neighbouring ABC music venue on Sauchiehall Street.

The 2018 blaze was so fierce and all-consuming that its cause may never be known, but its consequences certainly are. Glaswegians are reminded of the destruction every single day, as the charred husk of the Mack building stoops withered and crippled on the city’s skyline. I was up there on Friday, between events at the Royal National Mòd in Glasgow—I congratulate the organisers and the city for hosting a brilliant week in the city of the Gaels. The contrast between the vibrant, youthful buzz of the revived and living culture that the Mòd represents and the tragic shadow hanging over the Mack could not have been stronger.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any future plans for the Mack need to be based on learning lessons from its recent tragic past?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I do. There is a need for greater transparency, and there are great lessons to be learned from the recent management of the estate and the building.

The Glasgow School of Art has committed to restoring the building. In July this year, eight years after the second fire and following extended and painful arbitration with the insurers, the GSA published a report outlining that the cost of restoring the Mack is estimated to be £265 million at today’s prices. That is a simply insurmountable sum for Glasgow School of Art alone. It is more than five times its annual turnover. That is why I am making this speech this evening.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward, because Glasgow School of Art is a national institution and Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a national figure across the United Kingdom. That is why, when I was in the Scotland Office, I argued that the UK Government should intervene after the first fire, which they did. I had the opportunity to see some of the renovations that took place after 2014, which were so tragically lost in the fire of 2018. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, given the national significance of the Glasgow School of Art, the UK Government have a role to play in its renovation.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I am glad to have the right hon. Member here bringing not just his experience, but cross-party support. I appreciate what he did and what previous Governments did after the first fire. There are hundreds of competing pressures on politics and on our political and financial capital, but he is right that it is a building of national importance. It was also a very beautiful building.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the building is of international importance, when we look at the significance of Charles Rennie Mackintosh in the history of design? He always married function with form, and that is nowhere more clear than in that building.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the style and form of the Mack. It was a beautiful building, and we do miss it. I do not mean that in a sentimental sense, because it was not just a building of bricks and mortar; it was, as she said, more than the sum of its parts. Since its construction at the turn of the 20th century, the Mack has become a symbol of Glasgow’s flair. It has been an incubator for Scotland’s creative spirit, and it has been a building of significance, as Members have said, not just for the city, but for Scotland and the country. It is a story that runs through the Scottish nation, and through the lives of so many famous artists, writers and performers who have been inspired by their time there, and others, like me, who were simply spellbound by its beauty.

If the Minister is looking for evidence of how the Mack runs through our lives, she will recall that tonight at Dover House, as she made her speech for the Poppyscotland appeal, which we all support, she was heralded by a painting by Adrian Wiszniewski on one side and one by Ken Currie on the other—the new Glasgow boys; the most recent wave of artists to come out of the art school.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He mentions the new Glasgow boys. Among the other notable graduates of Glasgow School of Art is the late David Harding, the first town artist for Glenrothes. Is that not an example of the significance of the school right across Scotland and internationally, as others have said? That is why its reconstruction should be a priority for all levels of Government who have the interests of Glasgow School of Art at heart.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The school’s influence runs everywhere, and not just in Dover House. In the Lobby tonight, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is not in his place, mentioned how his brother had been to Glasgow School of Art. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent so much time at the Dispatch Box today, but his mother was at Glasgow School of Art, as were so many friends of mine. I was only ever a graduate of the art school dance; I never actually went to art school, but many friends, colleagues and constituents did.

We shape our buildings and then they shape us. That was the phrase of another Prime Minister, which should be embossed on the walls of this Chamber, because, as we know, it was rebuilt from the ruins of world war two and functions now much as it did before that visit from the Luftwaffe in 1941. Buildings do more than occupy space; they define who we are. Few understood that more profoundly than Charles Rennie Mackintosh, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) pointed out. His design for the building created an environment in which art, everyday practicality, and beauty and simplicity of design came together as one.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech, for which I am grateful. Mackintosh himself started as an apprentice architect aged just 16. Would my hon. Friend agree that as we restore the building, which must be done, there is an important opportunity for the next generation of Glaswegians and others to be part of that project, allowing them to secure their own future?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I could not agree more. We must remember that the art school itself began as a design school—almost an engineering school for the shipyards and the industrial base of Scotland. There is a plan to make the art school, with a restored Mackintosh building, the anchor of cultural and economic development again.

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East says is true: the Glasgow School of Art and the Mackintosh building have become a symbol of Glasgow, and Glasgow has a symbiotic relationship with the art school. That is why it is tragic to see it in its current condition. As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) pointed out, the Mack is not simply a national treasure for Scotland; it is a cultural and creative asset for the whole of the UK. It is an emblem of what Scotland has contributed to the global story of design and success over the last century.

It should not just be left to Glasgow School of Art, to Scotland or to the alumni of the art school to take this on. Collectively, we are all custodians of the Mackintosh. It should fall on us as a nation to restore the building to its glory. The Government should be willing and ready to engage with Glasgow School of Art in the project. Let us be clear: this can be done. We need only look across the channel to the example of Notre-Dame, which was burnt down in a fire in 2019. The French Government stepped in with the full muscle of the state to implement a reconstruction programme.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Would the hon. Member agree that the SNP Government need to play a role in this? So far, they have been silent on the subject.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I would temper my language and invite the Scottish Government, the UK Government and other interested parties to come together, put their hands under the Mack and lift it out of the ashes. There is a case for doing that, as a fully restored Mack, in line with the Glasgow School of Art’s ambitions to deliver a re-energised cultural quarter for Glasgow, can be just as much an economic driver for the city and the country as Notre-Dame is for France.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time this evening. As he knows, I went to school next door to the art school, and it has always held a special place in my life. Does he agree that the position of the art school in Glasgow is extremely important? We might be able to track some of the decline of Sauchiehall Street to the fact that the Mack, which could be seen from that street, has been in its current condition for such a long time. The regeneration of the Mack would go some way to helping the development and economy of Glasgow as a whole.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the Glasgow School of Art’s ambition is that the Mack building could anchor the regeneration of the whole of Garnethill and that part of the city.

Right now, all we have are the singed bones of the building, shrouded in scaffold for so long while the Glasgow School of Art grappled with the insurance arbitration process.

I understand that there may be some progress: the street may be reclaimed to some extent, and we will see the mausoleum of the building visible but protected. However, preventing the building from collapsing appears to be close to the limit of what the Glasgow School of Art can deliver on its own through the insurance claim. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK Government, could have a role to play in putting their hands underneath the Mack and supporting its restoration.

There is a plan for restoration. There is passion and professionalism in the design team commissioned to look at the restoration, and there is an economic analysis produced by the Glasgow School of Art to rebuild the Mackintosh. That is compelling and attractive, because heritage-led place making is often one of the most effective tools for driving urban regeneration. It is a tried and tested formula, and this approach would see the reinstated Mack building contribute to the economy and the regeneration of Glasgow, as has been pointed out, but it cannot be done by the Glasgow School of Art alone, the UK Government alone or the Scottish Government alone; we must do it together.

Because I was in Glasgow on Friday attending the Mòd, I missed the Prime Minister’s speech in neighbouring Motherwell in which he offered a new direction and a promise of a new deal between Scotland’s two Governments. On the way back south, I listened to the speech— I played it back—and it struck me as a very nuanced and sophisticated offer of co-operation. I hope, beyond the rhetoric, it is recognised as such in Bute House and in Holyrood. I know the SNP First Minster had some speech making of his own to do on the weekend—I did not play his speech back, I must admit—but if I were him, I would listen closely again to the Prime Minister’s message and to my own. If he is looking for progress, he should realise that for the Mack and for Glasgow, he could be in for a big win for himself and for both Governments. Nothing could symbolise a new era of doing politics differently in Scotland than the two Governments coming together, with other interested parties, to raise the Mack out of the ashes and do nothing less than restore it to its former glory.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Like so many other Members, I have personal connections to the Mack. My best friend went there. I went to the University of Glasgow and he went to the Mack—he is now a successful photographer. My hon. Friend mentions the Prime Minister. Does he agree that one of the aims of everything we do should be culture in every postcode? Whether we are from North Northumberland or South West Devon, that should be our aim.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend proves my point that the Mack and its influence echoes in every postcode in every part of Britain and beyond.

In terms of solutions, some have called for the Mack building to be part of an independent body. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society, for example, has called for an independent body to oversee the restoration of the building and for its ownership to be transferred away from the Glasgow School of Art. Personally, I am agnostic about the means but devout about the delivery. I believe that restoring the Mack simply must be done.

[Martin Rhodes]

From what my hon. Friend is saying, I think he agrees with me that, although we must look at all the options for delivering the restoration, we must remain focused on achieving the endpoint, which is the restoration.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Restoring the Mack should be everyone’s priority.

All proposals are worth exploring around the table with all interested parties. The Minister who will answer from the Dispatch Box tonight has experience and a reputation for conflict resolution. She is ideally placed to persuade both Governments to seriously consider how they can achieve this joint aim: the faithful restoration of the Mack as a living, breathing school and studio, sparking the inspiration for another generation and another century in Scotland.

23:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Melanie Ward)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate and thank him for his kind words. I am very pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. Indeed, the strong showing of Scottish MPs tonight is remarkable, given the time of night. I think that reflects the strength of feeling on the topic in this Chamber—although I do wish a colleague from the SNP had been able to join us as well.

My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to Glasgow School of Art and to the generations of students, artists, designers and architects who have studied there and gone on to make their mark, at home and around the world. His speech was characteristic of his oracy in this place in its warmth, passion and strength of advocacy for causes that matter to our part of the world. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, known as the Mack, is much more than a historic building. It is a core part of the Glasgow School of Art, which is a world-renowned institution, a source of pride for Glasgow and Scotland, and an important part of the United Kingdom’s creative and cultural life. We heard that very clearly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith).

Having grown up in Helensburgh, the site of the Hill House, I learned to admire the art of Charles Rennie Mackintosh from an early age. Indeed, one of the great joys of my job as Minister for Scotland, and even in the first three months, has been seeing so many examples of Scotland’s extraordinary arts and culture scene, from the Wemyss Ware cat trail in Kirkcaldy, in my own constituency, to the Edinburgh festival and fringe, to the Pier Arts Centre in Orkney. I also remember visiting the Mack as a student and marvelling at it. I want to share my heartfelt appreciation to everyone who has worked tirelessly to protect and restore its architectural heritage following the devastating fires of 2014 and 2018. The school’s commitment to faithful restoration of the building is inspiring, and the expertise and determination of those involved deserve our recognition.

I know how deeply the fires and the damage to the Mack affected people across Scotland. The loss resonated far beyond Glasgow, striking at the heart of the UK’s cultural heritage. The impact was felt most acutely by the local community and nearby businesses whose lives and livelihoods were disrupted. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), in whose constituency the building stands, rightly talked about the need for us to learn lessons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) spoke about his constituency’s connection with the Mack. I know that many constituencies, including mine, have connections with the Glasgow School of Art as well. As would be expected, these issues have been debated a number of times in the Scottish Parliament. Today we consider not only the future of a remarkable historic building, but the future of an institution that continues to contribute to our cultural identity and international standing.

Along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I recently met members of the Glasgow School of Art’s leadership. They informed us that their work to assess the building’s future had reached an important stage. In July this year, the school published an updated assessment of the options for the Mackintosh building, following the settlement of its long-running insurance claim. The school envisions the reinstatement of the building as part of a heritage-led economic regeneration project, building on the existing creative and cultural assets in Glasgow. That would strengthen the creative eco-system and would further position the city as one of the UK’s leading creative centres. The school has confirmed its intention to pursue an enabling project, funded through the insurance settlement, with work expected to begin in 2027. Its governors have also made it clear that the school cannot undertake a faithful reinstatement of the building on its own, and that partnership will be essential if that ambition is to be realised.

These developments underline both the scale of the challenge and the importance of considering what role Scotland’s two Governments and other partners might play. Current work has focused on a temporary solution, which could be weather-proof and lay the groundwork for a complete restoration at a point when further funding and partnerships are secured. The question of Government support must, of course, be considered carefully: public money has to be used responsibly, and any proposal must be assessed against clear evidence of need, affordability, deliverability, and public benefit. We must be clear about the financial realities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said, the cost of a full, faithful reconstruction, paired with wider district regeneration, is estimated to reach about £265 million. However, we should also recognise the potential long-term value of protecting a building of such exceptional significance, and the opportunities that its future could create for Glasgow and for Scotland as a whole. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), gave an example of that.

Following the 2014 fire, the UK Government committed £10 million in funding to support the Glasgow School of Art. This was provided to the Scottish Government for the Mackintosh appeal, and, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), an additional £5 million was provided in 2015-16. Of course, culture and heritage are devolved matters, and the Scottish Government have responsibility for this policy and funding in Scotland. We respect that settlement and the principles of devolution, as the Prime Minister made so clear in Motherwell last week. Although I was encouraged to hear that the Glasgow School of Art was included in the Scottish Government’s programme for government, I understand that the school is waiting to meet with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic following its publication. We hope that the commitments made will be matched with tangible action and concrete plans.

We will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government, Glasgow city council, the Glasgow School of Art and other relevant heritage organisations. The UK Government continue to deliver transformational investment across the wider Glasgow area, including over £870 million of funding injected into the region through the Glasgow city region deal, alongside Pride in Place funding and more than £60 million of new local growth funding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar rightly referred to the Prime Minister’s message to the Scottish Government last week, and to the need for us to work together. The Glasgow city region is an excellent example of that, as it has benefited from £500 million each from the UK and Scottish Governments. Through our joint financial backing, we are empowering local leaders from the Glasgow city region to make spending decisions based on opportunities for local economic growth and prosperity.

As the Glasgow School of Art leadership seeks to build a case for investment that links culture to economic benefit for the people of the region, the city region is an important partner. I particularly encourage the school and those advocating on its behalf to maintain discussions with the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has previously provided it with almost £5 million of support. Its heritage places initiative is supporting Glasgow more widely, and its national heritage memorial fund is important too. These funds cannot meet the full cost of restoration, but they may be able to support key phases and how it benefits wider communities.

We must also ensure that the benefits of culture and creativity are not confined to those who already have the greatest opportunities. I am reminded of the enormous contribution of Jennie Lee, who grew up in Cowdenbeath, in my constituency, and who was the first ever Minister for the Arts. She argued for the centrality of arts and culture in daily life, alongside the functional necessities—or, as some in the Labour tradition of those on my side of the House have put it, “bread and roses”.

This debate is an important opportunity to recognise the Glasgow School of Art’s contribution to our national life, and to consider how best to secure a brighter future for the Mack. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for bringing these issues before the House and to all who have contributed, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and for North Northumberland. I will ensure that the points raised in this debate, including the case for new support and the other proposals to which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has referred, are conveyed to relevant ministerial colleagues. I cannot make a commitment to new funding today, but I can reaffirm our willingness to listen, to engage with all partners, as he suggested, and to explore practical and realistic ways forward, including new suggestions that may come along. I hope, too, that the Scottish Government will act, and that they will hear our willingness to act with them.

The Mack inspired generations of artists and designers, helped to define Glasgow’s artistic identity, and earned a place on the world stage. We owe it to those who built that legacy, to the communities who cherish it and to the generations yet to come to give serious consideration as to how it can continue.

Question put and agreed to.

23:48

House adjourned.

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Desmond Swayne

† Aldridge, Dan (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)

† Amos, Gideon (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Carling, Sam (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)

† Cocking, Lewis (Broxbourne) (Con)

† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

† Crichton, Torcuil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)

† Edwards, Lauren (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)

Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Myer, Luke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Poynton, Gregor (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Raja, Shivani (Leicester East) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester Withington) (Lab)

Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

† Swallow, Peter (Bracknell) (Lab)

Lara Stace, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 19 October 2026

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

18:00

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I will speak to both sets of regulations, and note that the draft hazards in social housing regulations are commonly referred to as phase 2 of Awaab’s law.

Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are driving a lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Both regulations are integral to that effort, and once brought into force they will play an important role in keeping social tenants safe by ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I will take each of the regulations in turn, starting with the second phase of Awaab’s law.

As hon. Members know, Awaab’s law is named in memory of Awaab Ishak. Awaab was just two years old when he died in December 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. His parents repeatedly expressed concerns about the conditions that the family were living in, but their landlord failed to act. Confronted with the grief of a loss so overwhelming, Awaab’s parents determined that they would secure justice for not only their son but all renters. We remain deeply grateful to them for the dignity and tenacity that they have shown in fighting for change and bringing us to this point.

Awaab’s law is vital legislation that empowers social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law if landlords fail to investigate and fix hazards in tenants’ homes within set timeframes. When it comes to those hazards, I want to be clear that social landlords had legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from HHSRS—housing health and safety rating system—category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair before the first phase of Awaab’s law commenced in October last year. Awaab’s law does not introduce new obligations in respect of new hazards; it is designed to compel and expedite the meeting of existing obligations by introducing clear time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement.

As I mentioned, phase 1 of Awaab’s law, covering significant damp, mould and emergency hazards, came into force in October last year, and it is helping to drive up standards in the social housing sector. The draft hazards in social housing regulations extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to the following significant hazards: excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and falling elements, fire and explosions, electrical safety and hygiene.

In addition to expanding the range of hazards that are within scope of Awaab’s law, we are drawing on feedback and lessons learned from the roll-out of phase 1 to make two groups of changes, with a view to ensuring that policy works as effectively as possible. First, we have clarified thresholds for the types of hazards covered by Awaab’s law and updated the definitions of “emergency” and “significant” in respect of the hazards that fall within the scope of it. That will help landlords to make more effective assessments, will provide tenants with greater clarity as to when landlords must act and will support a more consistent application of the requirements across the sector.

Secondly, we have made changes to avoid duplication with existing fire safety rules. Where fire risks relate to parts of buildings that are already covered by existing fire safety legislation, such as communal areas, we have clarified that those are to be managed under those rules, rather than also being subject to the requirements of Awaab’s law. The changes are reflected in updated guidance that we have published covering all phase 1 and 2 hazards, with a view to helping tenants and landlords determine precisely what is and is not within scope of the requirements.

Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, Awaab’s law will operate as follows: potential significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days; following the conclusion of an investigation, landlords must send written summaries to tenants within three working days, and they must take action within five working days; and potential emergency hazards must be investigated and made safe within 24 hours. If the landlord cannot make the home in question safe within the relevant timescales, they are required to secure suitable alternative accommodation. Additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, but no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and they must be completed within a reasonable time period.

Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law in respect of the wider range of hazards covered. If they do not, tenants can take legal action through the courts for a breach of contract or seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman.

I should point out that Awaab’s law provides for a statutory defence in instances where a landlord can prove they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements but have been unable to do so. In other words, if failure is due to circumstances completely beyond the control of the landlord, they will not be liable for a breach of the regulations.

As per the commitments we have made, next year we will expand the requirements of Awaab’s law to apply to the remaining hazards, as defined by the HHSRS, excluding overcrowding. In doing so, we will continue with the “test and learn” approach we took to phase 1, so that any beneficial lessons arising from the implementation of phase 2 can be addressed. To return to a point I made earlier, the phased approach we are taking does not mean that social landlords have leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to provide safe and decent homes for their tenants.

It is important that tenants are aware of the protections they are entitled to and that landlords are clear on their responsibilities. The Make Things Right social housing information campaign will launch in January to raise awareness of the new protections among social housing tenants and residents. Ahead of the regulations coming into force in November, I will write to all social landlords in England, setting out clearly what the regulations require and the standards landlords must meet.

I will now turn to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. As hon. Members may recall, last year we brought social housing into scope of the electrical safety requirements that private landlords have had to meet since 2020. As a result, all landlords must now check the electrical installations in their properties at least every five years.

The regulations are required to ensure that those existing requirements align with the latest version of the relevant British standard, namely BS 7671. As a result of the changes required, the existing references to “further investigative work” are no longer relevant and have been removed. We are also clarifying that a pre-tenancy inspection and test is not required if the previous inspection and test took place within the last 5 years and the report is still current.

These changes will make sure there is clarity and consistency on the standards that are expected of landlords in both rented sectors. With that, I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

18:07

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister.

The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations.

As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities.

Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side?

Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more.

Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement.

For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins.

As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater.

It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.

18:10

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for the second of my meetings today.

I put on record my strong support for what the Government are doing to expand Awaab’s law, both in the social sector and the private sector. As an example of its importance, a mother in my constituency recently got in touch as she is worried about her son, who is asthmatic. In their property, which is managed by a social housing association, significant damp and black mould on the windows and walls were aggravating his condition. Awaab’s law, which places a legal duty on social landlords to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm within fixed timeframes, was a useful foundation for me to stand on when contacting the council on her behalf.

Extending those principles to the private sector will do so much for another of my constituents, who recently had his bed condemned by his letting agency for being infested with black mould. Again, the root cause was the state of the housing, which resulted in a chest infection and a hospital visit. He has had to pay for a new bed himself, which was a significant expense caused by a problem with his private rented house. I am confident that the changes the Government are making will give private tenants far more strength and backing to assert that mouldy conditions—a clear emergency health hazard—are rectified within a strict timeframe.

I want to touch on a briefing that came from Shelter earlier today. I appreciate that the Minister may not have a response to it right now as it has come through only today, but I wonder whether he would commit to writing to Shelter in response to its concerns. In short, Shelter is arguing that the amended regulations state that a

“‘significant risk of harm’ means a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would make safe within 15 working days (but not within 24 hours).”

Shelter is

“concerned that the ‘15 day’ definition could put tenants at risk in cases where there are no quick fixes to make a home safe from a hazard ahead of further works—meaning it could fall outside the regulations”.

It gives the example that

“a reasonable landlord might not be able to make safe a significant structural collapse hazard within 15 working days...if no temporary fixes were available.”

It argues that the amended definition could potentially—I am sure in an unintended way—undermine Awaab’s law

“because, if the landlord were to argue the hazard was out of scope, tenants would lose their right to be offered suitable alternative accommodation until the hazard could be made safe.”

Shelter closes by saying:

“If Awaab’s family had been offered suitable alternative accommodation while the damp and mould was made safe, he may still be alive today.”

I wanted to bring that briefing to the Minister’s attention so that he can respond when possible.

18:13

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests—I am a social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats support and recognise the work that has been done on Awaab’s law and its passing in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which we supported as a major step forward. We therefore welcome the draft regulations to extend the hazards in the definition. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who made a good speech on the efficacy of Awaab’s law. My constituents have also found it useful in securing action on matters such as damp and mould and so forth.

The electrical regulations appear to be a tidying-up exercise. I do not have any further comments, and we are happy to support them. In regard to the social housing regulations, has consideration been given to extending the hazards to encompass overcrowding? I was pleased to campaign over a number of years in different roles to restore minimum space standards in housing; when I trained as an architect many decades ago, those were a requirement, until the Thatcher Government swept them away and we ended up with the second smallest homes in Europe. I was delighted that we campaigned for that cross party and that Liberal Democrat Minister Don Foster brought in nationally prescribed space standards. However, there is not much point in having space standards if the homes themselves are completely overcrowded. We are therefore interested to hear from the Minister whether consideration has been given to including overcrowding in the hazards in these or future regulations. Other than that, we stand in support of the regulations.

18:15

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for those contributions. I am pleased that there is general support for both sets of draft regulations and their intentions in respect of improving the safety and quality of social housing. A series of questions have been put to me, and I will endeavour to respond to each in turn.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put to me two questions on who enforces the electrical safety requirements and what the implications are of that enforcement duty in respect of local government reorganisation. Local councils enforce the regulations, as the shadow Minister made clear. If a local council has reasonable grounds to believe that a landlord is in breach of one or more of the duties in the regulations, they must serve a remedial notice on the landlord requiring remedial action. Should a landlord not comply with the notice or should urgent remedial action be required, the local council may arrange itself for remedial action to be taken.

I note the point the shadow Minister made about the burden that that places on local councils. I do not immediately make the link between local government reorganisation generally and that point. He is more than welcome to write to me with further details, or if he has evidence of particular local authorities that think they will have problems enforcing these quite simple and straightforward regulations, because I would be interested to know about that.

The shadow Minster then asked what if the hazards in question are caused by the tenant—they are the tenant’s fault? First, it is important to say that the Government are completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp, mould or pests are based on a tenant’s lifestyle. In fact, Awaab’s family had that allegation put to them. The Housing Ombudsman has been incredibly clear on that point. It is rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes, where they exist, such as structural issues, repairs or inadequate ventilation. The same goes for other hazards such as pests. However, landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make small, reasonable adjustments to their behaviour if that is required and appropriate to reduce those risks.

The shadow Minister then put to me a series of points about the cost to the sector. We have taken a approach to regulation generally that ensures that it is proportionate and that timescales, in particular, are sufficient for social landlords to enact those regulations in a proportionate way. We have done that with minimum energy efficiency standards and the modernised decent homes standard, and we are doing it with Awaab’s law by rolling out the requirements in phases to give landlords time to adjust and to embed the necessary processes and so that, through that approach, as I referenced in my opening remarks, we can test and learn what works and what needs clarifying.

In terms of the cost, we have published a final stage impact assessment for phase 1 of Awaab’s law. Having updated the policy in the light of consultation feedback from both the sector and tenants, we have assessed that costs have been kept to a reasonable level while delivering the necessary impact for tenants. Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and decency. I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks: these are existing obligations that we are trying to ensure are better enforced.

Alongside laying phase 2 regulations, we are publishing an impact assessment. Our estimate is that the total cost to the sector of the proposals will be £146.3 million over the 10-year appraisal period for phase 1 and £190.2 million over a 10-year appraisal period for phase 2. However, as I said, the duty to make repairs is not a new burden on landlords, and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be the result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs and the preparation and postage of written summaries.

To the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, I have Shelter’s letter here. I was not going to detain the Committee by responding to the two main points that it has made, but he has challenged me to do so, so I think it is important to just put them on the record.

In respect of the definition of “significant hazard”, we heard very clearly from tenants and landlords in our phase 1 “test and learn” that it was difficult to distinguish between an emergency hazard and a significant hazard. We have therefore changed the definitions of both emergency and significant hazards to remove the ambiguity around the previous language, which asked landlords to assess whether they would “take steps to” address the hazard and

“as a matter of urgency”.

We have instead made it clear that landlords must make an assessment of whether a reasonable landlord would make the hazard safe within 24 hours for an emergency hazard, or within 15 working days for a significant hazard, to determine whether the hazard falls within the scope of Awaab’s law. For a significant hazard, the 15 working day period has been used to align with the existing timescale of 10 working days to investigate and then five working days to make safe upon the conclusion of the investigation.

There is an objective test of what a notional reasonable landlord would do, and landlords should not factor in their own considerations, such as budget or staff availability. To determine what a reasonable landlord would do, we would expect landlords to take into account the risk to the tenant, information about their health circumstances and how feasibly the hazard can be made safe within three weeks. Landlords should also consider whether a reasonable landlord would use temporary measures to make hazards safe, where that is a necessary as a first step.

Shelter also raised concerns about fire hazards in communal areas not being covered. I can see the Committee urging me to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but my hon. Friend can be assured that we will respond to Shelter in full on both points. I am more than happy to share that response with colleagues if they are interested.

Lastly, on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, about why we have excluded overcrowding, Awaab’s law is intended to address hazards that result from defects, disrepair or a lack of maintenance for which landlords are responsible. We came to the conclusion that overcrowding is a complex issue that is not usually the result of disrepair or something that can be fixed via repairs or maintenance. We therefore took the decision to remove overcrowding from the scope of Awaab’s law, to ensure that these regulations are focused on repairs issues.

Social landlords will obviously still be expected to take overcrowding issues seriously, and the sector must continue to address those through transfer and allocation policies. Tenants concerned about overcrowding will be able to seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman Service, and tenants in housing association properties can obviously report overcrowding issues to their local councils. Beyond that, as the hon. Member knows—I know he shares my ambition in this area—we need to boost the supply of new social and affordable homes to ensure that more families who are overcrowded or severely overcrowded can be moved into appropriate accommodation.

To conclude, it is imperative that we continue to work to improve the safety and quality of social housing. These regulations will enable us to do so. They will play a vital role in ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

18:23

Committee rose.

Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †Graham Stringer

Butler, Dawn (Brent East) (Lab)

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Darling, Steve (Torbay) (LD)

† Darlington, Emily (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)

† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)

† Foody, Emma (Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds North East) (Lab)

† Hume, Alison (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)

† Kyle, Peter (Hove and Portslade) (Lab)

† Lumsden, Douglas (Aberdeen South) (Con)

† Murray, James (Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General)

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

† Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)

Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

Spencer, Patrick (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)

† Tapp, Mike (Dover and Deal) (Lab)

† Yang, Yuan (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)

Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 19 October 2026

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026

18:00

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 981).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of the order is straightforward: it updates the way alcoholic products are grouped within the duty-free allowances available to travellers entering the UK from the rest of the world. The changes make the system simpler, clearer and more consistent with the alcohol duty reforms introduced in 2023.

The order makes four principal changes. First, cider moves into the same allowance category as beer. That means that cider now forms part of the 42-litre beer allowance instead of the separate nine-litre allowance for drinks of up to 22% alcohol by volume. Secondly, the existing still wine category is replaced by a single wine category covering both still and sparkling wine. Sparkling wine now forms part of the 18-litre wine allowance rather than the separate nine-litre category for drinks of up 22% alcohol by volume. Thirdly, the order updates the terminology used in the 1994 order by replacing references to “alcoholic beverages” with “alcoholic products”, in line with the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Finally, where travellers exceed their duty-free allowance, simplified rates of duty may apply up to specified thresholds before standard rates of duty apply. The order raises the simplified rate threshold for still and sparkling cider from 20 litres to 110 litres, bringing it in line with beer. The thresholds for other alcohol products are unchanged.

Travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowances, but the revised categories change the combinations of products that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The changes were announced at the 2025 Budget and follow a review of travellers’ allowances after our exit from the European Union. That review identified areas where the structure could be simplified and similar alcoholic products could be treated more consistently. Individuals travelling to Northern Ireland from the EU continue to operate under separate arrangements that were retained following the exit from the EU.

The measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact. Its administrative impact on businesses is expected to be negligible, although some businesses may update guidance or customer-facing material. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs systems and guidance have been updated to reflect the new categories and thresholds. The order took effect from 1 October 2026. I commend it to the Committee.

18:02

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Stringer, and to serve on this Committee. I thank Minister for his explanation of the Government’s intentions in relation to the order.

As the Minister outlined, the order builds on the changes made by the previous Government in the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Incidentally, they were brought in by a particularly impressive Treasury Minister—I cannot remember his name—while the official Opposition spokesman at the time left a lot to be desired, I have to say. I am pleased to see amendments that aim to simplify the system. As the Minister said, for those who are travelling to Great Britain and for the businesses that sell to them, the order makes a frankly welcome change to some of the regulations I have been responding to since 2024, which have a very different impact on British consumers and businesses. The Opposition will not oppose the measures today, but I have a few questions for the Minister.

First, how many people will be impacted by the measure? Secondly, which ports in particular are likely to be affected? Thirdly, the measure is pegged to cost around £500,000, but no explanation has been provided on where that money will be spent, so where will it be spent?

18:04

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As a west country MP, I am absolutely delighted to see that cider is given as adequate a billing as beer under these proposals. As colleagues have said, the proposals are a simplification and will make things easier for consumers to understand. The Liberal Democrats welcome them.

18:04

[James Murray]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the support of the official Opposition for this measure, and acknowledge the long-standing conversations that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne and I have had on different sides of the aisle along Committee corridor. The order delivers a targeted simplification of the travellers’ allowances rules. It aligns the treatment of cider with beer, brings still and sparkling wine into a single wine category, updates the statutory terminology and aligns the simplified rate threshold for cider with that of beer.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, asked how many people would be affected and which ports would be impacted. This is a change to the overall way in which the duty system works. Although individual travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowance, the revised categories will have changed the combinations that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The existing 42-litre beer allowance remains unchanged, but cider is now included in that allowance. Likewise, still and sparkling wine now share a single 18-litre wine allowance. The purpose of the changes was not to alter the way that individual travellers interact with HMRC, but to provide clearer and more consistent frameworks for the combinations of alcohol products that people may bring into the UK.

The Government recognise that the changes have affected travellers differently. Some travellers are now able to bring back more of certain products duty-free, while those who previously maximised allowances across separate categories may be able to bring back less of those products in total. However, the overall duty-free allowance remains the same. The revised approach therefore offers greater consistency between similar products, and better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system.

[Gareth Davies]

I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?

[James Murray]

The overall volume of alcohol that individual travellers are allowed to bring back remains the same; it is the categories that different alcohol products fall into that is changing. Where people have previously maximised allowances across separate categories, they may be able to bring back less of those products in total. Overall, individual travellers still have access to the same total volume of products, but spread across different categories that are grouped in slightly different ways. As I said, it offers greater consistency between similar products. I mentioned that beer and cider and still and sparkling wine are grouped together in specific categories of the allowance, which better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system.

The shadow Minister asked about the impact on different ports and businesses. I can reassure him that the measure is expected to have no significant macroeconomic impact and only a negligible administrative impact on businesses, but HMRC will, of course, monitor the change through routine data collection and engagement with stakeholders. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

18:08

Committee rose.

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Dr Rupa Huq

† Baker, Richard (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)

† Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Ellis, Maya (Ribble Valley) (Lab)

† Fortune, Peter (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)

† Glindon, Mary (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)

† Jopp, Lincoln (Spelthorne) (Con)

† MacNae, Andy (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)

† Naish, James (Rushcliffe) (Lab)

Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)

† Pinto-Duschinsky, David (Hendon) (Lab)

† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)

† Slinger, John (Rugby) (Lab)

Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

† Thomas, Fred (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)

† Timms, Sir Stephen (Minister for Social Security and Disability)

† Welsh, Michelle (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)

Stella-Maria Gabriel, Jodie Willcox, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 19 October 2026

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

18:00

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Dr Huq, I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship—I think for the first time in all these years. Let me welcome all Members to the Committee and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on taking up his new role. I welcome him to the Committee.

Both sets of regulations were laid before the House on 1 September. The schemes to which they relate provide very important support to people who have developed certain dust-related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. That includes diseases such as the two named in the statutory instruments: pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. They have a devastating effect on individuals and their families. I really welcome the opportunity to debate these schemes and the changes that we are making to ensure that they continue to provide effective support.

Let me begin with an overview of the two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to change. The scheme for pneumoconiosis, which I shall refer to as “the 1979 Act scheme”—for the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes, as well as pneumoconiosis, diffuse mesothelioma and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they had gone out of business, and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have an award but for their percentage disablement.

The mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I shall refer to as “the 2008 Act scheme”—for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme, for example because they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly, at the time when they most need help.

Both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, but each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim, which is not an unusual state of affairs, in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can impose on whole families. The regulations before the Committee make very important changes to both schemes. The most important relate to awards for dependants and the treatment of claims where a claimant dies before payment can be made. The changes deliver what I hope the Committee will agree is a fairer approach to compensation and provide better support to bereaved families.

Under the current arrangements, awards payable to dependants are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. The regulations will align the rates payable to dependants with those payable to sufferers under both schemes. That means dependants will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each of the schemes. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one, these changes will provide greater financial support at an obviously difficult time.

Campaigners have long called for this change. Let me pay tribute in particular to Joanne Gordon and John Flanagan, who I was with earlier this afternoon, of the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK, and the remarkable work of Liz Darlison and her team at Mesothelioma UK, who have repeatedly raised this concern with me. I also pay tribute to Hugh Robertson of the TUC and to Thompsons Solicitors, who have campaigned for this change. Among the parliamentarians who have done so, let me single out the late Bill McKenzie, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who I think was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire’s local council leader for some time.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

He was.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As the Minister in 2010, he said that equalisation was the aim, when “resources allow”. He then campaigned for equalisation as the Opposition spokesperson in subsequent years.

The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made. In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant’s personal representatives. That will help ensure that compensation can still be paid where somebody has done everything required of them to make a claim but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The regulations for the 1979 Act scheme also make a number of consequential changes to support the reforms. Those include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards and removing payment provisions that are no longer needed following the alignment of award rates.

Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes will provide better support to those who succumb to these devastating diseases and to their families. The Committee will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by both the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am very happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which will align compensation rates for dependants with those for sufferers and improve the operation of both schemes, to the Committee and ask it to approve them in order that they can be implemented.

18:07

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

The Opposition support both sets of regulations. These schemes provide financial support to people facing serious illness and to families who have lost someone. Many of those affected worked in some of the toughest industries. Others were exposed to asbestos through a family member’s work or in the environment around them. The central change is welcome. Both sets of regulations bring the rates paid to dependants into line with those paid to those suffering themselves. Putting them on the same footing is an obvious and fair change. A family’s need for support does not disappear because their loved one died before being able to make a claim. These changes recognise that, and we support them.

I will turn first to the regulations on the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—or, using the Minister’s helpful language, the 1979 Act scheme. I welcome the practical changes. References to medical boards that no longer exist are being replaced by a reference to an appointed medical practitioner. The regulations also clarify which date is used to determine a person’s age and the payment rate that applies. That should make the rules clearer for claimants and their families.

The second set of regulations, on the 2008 Act scheme, concern mesothelioma, a devastating cancer that is linked to asbestos exposure. For those affected and the people caring for them, financial support needs to be accessible and timely. Bringing payments for bereaved dependants into line with those for people living with the disease is an important improvement.

Both instruments also clarify what happens when someone makes a claim but dies before payment is made. They provide for payment to the person’s personal representatives—the people responsible for dealing with their estate—once the required legal evidence has been supplied. That clarity is welcome. However, it needs to work in practice for people who are already dealing with bereavement.

There are four matters on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. First, the explanatory memorandum says that dependants will benefit from the higher basic awards when the existing top-ups are removed. However, the workers’ compensation regulations also remove a tuberculosis-related top-up paid to sufferers themselves. Can the Minister confirm whether anyone in that group could receive less under the new arrangements—and, if so, what protection has been considered?

Secondly, what steps will the Department take to avoid delays where payment must be made through someone’s estate? The regulations will require evidence of probate, or the equivalent legal authority. What practical support will be available, and how quickly will payments be processed once that evidence is received? Bereaved families should have clear information about what they need to provide and what happens next.

Thirdly, how will these changes be communicated? The explanatory memorandum for the workers’ compensation regulations says that

“no bespoke guidance is being produced”,

although internal instructions for staff will be updated. Will the Department work with specialist nurses, clinicians and support organisations so that eligible people understand what they can claim and how to apply? The organisations closest to patients and their families are often best placed to help them access support.

Fourthly, I would like to ask about the transition. Under the workers’ compensation regulations, the changes apply where the person first meets the conditions of entitlement on or after 31 October 2026; under the regulations on the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependant rates apply where the person suffering dies on or after that date. What consideration has been given to people who fall just before those cut-offs, but whose claims are still outstanding? They may remain entitled under the existing rules but will miss out on the improvements. Can the Minister explain the approach taken and whether any transitional protection was considered?

As I said, we support these changes. We want to see them delivered clearly and promptly so that people facing serious illness and families dealing with loss receive the support they are entitled to.

18:11

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support for these measures. The debate has been informed and supported, as it is every year, by the very wide recognition of the scale of the impact on those who are affected by the terrible diseases that are covered by the schemes. As usual in such debates, I welcome the cross-party support.

The Government share the commitment that Members of the House have to making sure that people affected by these devastating diseases and their families receive the support that they should expect. The reforms are intended to strengthen and, as the shadow Minister pointed out, simplify these long-standing compensation schemes while making sure that support is delivered in a way that is fair, clear and consistent between different claimants.

The reforms will align compensation payable to dependants with that payable to sufferers under both the schemes, and will introduce provision for payment to personal representatives, as the shadow Minister touched on, where a claimant dies after making a valid claim but before payment can be made.

For the 1979 Act scheme, the regulations also introduce a clear statutory basis for determining the relevant date that is used to calculate the awards and to remove supplementary payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of dependant and sufferer awards.

Of course, people who have additional costs as a result of their disability may also be entitled to benefits such as personal independence payment or attendance allowance, and other benefits are also available to cover income-replacement needs. We are committed to providing appropriate financial support for families who are affected.

Let me pick up on the very good point the shadow Minister made about communications. That is very important and we have already started working on it. I mentioned the victim support group that John Flanagan is a member of—I was in a meeting with him earlier this afternoon—and Mesothelioma UK, who are very keen to promote awareness of these changes. I agree with the shadow Minister that that kind of route is often the most effective way of getting the information to those who need to know about it. We are also promoting information today, on the back of this debate. It is very important that people know that this significant change has been made.

On the TB-related top-up, what I can say to the shadow Minister is that it has very rarely actually been claimed. I am advised that we do not think anyone would be worse off, because anyone who might be worse off will be equalised by the changes that we are making, so I do not think there is a problem. If he has in mind a particular set of circumstances where there could be a problem, perhaps he could drop me a line and I will be happy to discuss what the position is.

On the question of avoiding delays, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that these things move as quickly as they can, and the payments will be made as soon as possible. He talked about the possibility of delays around probate, which of course is true. Obviously, that is outside our immediate control—we do have to follow the legal procedures in all of this—but I very much hope that delays can be minimised.

On the question of transition, I am afraid that I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on the particular point that he raised, unless inspiration suddenly—[Interruption.] Ah, it could be that some inspiration has arrived. The changes will apply only to claims determined on or after 31 October—the end of this month. Existing awards and entitlement decisions will continue to be determined under the current legislative framework. Applying the changes from a single implementation date provides clarity and ensures that the schemes operate consistently and fairly for everybody. I can understand that some people might feel a little bit hard done by as a result of that, and he expressed concern to that effect, but there is the benefit of providing clarity for everybody, which I think outweighs the possible disbenefit for a small number of claimants.

The schemes continue to provide very important support to people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. The reforms that the Committee is considering were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes and they give us an opportunity to address a number of long-standing issues about the operation of the schemes, as well as to equalise compensation in the way that I have described. Taken together, the changes will align awards for dependants and sufferers, provide greater clarity in the calculation and payment of awards, and simplify the operation of the 1979 Act scheme. They will help to make sure that the schemes provide the support that is needed to those who succumb to these awful diseases and to their families, who bear the impact alongside them. I am grateful for the support from across the House and I hope that the Committee will agree to both measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.—(Sir Stephen Timms.)

18:21

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 19 October 2026

[Mr David Mundell in the Chair]

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to begin by congratulating the petitioner, Paris Shears, whose petition has now gathered over 105,000 signatures across the UK, which is a great achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Remove sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive cases”, goes on to say:

“I want the Government to introduce legislation so that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour cannot receive a sentencing reduction for a guilty plea entered after initially pleading not guilty. This should be known as Paris’s Law.

Victims of coercive control often wait months or years for trial, reliving trauma while preparing evidence. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive a reduced sentence. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging distress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reductions, as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced”.

I used to be the chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid, the local Women’s Aid service in my constituency, and this is an issue that is deeply important to me. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse that wears down a victim’s self-confidence and freedom over time, leaving the victim exploited and dependent on their abuser.

Paris Shears, the petitioner, has told me of her experience. Her ex-partner was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour, alongside other very serious offences. Paris waited over 500 days for the trial, but her ex-partner changed his plea on the day of the trial. He then received a sentence reduction, and the charge of controlling and coercive behaviour was no longer pursued.

Since that day, Paris has dedicated her time to beginning and growing this petition, as well as telling her story online and through the media. She should be commended for how much time and effort she has selflessly put into it. Many women, and some men, go through situations such as this; sadly, many never leave. Paris should be very proud of herself not only for getting out, but for raising awareness about coercive control. Hopefully, the work that she has achieved with this petition could save other women from these kinds of dangerous situations. What is most important in this debate and discussion is for survivor impact to remain central.

Going through a criminal trial can be a horrific and very difficult experience for victims, who have to relive their trauma in order to get justice. This can be used by abusers as another form of abuse towards the victim. Currently, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 sets out that controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. As under the Sentencing Council guidelines for other offences, guilty pleas can result in a potential sentence reduction. This is in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea.

The principle of reducing a sentence for a guilty plea is long-standing in England and Wales and is now set out in the Sentencing Act. The Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to issue a guilty plea guideline; the most recent such guideline was published in 2017 after a public consultation. A usual reduction is one third for a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of the proceedings, and this goes down to one quarter for guilty pleas issued after the first stage. The maximum reduction is one tenth when the plea is entered on the first day of the trial, and this could be decreased to zero for any pleas entered during the course of the trial.

Courts are incentivised to reduce sentences for guilty pleas in order to encourage defendants who know that they are guilty to plead guilty as early as possible. This can save the court time and money, as well as saving the victims from having to attend court and give evidence. However, it is important to note that Sir Brian Leveson conducted an independent review of the criminal courts that recommended that the maximum reduction be increased to 40% when guilty pleas are made at the earliest opportunity.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is setting out a very clear case. One of my constituents contacted me because she had been the victim of coercive control and domestic abuse and was set to wait up to two years for the court case. As her former partner had entered a not guilty plea, there were still proceedings in the family court in which his treatment of her was not acknowledged. Does the hon. Lady agree that delays in the criminal justice system allowing potential abusers to continue to exercise coercive control through the family courts are a matter of real concern, and that the Government should look closely at how to address it?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman raises important points.

Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. Almost all those convicted for coercive control are men, and most victims are women: in fact, analysis of Merseyside police domestic abuse data found that 95% of coercive control victims were women and 74% of perpetrators were men. This is a crime that clearly affects women disproportionately, and tackling it must be a priority for the Government.

There are different strategies that we can consider to improve the experience of victims of coercive control and their time spent in the justice system. One is to look at improved judicial training on coercive control, so that judges and others can better recognise situations in which defendants are toying with their victims. There could be more consideration given to sentencing guidelines and greater awareness of what coercive control is among the public, so that victims feel more comfortable coming forward.

The Government responded to the petition on 11 May 2026 and referred to our recent violence against women and girls strategy. It is encouraging to see £13.1 million of funding going towards launching the new national centre for violence against women and girls and public protection. It is also good to see that since 3 February 2025 anyone convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer is automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements. That requires the police, probation and prison services to work collaboratively on managing the risks that these individuals pose in our society.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so it is important that this debate is being held now and that Paris’s work in bringing attention to the victims of coercive control has been highlighted. One in five people experience domestic abuse, but only a quarter of the crimes are reported. I hope that bringing attention to domestic violence in settings like these can help even just one woman to feel brave enough to leave a dangerous situation.

This behaviour is one of the most insidious forms of abuse. Abusers can control all aspects of a victim’s life, creating a world of fear and intimidation. They isolate victims from family and friends and rob them of their independence. It is important to highlight some of the common examples of coercive behaviour, for example financial control, deprivation of basic needs such as food or of support services such as the hospital or GP surgery, monitoring a partner’s online activity and, in some cases, using spyware. It is key that women in these situations know that this behaviour is not usual and that they can get out with the help of others.

I have mentioned that I was previously the chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid. I encourage anyone who thinks they might need help to get in touch with any relevant local services. It is never too late to leave. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this important issue, and to hearing from other Members.

16:39

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I thank my constituents who signed the petition. Above all, I thank my constituent Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery today and is the reason we are all present in this Chamber this afternoon. It has been a privilege to support Paris as she has brought this campaign forward. She has taken the worst experience of her life and has turned it into a fight to change the law so that no other victim has to go through what she did. I am incredibly proud to be her Member of Parliament and to speak on her behalf today.

I would like to start by saying a little more about what happened to Paris, because her story is the reason the petition exists. Paris’s ex-partner was charged with several offences, including intentional strangulation and controlling and coercive behaviour, to which he pleaded not guilty. For over 530 days, Paris prepared to stand in court and relive what had happened to her, carrying the fear of giving evidence, of facing her former partner and of not being believed.

On the morning of the trial, the defendant changed his plea. For that, he was given a reduced sentence for sparing Paris the ordeal of a trial, despite what he had already put her through. When Paris heard the sentence, she fell to her knees and curled up in a ball crying. As she puts it:

“He got handed a suspended sentence. I am still living with a life sentence.”

No one should ever have to say that about our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that a defendant can continue their cycle of abuse and still be rewarded with a reduced sentence for changing their plea at the last possible moment.

Guilty pleas exist for a reason: to spare victims the ordeal of a trial. A plea entered on the day of the trial spares them nothing. This matters especially in cases of coercive control, because this particularly insidious form of abuse is about power. It is about trying to control every aspect of another person’s life. When a defendant pleads not guilty and then holds out until the morning of the trial, that control carries on—only now it is exercised through the courts. Paris’s law would stop this.

Although it is welcome that some domestic abuse crimes have been excluded from the early release scheme, that does not go far enough. Domestic abuse does not end when an offender is convicted, and an offender’s release can be one of the most dangerous periods that a survivor will face. Our police forces, probation services, courts and specialist domestic abuse organisations are already struggling to monitor perpetrators of abuse and breaches of release. Releasing more domestic abuse offenders early will only place even greater pressure on a system that is already failing to cope.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how many domestic abuse offenders the Government expect to be released under the early release scheme. If the Government get this wrong, survivors will pay the price. They and their families may be forced to abandon their homes, their children’s schools, their jobs and their support networks, which will plunge domestic abuse services and refuges into even greater demand. Domestic abuse is one of the most despicable crimes, and those convicted of these offences should not be eligible for early release.

We understand why our prisons are full. Years of neglect and mismanagement under the previous Conservative Government let the court backlog spiral and left victims waiting unacceptably long for justice. However, the answer to tackling the crisis of overcrowding cannot be solved by transferring the risk from prisons directly into the homes and communities of survivors. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. With one in four women having experienced domestic abuse, and with a woman being killed by a man every three days in the UK, greater action is needed to tackle this epidemic.

Last December, the Government published a strategy with the aim of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. This is absolutely a welcome ambition, but that ambition must be matched by practical steps. Paris’s law is exactly the kind of practical step that the target demands. Young people of all ages must be taught what a healthy relationship looks like, what controlling behaviour is and how to report problems at home. Paris told me that she believes that if she had received education like that, much of her trauma could have been avoided. The best way to help protect future women from coercive and controlling relationships is to make sure that they are able to recognise the warning signs early on.

Paris has been brave enough to tell her story and fight for a change in the law. It is now time for action. I urge the Minister to back Paris’s law and make sure that no survivors of coercive control suffer the same injustice that the current gap in our judicial system allows.

16:44

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I also thank Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing forward the petition, and everyone in my constituency and up and down the country who has supported it.

When I was a police officer, I worked in CID and child protection. I know how much we ask of people who report domestic and other types of abuse. Victims and survivors have to talk about deeply personal experiences, provide evidence and answer difficult questions, often all while worrying about what will happen when the person they have reported finds out. That is always a big concern among victims and survivors, and in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour it can be particularly difficult.

A person may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them, that everything is their fault and that no one takes on board what they say. Their abuser might try to bring their children into it and say that they will lose them if they go through the court system. The control affects almost every part of the victim’s daily life, including who they see, how they spend their money, where they go and whether they feel able to make decisions, even for themselves. We should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police.

It takes an average of about seven years—or it used to when I was policing—for someone even to report something, and as we all know, reporting does not necessarily mean that a person feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure from the perpetrator or other members of society to withdraw their statement. They may spend months, or sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence. By the time the trial date arrives, they have already been through a great deal. That is why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. Currently, a defendant can maintain a not guilty plea throughout that period, then change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. For the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It can be difficult for police officers to accept as well.

Victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work or childcare. They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when it happens. A late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases, because they do not have to go through court, but it does not undo what they have been through to get to that stage.

Under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally attracts a one-third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial, and that is subject to exceptions. I understand fully the reasons for that approach. An early guilty plea can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence, reduce delays and free up court time. It is important to remember that even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. That matters, and we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience, but we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom.

We cannot assume that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse. Defendants have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute, but equally we should be prepared to recognise when perpetrators are using proceedings to exert even more pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process.

There is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I am not sure it is always clear that the person sitting in court and listening to the sentence is aware of the implications. Accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important. Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account.

I would like the Minister to address three points. First, will the Government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris’s proposals to remove the reduction when a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors, domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors and the judiciary should all be involved in that work, and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions and whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what that would mean for the people giving evidence. Those are questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition.

Secondly, how will the Government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are identified and dealt with swiftly? When someone is being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressured to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections.

Lastly, will the Minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They deserve the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers that they can understand.

This Government have committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, including males, can be victims. People who experience this abuse must be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward. All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system. We need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.

16:51

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Mundell. My constituency has one of the highest numbers of signatures on today’s petition, showing a clear desire to support Paris Shears’s campaign. I am pleased to be here to show my support and urge the Government to put victims at the heart of every stage of their approach to tackling domestic abuse.

In Cambridgeshire last year, 16% of all recorded crimes were related to domestic abuse. There were 59 arrests per 100 such crimes, and 31 cases of domestic abuse per 10,000 females were deemed high-risk enough to be discussed at multi-agency risk-assessment conferences. Those are deeply concerning statistics. We all want to reduce those figures to zero, so it is alarming that virtually none of them has significantly reduced in Cambridgeshire in the past five years.

Particularly pertinent to today’s debate is the number of high-risk cases that are repeat issues. In Cambridgeshire, 38% of cases are repeatedly discussed at multi-agency risk assessment conferences, compared with 29% nationally. Our area has been consistently above average in this regard for the past five years. It may be that higher repeat referrals reflect agencies getting better at spotting repeat victimisation—I hope that that is part of it—but those figures also suggest that too many of the most serious cases are coming back around and that something in the system is allowing the cycle to continue.

The idea at the centre of the debate—sentence reductions for guilty pleas—is good in theory. There is a huge court backlog, which has worn away public confidence in the criminal justice system and has allowed criminals to get away with their offences. A graduated system of sentence reduction provides little reward to the offender for waiting to change their plea and speeds up proceedings where a guilty verdict may have been reached anyway, but in Paris’s case and in so many others, the unique and insidious nature of domestic abuse means that what should be a way of clearing the case backlog for simple cases has been repurposed by abusers into a tool to maintain control over their victim until the very last minute. We cannot let that continue.

The Sentencing Council’s guideline is clear about why a discount exists: a guilty plea normally reduces the impact of the crime on victims and spares them from having to give evidence. In most cases, that holds—even a late plea spares a victim the witness box—but coercive control is different because the wait itself is part of the harm. Every month for which a perpetrator maintains a not guilty plea is another month in which they shape their victim’s life. A guilty plea on the morning of the trial does not undo that; it is often the final act of control. The guideline’s assumption that a late guilty plea still benefits the victim simply does not fit these cases.

The law already gives courts room to recognise that. Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to consider not only the stage at which a guilty plea was indicated, but the circumstances in which it was given. Will the Minister ask the Sentencing Council to look specifically at how those circumstances are assessed in controlling or coercive behaviour cases and whether tactical delay by a perpetrator should reduce the discount or remove it altogether?

Paris’s campaign speaks to wider concerns about the lack of support in place for victims of domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour, throughout the judicial process. This goes beyond the criminal courts. Several constituents have contacted me about serious problems in, for example, the family courts, where victims are failed by irregularities in the provision of special measures. It was welcome that automatic eligibility for measures such as protective screens and curtains, support persons and private testimony was expanded to domestic abuse victims in 2021, but that counts for little if those measures are not actually in place on the day. In much the same way as we have discussed in relation to a last-minute guilty plea, the continual failure to put appropriate protections in place for victims when they attend court is simply allowing their abuse and emotional distress to continue. Has the Minister considered making special measures standard in courtrooms in order to ensure that no victim will ever be without them, and what does he think to recommending that proceedings be suspended where promised protections have failed to be put in place?

A 2021 report from the Victims’ Commissioner noted huge gaps in our understanding of the demand for and supply of special measures and recommended that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office develop a national protocol for data collection. That protocol has been in place since 2024, and I would appreciate hearing how the data is being used to make improvements in the provision of those measures.

Victims need to be put first at every stage, and in every bit of guidance, through real measures to protect them both in court and outside it. The Government have committed to updating the controlling or coercive behaviour statutory guidance before the end of 2026, and I hope that they will keep that promise, for Paris and the thousands of others who are being and have been failed by the system.

16:57

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the e-petition and, of course, to Paris and her MP, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), who is here to represent her, for the work that they have done to draw this issue to the attention of the House. I am also grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the petition calling for the removal of sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive behaviour cases. This petition, on what is known by many supporters as Paris’s law, reflects a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its ongoing impact on victims; it is not something that comes and goes.

Before I address the petition, I want to pay particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death, by suicide, in August 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor. Her death is a tragedy that has profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community. Although nothing can undo that loss, it is important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints, and he was charged and eventually imprisoned.

I also pay tribute to Hayley’s mother Ruth Yates, who has campaigned tirelessly since Hayley’s untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She has worked relentlessly so that Hayley’s story could be heard, and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley did. She has shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who recently met Ruth and me to discuss the circumstances of Hayley’s case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it.

At its heart, today’s debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. When Parliament created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which was a breakthrough in itself—it had not been recognised in law before—it recognised an important truth: domestic abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional and deeply insidious. It is often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation and manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who experience it of their independence, confidence, sense of self and sense that they can have an impact on what is happening in their own lives.

The petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction when they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. That speaks to the concern set out by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) also spoke about from his experiences as a police officer: victims can spend months or years preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court and to face the perpetrator again, and feeling like they are still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they have been charged with. Sometimes, that causes even more pain and trauma, only for the defendant to change their plea at the end and be given some kind of credit for it.

The reduced sentence, even if it is only reduced by 10%, gives the perpetrator credit for effectively stringing along the person they have victimised. For many victims, that can feel like an extension of the very behaviour that they have sometimes endured for years and for which the justice system is seeking to hold that person to account. The uncertainty, delay and emotional toll can all compound the harm caused by the abuse.

In Hayley’s case, she was subject to a violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and causing other serious injuries. Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later change his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18-month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four-month sentence was added consecutively.

I do not think that many of our constituents understand the way the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively. As a lawyer, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents: what seems natural to somebody who has been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those having to deal with the justice system perhaps for the first time in the most difficult circumstances. Although concurrent sentencing is of course part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone has committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim it is right that we question whether the sentence that runs concurrently adequately reflects the full extent of that violence and the harm it has caused.

There is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation that renders somebody unconscious and death. The trauma faced by people who survive such an experience is long-lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken in the debate, that the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for early guilty pleas—a principle that is a long-established part of our justice system—is that it saves courts time, reduces costs and can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence, which can be an ordeal. Those are important objectives, particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs that have been going on for a number of years, leaving victims waiting longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence. In those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody is guilty.

However, the cases that we are discussing today represent unique challenges. This offence is built around patterns of manipulation and control. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they will have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court. Is that not just another instance of that person controlling the life of the witness or victim?

Many survivors have told us that justice is not solely about the final sentence; it is also about the process and feeling heard, believed and respected. It is about ensuring that the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control the victim feels does not necessarily end when the perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned or no longer in direct contact with them; it certainly did not for Hayley. The fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make and whether they ever feel safe again. Although the debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley’s attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault, through that judicial process she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator, even while he was on remand in prison before he was found guilty.

I want the Minister to consider three specific issues in his reply. Will the Government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt? Will the Government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and the long-lasting repercussions of it for victims? Will the Government give consideration in the victims code and their violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled even when their perpetrator is in prison, and make adequate provision to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people?

The strength of feeling behind the petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong. As we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family and a story. We should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. I hope today’s debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book—it has not always been—but we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.

17:09

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for tabling this debate and I pay tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery, and everybody who supported the petition, whether they live in Crewe and Nantwich or not.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is one of the most difficult forms of abuse to identify, investigate and prosecute. It often leaves no visible injuries, yet its impact on victims can be utterly devastating. It systematically strips away an individual’s confidence, independence and freedom until they feel trapped in a situation that can appear invisible to those around them. I regularly see the devastating effects of coercive control in the cases that come through my office. Victims speak of lives overshadowed by intimidation, harassment, financial abuse and in some cases physical violence.

What strikes me about those cases is that the abuse itself is often only part of the story. Many of the cases we deal with concern the aftermath. We help constituents who need emergency housing because they fled an abusive relationship. We help people struggling with financial independence because their finances were controlled by an abusive partner. We help those dealing with debt, mental health challenges and family breakdown after years of manipulation and psychological abuse.

The effects do not end when the relationship ends. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns raised through the petition. Victims of coercive control often spend months and sometimes years living under the domination of another person. When a defendant initially pleads not guilty, requiring a victim to prepare for trial and relive deeply traumatic experiences, only to change their plea at the last moment, it is understandable that many victims feel the justice system has become another tool by which their abuser continues to exert control over their lives. That prompts the question that lies at the heart of the debate: is the criminal justice system fully recognising the unique nature of coercive control?

By its very definition, coercive control is about power and domination, creating fear, uncertainty and dependence. We therefore need to listen carefully when victims tell us that prolonged court proceedings, uncertainty over pleas and delays in securing justice can feel like an extension of the abuse that they have already experienced.

In my career before entering this place, I worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I am acutely aware of the work that it has done thematically on violence against women and girls, and specifically around coercive and controlling behaviour. It has repeatedly highlighted the need for agencies across the justice system to understand the dynamics of coercive control and violence against women and girls. That understanding must inform not just policing, but prosecution decisions, victim support and sentencing policy.

I welcome the progress made in recent years. Awareness of coercive control has increased significantly. The inclusion of certain offenders in multi-agency public protection arrangements and the Government’s commitment to update guidance are positive developments, but the experiences that constituents continue to bring to our surgeries show that there is still work to do. Whatever view Members take on the specific proposal in the petition, I hope we can all agree on one principle: victims of coercive control deserve a justice system that understands the particular harm that they have suffered, and places their experiences at the heart of decision making. I therefore welcome today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:13

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone who signed the petition and those who had the courage to speak out about their experiences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her clear and eloquent introduction to the debate, and I thank Paris Shears, who created the petition and has been brave in standing up to this crime. I also thank all the victims and their families who have put their trust in me and my team and have come into my office to seek support for cases involving domestic abuse and coercive control.

I want to use my time today to talk about two young women who are no longer here. As the Member for Portsmouth North, I have met and supported the families of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. I have listened to their grief and their determination to ensure that what happened to their loved ones leads to change. Their experience brings me to the central question of this debate: is it right that someone who maintains a not guilty plea and changes it at the last minute can still receive a reduction in their sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour? I believe that that is not right, and that it needs to change.

I understand why the law rewards an early guilty plea—it can spare victims the ordeal of a trial and can allow cases to conclude sooner—but there is a profound difference between accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity and waiting until the eve of the trial before admitting guilt, because we must ask ourselves who pays the price for that delay. It is the victims and their families. They wait; they worry; they prepare themselves to hear painful evidence and face the prospect of a trial. They live with uncertainty about whether they will get even get answers—and they are still being controlled. Sometimes, at the last moment, a defendant changes their plea. The trial may no longer be necessary, but the months of distress are not erased. The victims, and in Chloe and Skye’s cases their friends and family, cannot simply switch off their fear, their exhaustion or their grief.

In a case involving coercive control, we must consider something particularly important: the impact of one person continuing to determine the terms on which others experience the criminal justice process. As we have heard today, coercive control is about power, intimidation and the erosion of another person’s independence. We must be careful not to assume that every late plea is intended to exert control, but we must recognise that the consequence of delay can be victims and bereaved families and friends feeling that control has once again been taken out of their hands. A last-minute guilty plea may save the court time, but it does not give the victim or their family back the time, the peace or the certainty that they have lost.

Current sentencing guidance reduces the maximum credit available if a plea comes later in proceedings, but I question whether that is enough in the case of controlling or coercive behaviour. I ask the Minister to consider whether legislation should prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in these cases, particularly when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea before or throughout a trial, for all the reasons that my colleagues have outlined so eloquently today.

I will explain why this issue matters by speaking about Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. Chloe was just 23 when she died in 2023. She left behind a young son and a family who must live with her absence every single day. Her former partner pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, but was sentenced to just three and a half years in prison. I have met Chloe’s family and they are living with a loss that no sentence can ever put right, yet they have also had to find strength to speak out, to ask difficult questions, and to fight for Chloe’s experiences to be recognised.

Chloe’s case reminds us that coercive control is not one argument or one incident; it is a sustained campaign that undermines confidence, isolates a person and strips away their sense of safety and their identity. I do not suggest that every death by suicide has a single cause, but where there are concerns about the relationship between sustained abuse and a death, those concerns must be examined carefully and the full circumstances properly understood by all involved. Chloe’s family deserve to know that the harm she experienced is not being reduced to a set of isolated incidents or lost behind the mechanics of a criminal process.

I have also met and supported the family and friends of Skye Nicholls. Skye was also 23 when she died in June 2023. Her former partner pleaded guilty to two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour. He was sentenced to two years and three months in prison in November 2025, but his sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal. Reports describe him engaging in verbal abuse, making threats of violence and sending deeply distressing messages, including telling Skye to take her own life.

Behind all those details are young women who should still be here with their family and friends but are not, and the lives of their family and friends have changed forever. Chloe and Skye’s cases are very different and I do not suggest that each case alone settles the question of late guilty pleas, but I have met both families and heard their concerns, and I have seen their determination to ensure that others do not suffer in the same way.

We cannot return Chloe and Skye to their loved ones, but we can refuse to let their families’ concerns go unanswered. The Labour Government have rightly committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and I welcome the ambition and the work to achieve it that has already begun. We have a real opportunity to build on existing protections and to address the shortcomings that remain, including those left very much unresolved after 14 years of a Conservative Government.

That means recognising coercive control early, and ensuring that its cumulative harm is understood by professionals, from the police and social services to the Judicial College, the Sentencing Council, education and healthcare professionals, businesses and workplaces. It also means learning properly from all cases—and in the cases I have talked about, learning about the domestic abuse that has preceded the death—and examining whether our sentencing framework reflects the reality of what victims and their families experience.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government review whether late guilty pleas in controlling or coercive behaviour cases should attract any sentence reduction when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea until very shortly before the trial? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the distress caused by prolonged proceedings is properly considered, particularly for bereaved families and victims who are still alive, as they are still being controlled? Thirdly, will the Minister work with families and specialist organisations to ensure that lessons from domestic abuse-related deaths lead to practical changes in the way that abuse is recognised and addressed in our society?

There is a principle at stake here. The justice system must be fair. It must recognise that victims and their families are people and not participants in a process to be completed as efficiently as possible. An early guilty plea can spare additional suffering. A late guilty plea cannot undo the suffering that has already been endured. We must not confuse saving court time with delivering justice.

Chloe’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Skye’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Every family and victim living with the consequences of coercive control deserves a system that understands the harm, recognises their experience and treats their concerns with the seriousness they warrant. I urge the Government to look carefully at reforming sentence reductions for late guilty pleas, because when someone has already experienced the devastating consequences of coercive control, the criminal justice system must not leave those left behind feeling that they have once again been denied a voice, certainty or control.

17:21

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a momentous pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this vital petition. Like everyone else, I sincerely thank Paris Shears for her extraordinary bravery in turning her harrowing experience into an opportunity for positive change, helping to ensure that no other victim goes through her experience.

Like many others, I always hope to see the best in people. I want to believe that our prison system can deliver meaningful rehabilitation and help to break cycles of offending, but rehabilitation can never come at the expense of victim safety. On this issue, I fear that we are giving offenders, who have already shown themselves to be manipulative and callous towards those they profess to love, additional opportunities to continue facilitating abuse and exerting control, even when arrests have been made and court proceedings are under way.

How can it be right that a perpetrator is able to weaponise our justice system, drag victims back through repeated hearings, waste precious court time and inflict further trauma, only to be rewarded with a reduced sentence? That does not strengthen confidence in the justice system; it undermines it, makes it a mockery of justice and validates the concerns of many survivors who already feel that the system works better for perpetrators than those they have harmed.

On the Isle of Wight, we are fortunate enough to have an exceptional women’s refuge via Paragon. Despite operating with limited resources and facilities, they are providing valuable support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have told me directly about the devastating impact that these sentencing decisions can have on victims, many of whom feel let down by a system that is supposed to protect them. One survivor said:

“It takes an enormous amount of personal courage, extensive evidence gathering, and significant public resource just to get a coercive control case into court. To fight through all of that, only to see the perpetrator receive a discounted sentence, completely minimises those efforts and feels like an insult to the survivors who fought so hard to be heard.

Coercive control is rarely an isolated incident, it is an insidious, cumulative pattern of abuse that dismantles someone’s life over years. In my view, the psychological and emotional harm stays with a survivor for life. Giving a sentence reduction treats it like a minor transactional offence traded away for court efficiency, rather than acknowledging the lifelong damage left behind.”

That fear is only heightened on the Isle of Wight, where our geographical containment brings serious safety risk. Short custodial sentences mean that perpetrators are back out into the immediate community far too soon, leaving victims constantly terrified of bumping into them. They also drastically compress the time available to put essential post-release safety plans—housing arrangements or non-molestation orders or injunctions—into place.

I acknowledge the important steps this Government have already taken to put victims at the heart of our justice system, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. Removal of the presumption of parental involvement, and the introduction of the pathfinder court on the island, are significant reforms that will make a real difference to many families. But, as always, it is the solemn responsibility of our Labour Government to be ambitious and precise about what more we can do.

If we are serious about placing victims at the centre of decision making, we must listen when they tell us that the current approach to late guilty pleas is not working. Too many victims see perpetrators delay proceedings, prolong their trauma and then benefit from a reduced sentence at the very last moment. We owe it to victims, survivors and those at risk to make this change.

17:25

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I congratulate Paris Shears especially, and all those who signed the petition. It is very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. It takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try to effect change. I am profoundly impressed by those who use their trauma to try to make the world a better place for those who come after them so that they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have. I am very grateful to Paris for all that she has done, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her support for Paris. Paris’s story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign the petition and share their own experiences.

The topic of today’s debate is vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime. As has been said by many Members across the House, it is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards. Victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger because of the very nature of the coercion and control, which cuts these people off from their lives, from accessing health services and from even being able to leave their homes. In these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed and the abuse and trauma continues.

It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve, but too often the justice system has failed to do that. In cases where the abuse is identified—when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts—victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, including delays to trial and a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse. That culture continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives. It is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and cannot bear the thought of going through a trial.

The situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of those flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing their abusers benefit from the system. They see their abuser’s sentence being reduced while simultaneously having to go through re-traumatisation. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.

Sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long-standing practice, and their importance within our criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They help to avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they do not want or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting that incentive to harm their victims again.

In their response to the petition, the Government stated that they are “committed to updating” the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to that timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review. As part of that review, will the Minister commit to considering a mechanism that has come to mind during this debate, which is one that could look at a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see whether a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? A reduction could be included at that point, but not on the morning of a trial. It should be made very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to make it 30 days in advance.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I thank those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition. In addition to the review of sentencing guidelines for which my hon. Friend has advocated, and which I very much support, does she agree that, in respect of Paris’s law, which I also support, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes, so that individuals are targeted and coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at its root as much as possible?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reflect that, as part of the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. The Liberal Democrats also believe that the Government should review, as part of the update, how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that perpetrators cannot use legal proceedings maliciously to continue their abuse.

Beyond that, the Government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. The Liberal Democrats tabled multiple amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aimed to improve the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues in the courts in general. One of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and all court staff to receive trauma-informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court. On multiple occasions, the Government have argued that such mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the Government’s plans for rape and serious sexual offence courts. I struggle to understand how they can commit to having trauma-informed members of the judiciary for RASSO courts but not across the entire court estate.

At the heart of this issue are the delays. The Crown court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The Government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of the failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we have seen in recent months. Real change can be achieved through targeted listing, the better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming prisoner escort contracts.

We believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, and that they too often fail to recognise domestic abuse, despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. We must provide sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, and expand the provision of high-quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse. We want to establish specialist VAWG taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said in his excellent speech, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures, because so often, and especially for those who do not have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is available to them when it comes to special measures. If they were a standard principle across all courtrooms and a victim could then say, “No, actually, I don’t want the special measures. I want to be able to face the accused in court,” that would be very different from their getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for them.

If we can take one thing from this debate, it is that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. We must listen to those who have spoken up in support of the petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed, so that other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.

17:34

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I join everyone who has spoken so far in paying particular tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery. She started the petition, which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures.

In my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I have had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning they do. It forces people to relive their experiences and to talk about them in a way that can be deeply traumatic. I am deeply grateful to everybody who does that, Paris included. In telling us her story, in which her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute, she described how she felt “silenced again”. She said that

“it meant he controlled the narrative again”.

It took more than 530 days for Paris’s case to reach trial. That is 530 days of sitting, waiting, reliving, expecting and worrying, just to find at the very last minute that he takes back control by changing his plea and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence.

It is worth highlighting, as others have done, how the system works. A defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long-standing, and the reason often given is one of cost and logistics, but the other reason, which is particularly important to me, is that it potentially spares victims and witnesses having to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have met victims who have found that process very distressing.

The detail of exactly how the reduction process works is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and the courts are required to follow its guidelines, under which the maximum reduction is a third. Unusually for me, I congratulate the Government on at least ignoring the plea in the Leveson review to increase the discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice.

After the initial reduction of a third, the discount is a quarter, falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth for a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally be reduced even further, and can even be zero. The court also has to explain whether it has applied a reduction and by how much. It is fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea causes additional distress, and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. As I read it, Paris’s law, for which the petition asks, would mean that someone charged with controlling or coercive behaviour who pleads not guilty and then changes their plea receives no reduction in any circumstances.

I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons why I wanted to become an MP was that I felt that our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for all sorts of offences. Morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever. However, the Government’s response to the petition makes the important point that even when an offender pleads guilty very late, that can still spare a victim from having to give potentially traumatic evidence. If a is victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that should be worth something.

As Paris’s campaign has pointed out, there is a real risk, in these particular types of case, of creating an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of ultimately pleading guilty to drag the process out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, and as others have said, that can also happen as part of an attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence. Both those reasons should cause us to pause when considering discounts.

I gave this matter a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it is a question of how we weigh up two potential public goods, and something done in the interest of victims. Ultimately, how do we decide on the level of distress, discomfort and worse for people who have to wait and then see a discount with a last-minute plea, versus another group of victims who will perhaps benefit from the fact that they have not had to endure a trial? It is not easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. It has certainly given us all a lot to think about, in relation not just to the specific cause the petitioner has brought to our attention but to the general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls.

As other Members have mentioned, we know that every week women are killed—murdered by men—and we still have an epidemic of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. It is helpful to consider how the position has changed over time. The previous Government made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act 2015. They also passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which wrote coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, new guidance was brought forward to protect people who do not live with their abuser from threats and intimidation. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 then introduced the powers that this Government have now used so that offenders who are convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are used to monitor someone’s risk to other people when they are not in prison.

I welcome the Government’s use of those powers, but there is clearly more to do. There are several issues that it is important to consider, even if we do not all agree that the proposal in the petition is quite ready to be supported universally. What are the Government seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas through other mechanisms? I have frequently heard that allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice, whereby someone can make it clear to them face to face that their chances of getting away with an offence are pretty slim, can encourage earlier guilty pleas. The Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings; I visited Liverpool Crown court, which instituted further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements in respect of early guilty pleas.

I am sure I am right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris’s case had got the full sentence, Paris, like many victims, would still not have been satisfied that it was anywhere near long enough, given the impact of these crimes on women. That is what I have drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board, which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to the Government’s reduction in jail time for a sweeping range of offenders. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will now serve just a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. It was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that a whole range of rapists, paedophiles and terrible abusers of women and girls will not be released after a third of their sentence instead of two fifths. Is the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour excluded alongside the exclusions that we managed to secure from the Government for rape and other offences?

One of the reasons the Gauke review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is that it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see or whether they think sentences are sufficiently just. My former Justice Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), talked about concurrent sentences; they are the norm in our judicial system, yet I do not think I have ever met a victim who thinks they makes sense in the vast majority of circumstances. Some people are convicted for hundreds of offences, but even though sentences are ramped up when someone has that many convictions, they are still nothing like what they should be if they were not served concurrently.

We are committed to recognising that we did not do enough in government to ensure sufficient prison capacity so that we can actually engage with these issues. We want to undo all the damaging shortening of sentences we have seen under this Government and go further. On discounts, there might be better acceptance of them if victims at least felt that the ultimate sentences, even with a discount, were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience they do not at the moment.

Even if we are not quite there on this issue, as Paris says on her website,

“Paris’s Law was never about one petition, one debate or one event. It’s about creating lasting change.”

There are many ways in which we can do that across the board when it comes to the abuse of women in all its forms.

17:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate.

I echo colleagues from across the House in thanking Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing this issue to our attention and for raising it publicly. Like the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), I have the great privilege of meeting lots of victims as part of my job. It is a difficult part of my job, but one that I enjoy. It is humbling to see people who have suffered a lot give up even more to try to change the world for others. Paris is another such person, and I hope that this debate will help to promote her views and that we can take this issue further in the weeks ahead.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is an insidious—that word was used a lot in the debate—form of domestic abuse. It can take many forms, including isolation from friends and family, depriving victims of their basic needs, and enforcing rules to humiliate, degrade or even dehumanise and control all aspects of day-to-day life. Too many people in our country, mainly women, experience this sort of abuse. As Members will be aware, the Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. Our VAWG strategy sets out what we are doing to reform the police response, strengthen the criminal justice system and empower victims with specialist support.

I want to address some of the points made in this very constructive debate. I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, about victims coming forward and putting their head above the parapet, which is incredibly humbling. I also agree with him—we agreed on an awful lot in this debate—about the need for constructive early advice for defendants to encourage early pleas where appropriate.

I think the shadow Minister put it well when he said that it is a really difficult balancing act, and there is no easy answer to the central issue that we are debating today. It is about trying to encourage guilty defendants to plead guilty, but doing so in a way that respects victims and puts them at the heart of the system. That is a really difficult balancing act that the justice system has to grapple with, and that we as a Government and as parliamentarians have to grapple with. As I will come on to say, it is even more difficult because of the nature of this particular offence, which so many Members highlighted in the debate.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is right about trying to create mechanisms within criminal proceedings by which a defendant might plead earlier and re-engage with their prospects. Of course, she will be aware that there are already two formal opportunities to do so, and at any point in the process a defendant can, through correspondence, intimate that they are changing their plea. We need to consider how we can encourage that as part of the process more generally. The statutory guidance on this particular offence is being led by the Home Office, but I checked in preparation for the debate and can confirm that it will be published early next year.

I understand the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson about court staff training, but I think that that issue has been debated; I am very wary that this debate has touched on lots of other pieces of legislation that we have already debated extensively. That is essentially an issue of proportionality, and what we are trying to do through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which has now gone to the other place, is not only to quicken the court process but to ensure that it is done fairly. Again, like the central issue that we are debating today, that is a balancing act between efficiency, productivity and ensuring that victims are at the heart. Efficiency and productivity are not for their own sake; they are for the victims’ sake. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson appreciates that, and she made important points.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) is doing what she should do, and clearly does, as a good constituency MP by raising the case of her constituent. She did so powerfully, and I thank her for that.

[Dr Mullan]

It seems that the Minister has moved on from responding to my questions, one of which was whether coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded from the early release programme.

[Jake Richards]

I have made it abundantly clear that I will not relitigate the Sentencing Act.

[Dr Mullan]

It is a basic question.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister should not intervene from a sedentary position.

[Jake Richards]

We debated that legislation as it passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Indeed, I was in the main Chamber last week when we had an urgent question on that issue, and the Lord Chancellor was there in September. We will no doubt debate the issue again, but it is not what we are debating today, and I do not intend to respond to that question.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

No, I will not give way.

As I have already touched on, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and others made the point that early guilty pleas and discounts must be considered very carefully in the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. It is a unique offence, although of course there are lots of other offences that involve issues of control and power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) powerfully highlighted. I can commit that the Government will look at these measures in the context of this particular offence.

Going back to the central balancing act that I have already touched on, we are not currently persuaded that the evidence suggests that victims would be best served by a scrapping of discounts just for this particular offence. Indeed, there is no other criminal offence for which that is the case, and at the moment—I say “at the moment” because this is an ongoing conversation—we are not persuaded that that is something we can do. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean also asked whether I would meet Paris. If she would like to meet me or the Victims Minister, we will of course meet her at the earliest opportunity.

Let me go back to the early guilty plea. Sir Brian Leveson did the modelling when he looked at this and encouraged us to offer further discounts, as the shadow Minister said. The evidence from his modelling said that it would encourage more people to plead guilty. We did not accept that recommendation, but it suggests to me that these discounts, however unsatisfactory or even unsavoury they are, do make the criminal justice system more expeditious, which ultimately serves victims as well.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) raised the case of her constituent Hayley, which was very powerful and moving, and asked about non-fatal strangulation and sentencing. I meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council and will raise that issue formally in my next meeting with her. My right hon. Friend also spoke about the victims code, and I will ensure that the Victims Minister gets a transcript of her speech. My right hon. Friend will no doubt speak with her as well—I know that she has already met with her—but I will make sure that it is very much on the Minister’s agenda.

I agree about the confusion, or perhaps the lack of knowledge, about concurrent and consecutive sentencing. We all have a job to ensure that the criminal justice system can explain that to victims during the criminal justice process. Judges and Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors have an explanatory role, to ensure that everyone knows what they are dealing with when they leave the courtroom, because they often do not. There is more we can do in terms of an education setting, for want of a better phrase.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) raised a number of points, and I will try to deal with some of them. The interrelation of the family courts was raised consistently by other Members and is something that we are very alive to. I hope that we will publish the family justice strategy later this year, and I assure the hon. Member that dealing with some of these issues will be right at the heart of how we look at the whole family justice system. He and other Members are right that too often men—it is mainly men—are able to use the family courts to further compound misery and harm on women. It is not good enough, and I experienced it myself when I was a barrister in the family courts. I saw it with my own eyes, and we are going to try to change it.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also mentioned special measures. I am reluctant—simply because it is not my brief—to go into it too much. I am aware that we want to retain some court discretion. I am not suggesting that his proposal would not do that, but I am reluctant to comment much further, because it is not my area, to be blunt. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears what was said by the hon. Member and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester.

On the point that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made about the data protocol since 2024, I will go away and make sure that he gets a written answer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) raised really powerful stories about what has happened in his constituency. He mentioned some of the things the Government have done; I would add restriction zones, which can be really powerful for ensuring that if offenders are released from prison, there can be better protections for victims of domestic abuse. They are quite innovative in flipping the burden on to the offender rather than victim, so the victim can go on with their life and not have to worry about bumping into the offender, which is clearly a more acute issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency than others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) raised the cases of Chloe and Skye, which are very moving. Her questions to me and the Government were essentially about whether we are ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are at the heart of our reforms to the criminal justice system. Last week, the Courts and Tribunals Bill was before the House of Commons, and the gist of that legislation is to try to get the backlog down. Until we do that, all these issues are exaggerated for victims, so that is what the Government are trying to do. My hon. Friend will be reassured that the Victims Minister is playing a really important role in making sure that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system and all the reforms we are making.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has his own experience of the particular harms of this offence, and we have to consider them very carefully in terms of the early guilty plea. I will go away and do so.

I want to set out some of the things that we are doing to support victims. There is, of course, a technical argument in this debate about early guilty pleas and any discounts that might flow from that, but the heart of this issue is how we treat victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse and this insidious form of it. I understand that some victims and some of those who signed the petition will perhaps be disappointed with my central response to their ask, but we are, in my mind, taking huge steps to support victims and make sure that they are properly supported and protected throughout the justice system.

We are providing funding for a range of national and local services offering support to victims. Earlier this year, we committed £550 million to victim and witness support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in support for victims that we have ever seen in this country, which I am particularly proud of. That will go into offering specialist services around emotional, practical and therapeutic support, including counselling and advice around going to court. Too many times, I meet victims who simply have no support when they go to court; it is actually shocking. We are investing to make sure that we have that support in and around court for victims much more consistently and as less of a lottery.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that victims and their families have access to the information and support that they need. That is vital in helping them to navigate the criminal justice system. It is why the victims code is so important: it sets out what victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England and Wales. Earlier this year, we consulted on a new code to make those rights clearer and ensure that they are delivered more consistently. We also strengthened the accountability for those rights so that failures can be identified and addressed, rather than leaving victims without the support they should receive.

Of course, we must do everything we can to protect victims from further harm. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that the police have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of violence against women and girls. In February 2025, the Home Office announced £13 million in funding to launch a new national centre for VAWG and public protection, which is designed to improve how police respond to violence against women and girls, including controlling or coercive behaviour, strengthen officers’ understanding of these crimes and help to ensure that victims receive consistent protection.

From February last year, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer have been automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were mentioned in the debate. That requires co-operative working between the police and the probation and prison services to make sure that the risks posed by the most serious offenders are properly managed and that appropriate safeguards are put in place. That change recognises the significant harm that this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling or coercive behaviour on a par with other forms of domestic abuse. These arrangements are about preventing further abuse, protecting victims and ultimately saving lives.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing this important issue to the House, and I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, which was constructive and grappled with a difficult issue that has no easy answer. The Government’s position on guilty plea reductions will not be what some are hoping for, but I want to reassure victims that their experiences matter and that this debate has given them prominence in the Government’s consideration of these issues going forward. Ultimately, nobody should have to endure controlling or coercive behaviour, and those who do deserve not only justice, but the right protection and support throughout the justice system and beyond.

17:57

[Irene Campbell]

I thank everyone who took part in today’s debate for their input into such an important issue, and I thank the Minister for his response. Sadly, it is impossible to end all violence against women and girls, although we all wish we could. Instead, we have to do all we can as politicians to raise awareness and never stop tackling this issue, whether through national and local campaigns or through different policy changes and strategies.

As I mentioned, in preparing for this debate I met with the petition’s creator Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery. I thank Paris once again for starting the petition, sharing her story and making this debate possible. I also thank the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Kama Melly KC of the Criminal Bar Association and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for meeting me in preparation for this debate. Finally, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organising and facilitating these debates. It is much appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases.

17:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 19th October 2026 Written Statements

Monday 19 October 2026

SS Richard Montgomery Mast Removal Project

Monday 19th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I wish to inform the House that the SS Richard Montgomery mast removal project has now been completed: all three masts have been successfully removed and delivered to The Historic Dockyard Chatham. The wreck is a second world war cargo ship that sank in the Thames estuary in 1944 while carrying an estimated 1,400 tonnes of munitions cargo.

The removal of the three masts was recommended by an expert advisory group formed to consider the management of the wreck. As the vessel aged, the masts continued to place significant load on the structure. Their removal has reduced that risk and supports the long-term safe management of the site.

This was a complex project requiring specialist programme, engineering and risk management expertise to address a unique risk and a challenging site. None the less, the project was completed ahead of schedule and below forecast costs. This was achieved through the close collaboration of the Department for Transport, the United States Maritime Administration, industry and local partners. I would like to place on record my thanks to all those whose expertise and professionalism contributed to the project’s successful delivery.

In recognition of the historic significance of the SS Richard Montgomery and its role in supporting the allied forces’ efforts during the second world war, the recovered masts and associated artefacts have been transferred to The Historic Dockyard Chatham for conservation and preservation. This will help to ensure that an important part of the region’s heritage is protected for future generations.

The wreck will continue to be subject to continuous monitoring and control via the established exclusion zone. Existing restrictions on flying in the vicinity of the site also remain in force.

The Government remain committed to the safe and responsible management of the SS Richard Montgomery, with public safety remaining our highest priority.

[HCWS390]