Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.)

--- Later in debate ---

21:24

Division 91

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 169

Noes: 327

--- Later in debate ---

22:09

Division 92

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 108

Noes: 327

Clause 8 disagreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

22:31

Division 93

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 175

Noes: 319

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

22:46

Division 94

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 166

Noes: 328

Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

23:04

Division 95

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 167

Noes: 327