Commons Chamber

Tuesday 20th October 2026

(began 8 hours, 2 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
None Portrait Q13. What steps her Department is taking to improve NHS maternity services in Devon. (901593)
-

Ian Roome thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Secretary of State. >> For her answer to my colleague? >> Sarah Stokes? >> I know he's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know he's. just. I. determined.
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
None Portrait Q15. What estimate she has made of the cost to the public purse of the NHS reorganisation proposed in the Health Bill. (901596)
-

To top it all, Tim Farron. >> Hey. >> Mr. Speaker. The Covid-19
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:50
Richard Holden Portrait Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
-
>> Indeed, Mr. speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriage, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives and the Social security system. Mr. speaker, I have brought this bill to the House today to correct an extraordinary fault within our welfare system. Something so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need to bring legislation forward to address it here. We do not yet know what the government wishes to do in this area, but I hope that down the line, if this passes today, that they will not oppose my bill on Friday the 13th of November.













































































































































Mr. speaker, we should begin with a simple question what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principle of contribution, of responsibility, of security. When hard times come, you pay into a system, you help sustain it and it will be there for you when you need it. And alongside that, you also know that help is there for those most in need. For those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system which all sides of this House could agree to. Contributory and compassionate. But how far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system?































































































































Can members opposite or anywhere in the House point to somewhere in Beveridge, where he is envisaged a man's third or fourth wife being supported? Where? Where? Where is any of that? When Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that some members take a different view on Beveridge. They've never seen a benefit of any kind to anyone that they don't want to see preserved at any cost, a system which they are unable or incapable, unwilling to say no. Whenever that moment arrives to top up a Budget or to dish out another hand-out.



















































































































They're there. But I hope that this bill in those members will stir a new feeling, and the blinkers will fall from their eyes, and that they will see a system which gives special treatment for men with multiple wives, and potentially for incestuous marriages, too. Is that the point where their inner conservatism breaks out? For today, we're talking about the provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages that make allowance for additional spouses a second wife, a third wife, and onwards we're talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer of Social Security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages illegal in here in the UK.







































































































And then we took around the welfare payments to them with free abandon. Mr. speaker, taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth are we doing? And that brings me to my second point, because it is about polygamy, but it's also about overseas marriages between close relatives as well. Following my written parliamentary questions, which Ministers I know appreciate dearly, we received an extraordinary answer. An uncle and his niece, an aunt and her nephew. What did the Minister say about recognising such overseas marriages illegal in the UK in our welfare Budget? Unlikely. Unlikely. Well, frankly, unlikely isn't good enough.



























































































 Especially when Ministers can also not give me an answer as to how many polygamous marriages are currently being supported by our welfare system, or how many incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system. The standards issue are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a criminal statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604. More than four centuries ago, marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriages Act of 1835 nearly two centuries ago, and our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews.













































































When Parliament has rightly drawn these boundaries. Surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them. That is why I have brought this bill to the House today, backed by the Leader of the Opposition, backed by the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot be recognised and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes. But, Mr. Speaker, how do we get here when these marriages are already illegal in our country? How do we ensure that we were recognising them if they were conducted overseas?

































































This develops through our common law rules and decisions made by courts. Probably well-meaning, but like in so many areas, completely inimicable to a cohesive society and to a coherent polity, and an anathema to the values of our country. But the beautiful thing about our country, Mr. Speaker, our Parliament, is that we are sovereign here in this place. We can legislate, Parliament can revoke, can remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong, and Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our system recognises and that is the signal that this House should send today, clearly, explicitly in the law of this country.



















































Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support themselves or on the other side, who are being squeezed and squeezed more by higher taxes. People who work long hours see their bills rise, trying to support their families. Why should my constituents not be more deserving of our attention? Instead, when we're bundling cash first class to men with multiple wives to overseas uncle niece marriages? Let's take a sensible step to address this issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, rooted in compassion and contribution, rooted in the values of our country.









































 Not there to pay for cultural practices which are illegal in our country. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives. I believe that Parliament should put that beyond doubt, and I hope that this House supports this Bill today and that the government doesn't doesn't back away from it and backs us for a Second Reading on Friday the 13th of November.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The question is that the right hon. Member have leave to bring in hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. The question is that the right hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion say, I. The contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the bill? Mrs. Kemi Badenoch Helen Whately

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mrs. Kemi Badenoch Helen Whately Claire Coutinho. Laura Trott Tom Tugendhat Katie Lam. Dame Rebecca Harris Joy Morrissey Andrew Griffith. Nick Timothy Neil O'Brien and myself, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Social Social security. Social security. Marriage Social security. Marriage bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Social security. Marriage bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday the 13th of November.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 13th of November. Thank you. Right. I will now hand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over. Thank you. The clerk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The clerk. Will now. Proceed to read the orders of the day. Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. Now. Order! Under the order. Of the House, the 19th of October. We shall now move to the October. We shall now move to the October. We shall now move to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee of the whole House. Order! Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I remind members that in committee members should not address the chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names, Miss Gani, or
12:58
12:59
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Part eight covers further provision, including the lifting of the Legacy including the lifting of the Legacy Act's prohibition of investigations by the police of other troubles related offences, including sexual offences. Ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place. It also covers the provisions regarding Interim Custody Orders. First, Madam Mark Garnier inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by Honourable and right hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests, but the Legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on the 1st of May 2024.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































At that time we committed in opposition to restoring some of them because we knew the hurt and anxiety this caused many families, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. As we said then, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims. They felt the 1st of May marked a door being shut in their faces, particularly those that had been involved in inquests. The truth is, many families have received answers through inquests and only through and only through inquests. And I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Leeds South, when he said yesterday that he'd been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































That is why the Bill strikes a balance about how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off mid-way on the 1st of May 2024. We believe that families deserve to have that process continue, and we have said so from the outset. For those inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they are best handled by the Legacy Commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the Commission for cases that will involve sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the Commission to take such material into account in producing reports.

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































This is covered directly in clause 84. Madam chair, there are understandable concerns about how we ensure veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence and to ensure the operational context in which they served is fully recognised. Let me repeat these also apply to inquests and not just to the Legacy Commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Let me turn to the matter of when this comes to an end, something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington tabled amendment 50 to remove clause 85. I agree with him. So I have added my name and it is now a government amendment. It means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the Commission comes to an end. In practice it means that we will simply vote. That clause 85 should not stand part of the bill when we get to that moment.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I believe this will provide a clear end to troubles related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to him for tabling the amendment and for his gratitude. When I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name. I also make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests. Full stop. Punto final Mark Garnier. As several members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work. As was demonstrated by the Legacy Act, Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the ICRIR, has repeatedly made clear to me, to my predecessor and to the public that cooperation by the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the Commission's ability to find answers for families.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework and why we are committed to implementing it. Let's be clear about what this means. Mark Garnier records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers as to how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point to me that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. But we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information which is vital to this process. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pertinent. When it comes to consideration of the Omagh bombings, of course. of the Omagh bombings, of course. What indication has he had from the Irish government that they're going Irish government that they're going to be withdrawing their interstate case against the United Kingdom, based on the ECHR given the based on the ECHR given the material that we're discussing today, because it seems to me that they're very reluctant to act at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all. Sir Chris Bryant well, he makes a very good point. I certainly by the time we finished this bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with their interstate case at all. And I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in Dillon, but also that the legislation that we're advancing today is fully human rights compliant, and that therefore there is no argument for them maintaining their interstate case.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stafford giving away just on the issue, he says he very much hopes that the Dublin government would that the Dublin government would then move at the conclusion of today. Has he had a conversation today. Has he had a conversation with them, and had they give the assurance that that is what they intend to do?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intend to do? Yes. To the first part I. As I just said, I very robustly said this to Jim O'Callaghan and to this to Jim O'Callaghan and to Helen McEntee. I've said that on several occasions, and they. They have kept their counsel for the moment, but I'm very hopeful that by the time this gets to the House of Lords it will be. It would seem to me inconceivable that there would be an argument for them maintaining their interstate case, and therefore I hope that they would be withdrawing it. I'm being as clear as I can with the with the hon.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Gentleman, and as he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it's good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have powersharing in Northern Ireland and I shouldn't be running Northern Ireland. I'm very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I think Secretary of State, and I think it's important that he has reiterated the point that the Commission will have the ability to Commission will have the ability to take information from the Irish government. But does it not put into stark contrast without into stark contrast without revisiting the debates of yesterday? That information has been available That information has been available for the last 28 years. It only was revealed last week, and there'll be many other instances of information that could beneficially have been considered and led to a change.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Is he at all concerned that the history we repeat time and time and time again with the Irish government are not forthcoming, they are not fulsome, and they withhold information should be a cause for concern for this House and how we deal with the legacy of the past.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he makes a decent point. And then the question is simply how one addresses that and makes sure that one does get the future that one does get the future cooperation that has been promised and has been committed to from the Irish government. And I'm more Irish government. And I'm more hopeful, I guess, than he is. And he may say that that's because he's got more scars on his back than I got more scars on his back than I have in relation to this. But I think if between the two of us, his scepticism and my hope, and we scepticism and my hope, and we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes in relation to Omagh bombing, we had a bit.

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































It's inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the conversations today that we sort of had yesterday a bit, because we members referred understandably to issues that were actually voting on today. But I would just say to him that my understanding of the the terms of reference in relation to the inquiry, I mean, we we slightly disagree on this matter, but but but I think it would be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. But more importantly, as I said yesterday, I think it's really important that that the fullest possible cooperation is shown and where the chief counsel has already said that they're not happy with that cooperation, then I think it's incumbent on the Irish government and to step up to the plate.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Well, yes, though this is all on one sentence, but and it's his second go, but I'll. Important. I'm sure the. Secretary of State appreciates how important because it does touch upon the events of late 1998. And there'll be people out there watching the process of this bill wondering why they are excluded from it. In effect. Now, the suspicion will be that that may very well be with the Bill as drafted, to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, since the material that's been referred to would then come in scope, were we to extend this perfectly reasonable reasonably to the end of 1998, rather than confine it to the events prior to April 1998 and yesterday, if I may say the Secretary of State gave no compelling reason why the amendments that were tabled to that effect would not be accepted by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Well, Mr. Carney, you'll be aware that this is a debate that we not only this is a debate that we not only had yesterday, but we actually voted on last night as well. But I want to, first of all, make it absolutely clear that nobody absolutely clear that nobody drafted the bill with with that particular with the date of the Good Friday Agreement in it. And so Good Friday Agreement in it. And so as to, in some sense placate the Irish government. That was not the Irish government. That was not the consideration at all.





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































And I would simply note that it's the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the government that he served in. So I if he doesn't mind, I would gently suggest that that's a better date to land on than than another arbitrary date. Well, all right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good grace. Is the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his government reached with the Dublin government, reached with the Dublin government, that they would settle on April 28th rather than any later date.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th rather than any later date. And isn't that what he's holding to for that very reason? He must stop calling me Grace

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He must stop calling me Grace Mark Garnier. No, it's honestly, I know that there's a variety of different kind of conspiracy theories flying around here now. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday Agreement because it's a pretty solid date to land on. Frankly, it's as simple as that. And I don't think people need to to search for for any other. I understand we already had this vote and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date. Let me just continue, Miss Carney, under the joint framework, the Irish Government is committed to bringing forward its own legislation to ensure the fullest possible cooperation of the Irish authorities with the Reformed Commission, as, of course, is required under their Constitution.







































































































































































































































































































































































































































In the summer they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep. I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish government abides by their commitments. That is why I have tabled amendment 251, which will require the government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish governments have taken, in pursuance of the commitments in the joint Framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. This reflects the intent behind amendment 46, which was tabled by the hon.





























































































































































































































































































































































































































Member for Brentwood and Ongar, and therefore I hope that he will be supporting this as well. This should reassure members of the House that the key provisions of the bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government is honouring its commitments. This will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the Commission. More importantly, though, I have spoken directly, as I said yesterday to both Jim O'Callaghan and Helen McEntee and both have assured me and have stated publicly, that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.















































































































































































































































































































































































































However, I do just gently want to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish government or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language in this, to be absolutely clear. Miss Carney, the Irish government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Irish government to secure answers for families. That, of course. I thank the Secretary of State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Would he agree with me that actually, despite what others in this chamber might think others in this chamber might think at the moment, it is vital that both the British and Irish governments work together. And governments work together. And indeed, if there are issues around disclosure or onward passage of facts that actually, if we don't have that arrangement in place, then that will never be flushed out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to all the work that the hon. Lady has done in this field. I think it's really field. I think it's really important that people understand how significant the potential of close cooperation in this field is close cooperation in this field is in terms of getting answers for people in particular, for people people in particular, for people whose concerns may be about what happened from the South, came up into and came up into the North. into and came up into the North. One of the issues I've raised directly, I know a couple of members have raised this with me is is around gelignite before Semtex and how it seems that we in Northern Ireland were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe.













































































































































































































































































































































































 But there was one quarry in the Republic which managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite. These are the kind of issues that we really do need to progress, because if we're going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, it won't just be what happened in Northern Ireland. That is the clue. It will be what happened across the piece, and that's why it's so important. I also, because I'm a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. So I think cooperation is the best way to proceed.

































































































































































































































































































































































I think the hon. Gentleman is on manoeuvres,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he said. Thank you very much. Just on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Just on that point. Clause 725 actually says that the ICIR must not do anything which would risk anything which would risk prejudicing or would prejudice the national security interests of the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland. Can I ask the Secretary of State who's going to make that assessment, if going to make that assessment, if something that the ICIR is looking at will actually risk the national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security of the Republic of Ireland? Thank you. It's a very good question. To which I don't have the answer. So which I don't have the answer. So with any luck, I'll be inspired by the time he gets to to his feet and he catches your eye, Miss Mark he catches your eye, Miss Mark Garnier, and I'll come back to him. I have a horrible fear that this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now set my. My old sparring partner of. To the. Point, the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, the Secretary of State. When he looks at that, will he also look at those elements written into the Irish Constitution, particularly with respect to the operation of the Garda in their duty to. To protect the reputation of the Irish state, because that will also cripple any attempt to expose information. Well, he makes a very good point, which is that sometimes the Irish Constitution has actually made it far more difficult for them to be able to cooperate, and that's why they've had to legislate in some of these areas in a way that we wouldn't have to in the United Kingdom.





































































































































































































































































































































And that's why I think that the the the agreement that was secured by my right hon. Friend is so important. And why the legislation that they're advancing answers in terms directly in terms many of these precise issues, I know that they they're not lost on Ministers in Dublin. And these are the kind of issues that we do need to address, miss Carney, we have always been committed to repealing those parts of the Legacy Act, which were incompatible with our human rights obligations and which we felt were morally wrong, as they risked providing equal immunity to terrorists and denying UK citizens their historic right to seek civil redress in the interests of providing swift and early clarity.























































































































































































































































































































 We had proposed to do this via the remedial order. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose chair was with us yesterday amongst others, argued that putting these measures in the Bill would allow greater scrutiny without undue delay. Consequently, government new clause 52, alongside amendments 2442452, six eight and others, move the operative provisions of the remedial order into the Troubles Bill. This brings the whole package together, ensuring that there is a clear transition between the Legacy Act and the Troubles Bill Second Reading. And in our engagement on the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the so-called on the run letters, and a couple of hon.









































































































































































































































































































Members referred to this yesterday. Indeed, the hon. Members for North Antrim, Upper Bann and Lagan Valley have tabled amendments on this matter which aim to put the status of these letters beyond doubt. I know I referred to this yesterday, but because this is the matter that is before us today, I do want to return to it. These letters did not provide any individual with immunity from prosecution, and they are not legally binding guarantees against future prosecution. This is something that has been confirmed by the 2014 review. Numerous Ministers under successive administrations, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron.































































































































































































































































































 It has also been reiterated by the current Chief Constable of the PSNI, John Boucher. However, I recognise the ongoing concern in relation to such letters, so I've tabled new clause 51 to make clear that they cannot be used to prevent or frustrate a prosecution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I just want to put on record again my thanks, but put on record again my thanks, but I think it's at the crux of this entire discussion that it must go entire discussion that it must go out from this House, that terrorism was always wrong, and that people in Northern Ireland and across the in Northern Ireland and across the UK need to understand now that these letters never had, never will these letters never had, never will and shall not be used to frustrate or deny any potential prosecutions that may come forward, because too many people in Northern Ireland have felt that actually there have been too many cosying up with terrorists in the past, and I hope that people will take comfort from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, and I hope that they will know that these letters never will and never had that effect. I completely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely. Agree with every single word that she said. I think I will in a that she said. I think I will in a moment. I think it absolutely goes needs to go out from this House needs to go out from this House that terrorism was and remains wrong in every single regard. Those wrong in every single regard. Those who resorted to violence did so for reasons of their own, but not reasons that we could possibly countenance. And we do not countenance in the legislation that we're advancing today. 90%, as I've said before, of those who were killed in the troubles, of the 3500 or more who were killed in the troubles were killed by paramilitaries and.



























































































































































































































































And I'd go further. I think a lot of families that I've spoken to in Northern Ireland felt that on the run letters were part of a sort of amnesty that was granted to some people and not to others, or was granted to everyone, and that that meant that they were never going to get answers to what happened to their loved ones. That was always wrong. I understand why people made difficult decisions when it came to the Good Friday Agreement, but I one hon. Member said yesterday, you don't get peace without justice. The two I think the the line in the Bible is a justice and peace shall kiss one another, and I think that that's what we have to achieve.















































































































































































































































I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady. Thank the honourable. Member for giving way. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for giving way. With regards to the OTR letters, he will know that I spoke yesterday on this very issue and the fact that there's clarity today that you are progressing. The amendment is progressing. The amendment is welcome. However, they did have effect because the Hyde Park bomber got away with a his his misdemeanours because of the on the run letters that they did have effect. So will he confirm, as I asked yesterday, will they have effect on his ongoing new prosecution? John Downey, who by the way, is hiding in the Republic of Ireland currently under under cover.































































































































































































































Will it have effect on the current prosecution that he is facing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you and not your Secretary of State. And not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings undergoing either, as I think the undergoing either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. So I'm not going to comment on the specific instance. I've made my points, my instance. I've made my points, my views very clear about why there should not be any amnesty for should not be any amnesty for people involved. Of course, there was a legislation introduced which meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand that that kind of arrangement that that that was and of course, there were people who didn't support the Good Friday Agreement, political parties who didn't support the Good Friday Agreement.

















































































































































































































But and maybe these are some of the issues that that were always troublesome for them. But for me, I think it's really important that at this stage now, we recognise that we need to get as many answers for people as possible and that there cannot be that kind of immunity amnesty, whatever you may call it, Mark Garnier. The government recognises that investigations by the Legacy Commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. This was originally agreed by the coalition agreement by the coalition government, rather, and the Irish Government.

































































































































































































In 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement. But it was never established, which is why I'm pleased to be able to establish it now. The ICIR is entirely separate from the Legacy Commission and will not conduct investigations. Very clear distinction. Its remit is to privately. Its remit is privately to receive and retain information about troubles related deaths and share that information privately, again with those family members that have requested it. This will provide a different means by which families may be able to obtain information about troubles related deaths. And I know that, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that this is something that they warmly.





















































































































































































 They warmly welcome and want to see amplified. If we can make the pilot work. Members will see. I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment two, three, five will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requester after its operational period has ended in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case, but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution investigations and prosecutions in troubles related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude.









































































































































































We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families, but is unable to share potentially important information with them. In these circumstances, which are beyond its control. Finally, Mark Garnier, having engaged extensively with its not really my. Finally, finally. So anyway, I just noticed that the word finally appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had finally, to sermons that had finally, halfway through. Anyway, finally. Very good just for the Hansard, the hon. Gentleman said. Amen. Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions.























































































































































I want to be absolutely clear the government does not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This government believes wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions by the procurator, by the Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales in relation to prosecutions are always taken independently in light of the individual facts and circumstances, but there is a public interest in how these cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.











































































































































If. Let me just do the these two proposals and then I'll come back to him. Yesterday we debated the amendments, which will improve transparency around the approach to prosecutions within the Legacy Commission. We are also introducing two significant amendments to the prosecution of troubles related offences and firstly, a new clause 49. We will require the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland and the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales to work together on joint guidance on applying the relevant code for prosecutors in respect of troubles related offences in each jurisdiction. Whilst the vast majority of troubles related offences occurred in Northern Ireland, such offences were committed across the UK and there is a shared interest and obligation in addressing the legacy of the past.



























































































































It will also be able to cover issues such as dealing with the complexity of historical evidence and the public interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considerations in such cases. I've got secondly to come, but I feel he's being quite patient. Gavin Robinson finally from me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gavin Robinson finally from me. Mark Garnier in respect of interventions, can I just say to interventions, can I just say to the Secretary of State that he should be cautious when trying to push back against this notion that push back against this notion that there are vexatious prosecutions or not? There are there have been we have seen prosecutions in Northern Ireland where the evidential test wasn't met the first time it was revised, and the evidential test still wasn't met, but it was suggested the prosecution should proceed. And at no stage during a abuse of process application or a no bail application, or at any other time during the case, did the evidence amount to anything close to meeting the prosecutorial test?







































































































 Likelihood of prosecution leave aside public interest, but likelihood of prosecution and the cases collapsed, and the judge concluded that at the very start, the whole process was frail. At the very start, the evidence didn't amount to satisfying the test. And so whenever we say and we shouldn't have fear to say it, that they're vexatious prosecutions, they're very good examples as to why that is said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I hate to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House, but I don't think that that will be his final contribution today. So his final contribution today. So it's not really his. Finally. But look, he makes a point which I have heard from a lot of people, and I understand the frustrations, the understand the frustrations, the very significant frustrations that have been felt in particular by people in the veterans community. I people in the veterans community. I understand that point. However, I think he meant to say the the prosecutorial decision is obviously about the likelihood of a successful prosecution, in other words, a conviction.















































































And and of course, sometimes the prosecuting authorities are wrong because a jury or a court decides that there isn't a case to answer, and so on. So I hear what he says, but I think he was only urging me to exercise caution in using this phrase. So I will exercise caution in using this phrase. And I note that he just said thank you to me. Secondly, I'm going to do my. Secondly, if he doesn't mind, because otherwise the logic of my speech is kind of going to fall apart. So. Mark Garnier. No, no, miss McCartney, you're not meant to look at me and look as if the logic of my speech has already fallen apart.































































Secondly. Secondly, to provide greater assurance, confidence, and consistency in decisions to prosecute, we are introducing a requirement for the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to provide consent for prosecutions of serious troubles related offences. I want to be clear that when making these decisions, the Attorney General must act quasi judicially and independently of the government. There is precedent for this approach. Some have questioned this, but this was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. And since most troubles related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland, but some were in Great Britain, this will provide a single and therefore consistent last determinant.



















































Let me be clear this in no way obviates the role of the PPS in Northern Ireland or the CPS in England and Wales. In fact, we are strengthening their role, but I think this gives the right balance. I trust these amendments address the concerns raised by various members in respect of the decisions to prosecute, including those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who tabled an amendment to insert additional steps in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I'm now coming to my finally, finally. So if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pushed it back to clause 49 and press upon him again, a point I raised with him yesterday, a new raised with him yesterday, a new clause 32, which became part of the bill last night. The Secretary of bill last night. The Secretary of State introduced protections when it came to inquisitorial it came to inquisitorial investigations for veterans by the Legacy Commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the deals with the guidance that the PPS will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what's already in new clause 32?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, yes, I'm always in favour of consistency, and I'm sure that that's how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their proceed in drawing up their guidance. Finally, Mark Garnier, I look forward to listening to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look forward to listening to the further contributions today of hon. Members as we continue to consider amendments And the clause stand part and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the clause stand part and schedule stand part. I really hope that we're able to get the bill right today. It's it's about achieving a balance. And I hope that that's what our amendments seek to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. Shadow Secretary. Of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Burghart you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd like to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'd like to. Start at the outset by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday in the first day of yesterday in the first day of committee. There were some really excellent contributions from both sides of the House and from both sides of the House and from both sides, all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them in Third Reading because they're essential to the broader discussion that we're having. But I just want to say that there were some very powerful speeches that I think resonated across the divides.

In that spirit, I want to begin with what we welcome government. New
13:31
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial, on the run letters, the so-called on the run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the government to Republican suspects, primarily Republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. And they arose because whilst the 1998 they arose because whilst the 1998 agreement's early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, had been charged, but had escaped or had escaped after conviction. Sinn Fein argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to Republican support for the peace process, was necessary.

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Where Sinn Fein identified are concerned individuals, the government then assessed that whether they were not wanted and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It's long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann has pointed out, this was not so because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. Whilst it was said that Mr. Downey's letter had been issued in error. There is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed. And despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The government is right to put this issue beyond all doubt and to make an amendment to its bill. Similarly, we welcome Government Amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the Joint Framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, which is in my name, which did much the same thing.























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The importance of this is that the government is going to have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force. And I would ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the despatch box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework. The investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles related incidents within its jurisdiction. It's very important that any statement that he gives to the House when the both pieces of legislation are complete, cover that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to give way to my hon. Friend. I just want the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want the hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles related crimes and those who have skipped across the border. I did have the across the border. I did have the opportunity to mention about Gerry Mcmanigal. He was taken to jail or taken to court, I should say, for taken to court, I should say, for the murder of Lexy Commons UQ Commons in 1982. The summons that Commons in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and the time it took to correct that at the at the court, the gentleman in particular escaped across the border.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































He has risen to be a very significant member of Sinn Féin. He's actually been the the mayor of Donegal County Council. The fact of the matter is he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? And should there be one of those ones that the Republic of Ireland should be working with the the the government here to ensure that that man is jailed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend raises an important case. I'm glad he's had an opportunity to put that on the an opportunity to put that on the record. And the. So yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government has committed that they will work in lock step with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on legislation will come into force on the same day. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that, this being the case, he will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is itself ready to be commenced, and that we are happy to give way. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to him for that reassurance. The. All this said, I think we should be clear eyed about think we should be clear eyed about what the Irish legislation does and doesn't do, and why. Indeed, it is in no way equivalent to the in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may cooperate with the Legacy Commission. It does not require Commission. It does not require them to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the Legacy Commission in the Republic.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































In short, while it is a step in the right direction, guarantees nothing, and it does not create an equivalent action in the South. Yesterday we heard in very powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully with OMA. Sadly, in the rejection of the DUP's amendment, we also heard something about this government's failure to engage on OMA. This today, this morning. This afternoon, my hon. Friend from East Belfast has raised the issue again. I. I draw the House's attention to the fact that in 2021, when Mr. Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic because one was needed.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































You know, he could see, having assessed all of the evidence that one was needed. And yet here we are, five years on and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all, nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. And I think it is a source of sadness for this House, that the framework that was signed by this, by the previous administration did not get within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was a very significant omission. Happy to give way again. Very grateful to the point that the Shadow Secretary of State is the Shadow Secretary of State is making and how he is making it. The House should be aware that the Omagh families are. This very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish government's perspective that the UK government has offered them in the United Kingdom. But could I ask the Secretary of State just to reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government is only provided to answer this question whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves.























































































































































































































































































































































































































All right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this is precisely why Mr. Justice Horner, in 2021 said urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic and the fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks, I am afraid, volumes. This speaks, I am afraid, volumes. This sadly, brings us to a major point of contention, which is the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the honourable and gallant member for Birmingham Selly Oak spoke very powerfully about the problems that exist within quests, and I know that today my right hon.









































































































































































































































































































































































































Friend from Goole and Pocklington will do likewise. The essence of the problem is this the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the cases of Coke and Clonoe, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the. The case of Loch Hall, which is covered by amendment 51. In the name of my right hon. Friend from Goole and Pocklington in Great Britain. Inquests exist to establish the facts and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP.



























































































































































































































































































































































































I nearly said the DUP. In Northern Ireland. However, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame and this is why the hon. Gentleman from North Antrim has tabled the amendment he has tabled. Yesterday we heard moving accounts from the hon. Member, from Foyle and from the hon. Lady, from Lagan Valley, of children being killed, very possibly murdered, of awful, heart wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces. They deal, in the case of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coke. I happily give way. Thank the shadow Minister. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the shadow Minister. In terms of inquests, would he be able to shed light on the amount of inquests that are going to be inquests that are going to be granted what those inquests are, because none of us know what, how many there are and what they're many there are and what they're going to be about, and where is the money going to come for each inquest, because you're talking a inquest, because you're talking a couple of hundred million for each one. So can he maybe shed light what the government have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

telling him on this issue? I'm sure the Secretary of State will have heard what he said, and will will include some reference to will will include some reference to it in his in his final remarks. The you know, the cases that we're talking about here deal with the case of Coke with Michael Ryan and case of Coke with Michael Ryan and I are a man who shot two UDR officers, both in the presence of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

officers, both in the presence of children. I happily give way. Chris Kane words, but also for giving way. He says that the inquest only don't deal with. I just want to make sure I'm picking them up right. Inquest. Having dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, I have. The Ballymurphy inquest, the Springhill inquest, you know, which which brought truth to families almost 50 years or 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. So, I mean, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're going to talk about this, please. I'm very happy to clarify my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I'm certainly not saying that at all. What I'm saying explaining is why the inquisitorial process has the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It's because of the way that certain inquests have been certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. And so I I'm not talking at cross-purposes with the the hon. at cross-purposes with the the hon. Gentleman. Yeah. In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that, you know, there was a van load of men who shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces, or indeed, in the case of Loch Hall, when an IRA unit attacked an RUC base and and were shot.



































































































































































































































































































































Those security forces, the security forces that kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things, no longer trust the inquisitorial process because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare, to years of court processes where even when the judges say that this is a farce, even when they say it is ludicrous, they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on and on. Amendment 113 in My Name and amendment 84 and that of my right hon. Friend for Goole and Pocklington essentially do the same thing that the honourable and gallant member from Birmingham Selly Oak was trying to do yesterday.





















































































































































































































































































































That is to say, enough of the multi-track approach. Let us all let us put all of the inquests into the Legacy Commission. Let us dispense with the twin track approach that the honourable and gallant member argued against yesterday. But of course, the twin track approach is really a three track approach because we still have inquiries being granted. As we argued at the time, the government should very clearly, for example, have asked the ICRIR to deal with the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. And then, because of civil cases, we will have a four track approach.









































































































































































































































































































But for all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope the government will at the very least accept that where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the Legacy Commission as my right. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily give way. And I'm very mindful, as we often are from Northern Ireland and often are from Northern Ireland and our experiences that we have with many, many people. I think of the murder of the four other men at Ballydougan. The person who did that was Karl Marx. Karl Marx was then carrying out another bomb then carrying out another bomb attack upon the RUC in Downpatrick in the process of setting up a in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC, and was shot carrying out that he deserved to have the capital punishment that he had in Downpatrick.

























































































































































































































































































That's a fact that there should never be any occasions whenever the family should try to to engineer an enquiry for someone who quite clearly was the head of the IRA in that area when he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He's burning in hell today. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as ever, my hon. Friend makes gives us a powerful story of makes gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that that happened. You know, as my that happened. You know, as my right hon. Friend for Goole and Pocklington said last week, if this bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner's inquest would not be about whether the killings at Locke Hall were unlawful. It would instead be about one of the 1800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful. There is, I'm afraid, a inequity of priorities here.





































































































































































































































































It is not on the side of right. And whilst I am on my feet on this point, Madam Chair, I'd like to pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help keep our country safe. Yeah. I now move to the issue. I happily give way to the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman might just accept, in respect of the local inquest, the reason why it began and then was terminated by the last government's legislation, is because the legislation, is because the Attorney General in the last conservative government, also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered Ireland, decided, having considered all of the papers, that it should be held. Is he telling the House be held. Is he telling the House that he disagrees with the decision of the. Actually, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, exactly. So I whilst I have the opportunity, I'd just like to pay opportunity, I'd just like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Whilst there were Northern Ireland. Whilst there were many things on which we disagreed, he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, great dignity and great respect, and I'm very grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me whilst we were opposite numbers. I, whilst we were opposite numbers. I, I have to say that, you know, there are two things are true.













































































































































































































































Our legislation would have stopped the inquest. And so that was something that obviously my party supported. But secondly, I think since that time, we have seen some very egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong. And we have seen in the course of those inquisitorial processes why veterans have lost confidence in the process. And and we know that there is a viable alternative. It's a viable alternative that he was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. You know, that he did decided not to completely tear up, you know, not to close it down.

































































































































































































































And, you know, he decided to develop it in some ways we might agree with in some ways we wouldn't. But there is an alternative way of dealing with this, which I believe would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the one on his benches who spoke out yesterday. I now turn to the issue of new and compelling, which was raised yesterday and which is back again today because of new clause 22. In the name of the hon. Gentleman from North Down. The problem here is simply that the government claims that its qualification essential will restrict, will restrict, repeat investigations.





















































































































































































































And but as has been pointed out by legal authorities outside the House, essential is described by the government is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer has put it, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence. A real test would be new and compelling, given the fact that previously decisions have been taken to prosecute cases where there is no evidence. There should be a check and balance and a certification by a judge to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. What it does is prevent a biased decision being taken in Northern Ireland.







































































































































































































The Bill as drawn, provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse and repeat investigations. They are witnesses. They are not witnesses. They are suspects. The bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that it is not that this is not the case, but he objects to amending the bill in a way which enshrines his public statements that there should be no repeat, rinse and repeat investigations. Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence. But this is not quite what the bill says.



























































































































































































Rather, whether or not there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered essential and there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. Correct. There is absolutely no bar in approaching witnesses. Essential is not defined in the bill. Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition of what it is, but that means that what is essential will essentially be open to interpretation by the Legacy Commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term. So this feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Madam Chair, may not be essential to me.















































































































































































I happily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I think the key word here is essential, of course. And the definition of it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does define this word. The. The cases whose advice I have sought have not been able to have sought have not been able to produce any. Any such definition. The. So all of this feeds The. So all of this feeds uncertainty. So decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue interviewing veterans is essential. The reason for new and compelling is that it is a term used. The reason why we are insisting on the use of new and compelling is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations Act, the Criminal Justice Act 2003.































































































































































It is the very test used to determine if someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. So it provides we're asking for certification in this case, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know there's. So the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman, says that there's. If people wish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If people wish. To participate in the debate, they should do it by formal intervention. So we can note it on Hansard, not chunter from a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hansard, not chunter from a sedentary position. Alex Burghart finally, a bit of order, madam. Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order, madam. Madam Chair. The. I hope the hon. Member will agree. There's been order agree. There's been order throughout the debate, not just. Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, Madam Chair, you're quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Chair, you're quite right as ever. You know, it's it's it's finally good to be put right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's finally good to be put right on it. The. I will. Start on this point about certification, because obviously certification, because obviously it's a key part of the amendment that he's talking about. And one of the problems with certification is, of course, that the certification can be presumably judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to yet further lawfare. All inquests to be judicially. Yeah, I think look, judicial, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I think look, judicial, as he knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I'm asking him to refine the process that he has put forward, which is inadequate. You know, essential is inadequate, essential is going to be judicially reviewed. And of course, new and compelling and certification will be judicially reviewed, but it will be an reviewed, but it will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we are not going to have the sort of rinse and repeat investigations that have taken place up. I will allow him to come back in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful, but I think it's important that we debate these points in detail because I don't points in detail because I don't understand. I understand the reference to the Overseas Operations Act, and indeed that's Operations Act, and indeed that's where we took our our structure for our amendment from as well. I just don't understand why he wants certification here, whereas it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certification here, whereas it isn't present in that. Because there has been a process. Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I know, and so if if the right hon. Gentleman was standing up to say, well, we'll accept new and compelling, but we don't want certification, well, let's have that debate. But that's not what he's saying. He's saying he wants essential, which we all which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar. Yeah. No, he says no from a sedentary position, Madam Chair. But he but but but that is not the case. You know that that we have you know, we have received legal advice that this is no bar at all. And for reasons I've already set out, it will be very easily stepped over.







































































































Whereas new and compelling, as we know from the Overseas Operations Act, is a more significant legal test. Yeah, it provides certainty in three ways. It is a filter test. No engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. It is a term already applied by the court. So we have one system. We have equality of treatment. And it is not subjective like essential. First, the evidence must be new. That must be a matter of fact. Second, it must be compelling, meaning it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.

























































































Finally, Madam Chair, I turn to New Clause seven in my name. This would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the Armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our Special Forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historic. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Organisation, who said that it was eroding the will to fight. In November we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that recruitment, retention and morale were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare, and this morning Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that continued lawfare was affecting recruitment and retention.







































































In one moment when such leaders with such experience issue such warnings. I think we all have a duty to listen. We all have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a duty to take them seriously. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Very good, very good. That's an hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's an hon. Member for giving way. Can I just understand the point he's making here? Is it the case that he is putting forward an case that he is putting forward an argument? That is, if special forces aren't allowed to do whatever they want in whatever whatever they want in whatever theatre they're in? Outside, outside, outside, outside of legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

boundaries, then people won't join. Is that the argument that he's making? Exactly. Ridiculous? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I'm making, or indeed, indeed a point I've ever made. The simple point I'm making is where you have vexatious repeat and rinse vexatious repeat and rinse investigations. It is highly demoralising to people who once once served and people who still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serve. And, you know, that's very, very different to what he's just alleged. Behind you. Oh, I give way to my right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. Every single time we have. Seen a member of the Special Forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now. Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My right hon. Friend puts it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. The. So this House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Whilst details of Special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored, and for that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure. I know that governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State's considered response about how this House can receive reassurance that one of our most prized national assets, the Special Forces, is not being allowed to wither.



























I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but this is a specific point I am making about special forces and the consequences of. Rinse and repeat, madam. Madam chair, I you know, I have to say I return to where I started, which is that there are some things with which we can agree today, some things on which we can agree. However, the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope the government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Adam Jogee thank you very much, Miss Carney, and I'm grateful for Miss Carney, and I'm grateful for the first opportunity I've had to speak on this most important of bills, not just as the Member for bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but also as chair of the Ireland and Irish and British all party group and a very proud member of the Northern proud member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee. And I don't want to cause the Shadow Secretary any discomfort in saying, probably for the first time that I agreed with him.







And he was right. There were many excellent speeches made in the House yesterday, and I also agree with the tribute he made to my right hon. Friend from Leeds South for his diligence and commitment to these issues. Mr. Carney, our committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles
13:57
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
in great and at times difficult detail, and I'll be speaking to amendment 277 and to new clause 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend, but I would like to acknowledge all those who lost acknowledge all those who lost their lives, those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. And I speak, Miss Carney from a place of personal connection. My great grandmother's family are of good county down stock and as the House knows, if they've listened to any of the speeches I've given since the election in 2024.





























































































































































































My wife was born in Northern Ireland before the Good Friday Agreement was signed, before peace on the island of Ireland, a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today and our family's experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and yes, hope that lies at the heart of this debate. Now, this bill is very important, and so are the amendments before us, amendments that are designed to make sure we get it right. And before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope since this is the first time I've spoken on this bill, you won't mind me making a couple of general points that have been shaped by my view of the amendments.















































































































































































Now, the decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3500 people lost their lives, and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, by suspicion and by fear because of who they were, how they prayed and the actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this bill and all the amendments before us with care, with compassion and with responsibility. The purpose of this bill is to provide a path forward, a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language, nor a path forward that sows any further discord, discord or disunity.



































































































































































We've had more than enough of that over the years, chair. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people. The amendments we are discussing today seek to ensure is respected. It is true that this bill wasn't perfect when I wrote my first speech for its Second Reading back in November 2025, and I'm grateful for the conversations that I've had that the committee has had with the previous Secretary of State, with the current Secretary of State and his Ministers, because that allows us to that has allowed us to put together amendments that strengthen this bill and ensure that it delivers the justice and the answers that families and I mean, all the families deserve.



















































































































































I therefore welcome the government amendments on the paper today, particularly those that have been developed through engagement with veterans groups and with organisations like Wave Widows Against Violence and Power, based in Belfast, led by the excellent Sandra Peake, who was here just last week. This Bill must be used to set a path that honours the memory of those who suffered, recognises the service of those who served in our military under instructions to keep the peace that supports victims and survivors, and seeking answers, and helps Northern Ireland move forward. We must ensure that this legislation does not simply close down what happened before us, but opens the possibility of a shared future.







































































































































We must seek to shape a legacy framework that respects the voices of victims and of survivors, and that includes those who served and those who lived the troubles. My colleagues on the committee and those of us with family and friends in this wonderful part of our country, have heard first hand the fear in the streets, the loss of loved ones, the sense of lives put on hold, and the depravity of war. Those conversations have helped influence the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend and our committee colleagues, and that we debate today. I've also heard of the resilience of the and compassion of the decent people who call Northern Ireland home.

























































































































This is important, Miss Carney, and there must never, ever be any rewriting of history. There is no equivalence between those who serve to protect life in our armed forces and security services, and the terrorist organisations which set out to kill people. If I can turn to amendment 277, a new clause 54 Mark Garnier new clause 54 reflects the recommendations of the report from the Northern Affairs Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee and seeks to To ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained and carried forward from the 2023 act. And I forward from the 2023 act. And I hope that the Minister will engage with that specific point when he or with that specific point when he or she, whoever's winding at the end of the debate. And if I can gently of the debate. And if I can gently touch on amendment 277. This is in many ways Mark Garnier about people, and it's about making sure that legal definition does not get in the way of as many people impacted by what happened in Northern Ireland to get the support, the truth and the answers that they deserve.

































































































I'm also pleased that this bill will reform the Independent Legacy Investigations Commission to make it legally robust and build real and meaningful confidence. New clause 49 requires a joint approach between the Directors of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, ensuring a consistent, rigorous approach. And it has my support. New clause 50 applies well established prosecution principles of independence and public interest. It has my support too, and I'm very glad that my friend the Secretary of State for his name to it and adopted it, and I thank the member from Goole and Pocklington for his his work on this.





















































































I mean, clearly, judging by the the cast and the plaster, he was so excited by the Secretary of State accepting the amendment yesterday that he celebrated a little too hard, but I hope he is well when I. Well, we'll save that one for later, I think. I'll buy him a cup of tea. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans, protections that weren't included in the Legacy Act of the previous government, and I joined the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which now gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls.







































































This is, of course, hugely important for the ageing veterans, who are many of whom, some of whom are in the gallery today, who served our country. The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution, for example, through new clause 51, which stops on the run letters that which have never been legally binding. Miss Carney from preventing prosecutions. And I thank the Secretary for the specific words he put to that earlier on. The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age.



























































I'd like to stay at home a right to anonymity and a right for veterans voices to be heard at all. Important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. This is also important, and I'm grateful to all hon. Members from across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership, and an understanding that peace is not a single event, but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments that we discuss this afternoon. It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. Miss Carney.

















































No legacy bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community. And we've seen that in the debate on and discussion exchanges on the amendments before us. This bill is no exception. And whatever amendments are tabled and approved or not, because for some it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. And that tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation, but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.





































But we must also recognise that this bill cannot and was never intended to repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured principle framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning the trust of the people. Most importantly, this bill must be understood not only as a measure aimed at the past, but as a step toward the future, a step that has been made more likely with this bill and many amendments that have been tabled by hon.























Members across the House. Colleagues of mine on the Northern Affairs Select Committee and by His Majesty's Government, Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before us. And for this bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history. It must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together, and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to make sure we find a way through that because in addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach, still requires courage and patience.









 Miss Carney, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, both victims and survivors, to those who served and to the generations to come, to make sure that we get this right and to ensure that this bill is sent to the other place in a strong and robust, as robust form as possible.
14:07
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Paul Kohler. >> Thank you, Miss Carney. >> Can I begin. By apologising to the House? Last week's carry over motion was a bad tempered partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering, and I assumed this week's Committee of the whole House would be similar and said some things to that effect at the beginning of my speech. I couldn't have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for eight hours almost yesterday. Listening to them, I was in awe of the members from all sides of the House speaking. It was.































































































































































































It was a wonderful moment. Speaks so highly of this house. No matter how we agree and disagree, I still think we've had a committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to try and prove my point. A less formal committee, provided we had invited our Northern Ireland colleagues upstairs with us to committee upstairs. It would have been more effective. We all, I think, want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence, and my party supported the Tories excellent in many respects. New clause 21 to that effect, but it included a certification process with the Supreme Court judge.

















































































































































































The Secretary of State made the point. He thought it was impractical. I, I agree, I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They don't have the time. They don't have the. They don't have the inclination. And frankly, many of them don't have the evidence of expertise to provide that function efficiently. We had a different amendment that suggested a different certification process suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, but by the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. But the government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192. The process should only begin after other sorts of evidence have been fully explored.



































































































































































We all had something to bring to the table. Had we been upstairs discussing this in a sensible committee, we would have improved the bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues on bills such as this? As I said yesterday, we heard from members across this House in powerful and often moving speeches, providing a wide, wide array of views to the various communities impacted by the spill. I was particularly taken hugely taken by the points raised by the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak and the Member for South West Wiltshire.





















































































































































Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I've heard from some in the veteran community also say justice might not be possible. We should focus on truth and reconciliation, but it's the second of state said a little later, what can I have reconciliation without justice? Now you'll all accuse me of just being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both of the hon. Members are correct.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. The key to resolving the apparent disagreement is in how we apparent disagreement is in how we define justice. Often in these debates, the notion of justice is mediated through a lawyer's narrow conception of the word in terms of criminal prosecution and civil criminal prosecution and civil liability, and essentially retributive concept that justice is retributive concept that justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience, it also includes restorative justice, where truth and reconciliation are key. If one takes this broader, more holistic view of justice, it is not at variance of truth and reconciliation, but a critical component.

























































































































Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer's lens risks preserving divisions and animosities for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy, lengthy inquiries, providing limited chances of prosecution. We want to achieve reconciliation. We need to broaden our conception of justice, to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers. Now, yesterday I broadly focussed on veterans. That's because my party and the constituency constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, many of them having served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. But in saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who this Bill must deliver for the thousands of victims and survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry its weight today, and that has been said by others.





































































































Veterans and civilian victims are not two separate groups. Those who serve bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families were also victims of the troubles. The one thing nearly every victim wants is answers, in particular the families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today how, where, who and where and most importantly, why. I want to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent Wave Centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives whose, whose, whose whose relatives are those who have been murdered by Stakeknife.





















































































And they had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They didn't get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful to the process, so thankful to John Boucher, who headed it for much of the time, for the fact that they got answers. They got someone listening to their concerns, and they got an opportunity to speak to, to, to, to, to those involved and, and, and got answers to what had happened. Information answers give families restored faith. It gave them, they built trust. And even though they did not get what they wanted from John Boucher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process.





































































It helped in the healing. Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O. Kelly's murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children, and Frances Kelly described the process as something sacred and transformative. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer. It could not. It did not lead the prosecution of a terrorist for a crime. We provided closure. All the same, I share, as I hope you all do, and I hope as many families as possible are able to engage in this process, which is such a key role to play reconciliation.























































Now, whilst I appreciate that both IRA and its successor, the Legacy Commission, have information recovery functions, they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, particularly, state places great emphasis on the measures in the Legacy Act, referring to oral histories. Now, I do not doubt these will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Troubles Bill represents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, to try and make a more active approach and broaden our understanding of justice. Our new clause 12, which we voted on today, puts a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish a reconciliation strategy within six months of the act.







































By seizing the initiative, consult with a broad range of stakeholders and ensuring reconciliation is a top priority for the Northern Ireland Office. New ideas and approaches will emerge and can be tested, where we can actually embrace more formal structures of restorative justice. As Drumcree shows, communities across Northern Ireland are still not fully reconciled. I believe a new approach should be tried, one which incorporates principles of restorative justice. This is not an easy process, nor is it appropriate for everyone, but the power and healing facilitated by meeting those that did you wrong explain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the impact of their actions can be hugely beneficial. I think. So I also tabled new clauses 18

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I also tabled new clauses 18 and 19, which would allow for individuals to request access to restorative justice processes as restorative justice processes as part of their interaction with the Legacy Commission. The Secretary of State responded to my suggestions, State responded to my suggestions, telling me he did not wish to overburden Legacy Commission. Secretary of State is concerned restorative justice and I quote, might compromise the Commission's effective use of its resources and prioritisation of its operations. However, if this government generally wishes to help as many families survivors find closure as it can, they must find the resources to ensure restorative justice processes play a much more central role in the work of the Legacy Commission.









I appreciate that money is tight at the moment, but when the cost of inaction is so high 5.5 million to police Drumcree, for example, it is surely better to invest in our future generations and build a Northern Ireland where children never again know the sectarian divisions their forebears lived through. Thank you, Mr. Ghani.
14:16
Lewis Atkinson Portrait Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)
-
-
Lewis Atkinson. >> Thank you, Miss Ghani. >> The peace. >> That Northern Ireland has. Today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That Northern Ireland has. Today rests on the reconciliation process we've seen in recent decades civil rights and the rule of law, the differences, recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition. But the peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They didn't go from Sunderland to the to Northern Ireland to be on either side. They came because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland and they stood on Northern Ireland streets overwhelmingly as a protective force on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians on constant alert against those who were trying to kill.































































































































































































































Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1441 of our British service personnel died, 722 killed by paramilitaries. I listened carefully to the contributions yesterday, as others have said, many fantastic contributions, moving contributions. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend from Selly Oak and my friend from Southend East and Rochford, who's not in his place today, but actually the contribution that moved me most. Sorry, he's in his place at the Southend East and Rochford is not the contribution that was made yesterday that most closely reflects the experience of my veterans in Sunderland was from the hon.















































































































































































































Member from South Shropshire, who's not in his place today, who described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland and not knowing when a civilian raised their hand if they were doing as a purely innocuous gesture, or if it was to throw incendiary device or whatever, and that was the experience of my constituents, who I met for a two hour round table to discuss this at our local Gunners club in recess, just gone. The reality is that without the Army's deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far wider bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced.































































































































































































Those who served held the line for long enough for decades, long enough for politics to finally take its place. And we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is false to set veterans against victims and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves, serving both and all allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, and that will take changes in the law through this bill and the full cooperation and transparency from the British and Irish governments, I'm clear that the previous Government's Legacy Act failed on multiple counts.















































































































































































It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland. It undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation. That recent weeks show is still absolutely essential, and it also failed. Victims of every background, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA at Guildford and on the M62 whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous government's legacy approach, and they were indeed part of the legal action against it. Many who did come home carry the cost still, and the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their views about their shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their lives still, and how when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge or from the British state afterwards.



























































































































































While the reality is that of 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, six prosecutions have been made, too often, it is felt since that the Good Friday Agreement. Sorry, too often since the Good Friday Agreement, it has felt like the legal system was built to scrutinise the split second actions of front line soldiers, soldiers with process as punishment, while comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people they were sent to protect civilians from that system has also felt focussed on individual front line soldiers and not on the failings of the chain of command, whose decisions in some cases profoundly affected civilians.











































































































































 Those who served with honour deserve to live out their lives in peace with our country's thanks. Not fearing for a knock at the door, they were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous government, but they. They did not feel that the bill as introduced was appropriate. I've engaged on Ministers in that spirit for the last year on this. With the right hon. Gentleman for Leeds South, and I've been clear for a significant time in our private meetings that unamended, I could not support this legislation. Those. The the amendments that I sought are many, and some were.





























































































































We discussed yesterday the agreement of clause new, clause 32, which is clear that action in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. A new clause 43 setting a tight time limit of 14 days for new judicial review action. Giving some clarity about ongoing lawfare long after legal proceedings seem to have closed, and today's amendments, I'm pleased to say further, in my view, the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the last year under new clause 50 as the Secretary of State said, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles offences without the consent of the UK Attorney General.













































































































This applies to everyone. It's not an amnesty. As I said, the peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group, but it is a senior independent check outside of Northern Ireland's politics that I think goes some way to winning the trust of some veterans that have previously lost faith in the system. And I think the reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions. Second, in terms of the amendments that were rightly pointed out, the collapse of the Hyde Park bombing trial, an attack that killed four soldiers, was as a result of a apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort.



























































































The Member for Lagan Valley rightly said that that such terrorist action was always wrong, and there should never have been any doubt about our condemnation of that. As a House, veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying they were not wanted. That ends today. Third, and for most veterans, the most important an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday's amendments mean that investigators must go through the state's own records first and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence.













































































And today, new clause 84 means a resumed inquest must not repeat what has been already done unless it is essential. And I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should be not be made to relive the same night to the same questions every few years, and the protections. As hon. Friend from Newcastle upon Tyne underline referenced in terms of cold calling protections against returning to Northern Ireland that I welcome have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion. But passing this Bill tonight and I will support it.































































 The amendments have been sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans, but it cannot be the end of Parliament's interest. I had an exchange with the right hon. Gentleman from Leeds South asking about how the changes tonight would be kept under review, and I welcome the fact that I think under amendment 251, there will be independent inspection of the Legacy Commission and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in this Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part to hold both governments to it.

















































The reality is that if this bill passes, veterans will have had will have significantly more protection than at any time since the Good Friday Agreement. Protections written into law, protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some soldiers, some veterans, feel today that we're not yet there. Too many have been told the opposite. My local veterans charity accounts, calls from members, people who served 30 years ago who've never been subject to any questioning or doubt about, who've been picking up the phone saying, what's this I hear about the government wanting to come after me?





























It's clearly not accurate, and I, of course, respect anyone in this House and and, and to scrutinise rightly, the government and each of the votes that we cause. But I say this anyone that says they care about the welfare of veterans does an absolute shame to scaremonger against 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about the conduct and the honour with which they served, and people who would. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring that does no service to our veterans, and I hope this. The rest of this debate continues in that manner.















Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they lay through their service to that the reconciliation that we are seeing across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is, therefore, in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue in honour of those who have served and in every victim of the troubles. I said, well, support these amendments today and I will support the bill tonight.
14:28
David Davis Portrait Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-
The. Sir David Davis. speaker? The Member for Sunderland Central. I'll. Whilst I disagree with some of the substance of what he had to say, I found a lot to agree with in the sentiment and the support for our for our veterans, which is welcome. Can I also thank the Secretary of State for his telephone call at home to. To tell me he was going to support my amendment 50, I was. I should have been here long enough to realise, of course, that when I looked on the Order Paper for amendment 50 in the name of David Davis, it had become government amendment 50.









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































So I feel like I've been nationalised. But. But it is the only time I approve of a nationalisation. This would be it. But thank. I thank you for that. Can I also say to him. Actually, I commend him for the elegance and tone of his debate, of his speaking in the last couple of days. This is the most formidable of difficult bills facing the House. I think anybody should recognise that. And he's navigated it with great charm and has reinforced my view that he should have been in the Cabinet long ago, so I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him for that. I'm I'm I'm. Already saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Already saying. Oh, it's all right, it's all right. I'm trying to I'm trying to right. I'm trying to I'm trying to do as much damage as possible. But do as much damage as possible. But but I, I stand to speak principally to amendment 51 and to some extent, to amendment 51 and to some extent, amendment 4949 basically stops any new inquests whatsoever. Sorry, not any new inquests that we've already got that in 50. It stops the existing paused inquest going forward. And 51 addresses directly the inquest, the paused inquest relating to Loch Gall. I picked that out because it is the most controversial.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































It is the most central to what the IRA is trying to achieve, and it has, and it actually emblematic. It's emblematic of many of the reasons why we should not pursue any of these inquests, but should put them in the proper place, which is the Legacy Commission, which can deal with it dispassionately. Before I go any further, I should draw the House's attention to my declarations, my entries in the Register of Members interests, not just this year but in previous years, which relates to the fact that I was the trustee of the SAS Regimental Association.



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I can't remember how many years. Well, more than a decade anyway. Now, so far, all parties in this debate yesterday and today have quite properly focussed on the need to get closure for victims and at the same time, to deliver justice for our veterans. And nobody, I think, can argue with those two aims. And of course, I focus mostly at the moment on getting justice for veterans by preventing them being punished by the process. But before I pursue that line in detail, I'd like just to address some of the words and definitions we use in this, in particular with respect to the operation of inquests in Northern Ireland, the definition of victim, because we all have in our mind a fairly clear idea of what a victim is, I think.















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































But unfortunately it is a little different. In Northern Ireland. The difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair government. Article three of the Victims and Survivors Northern Ireland Order 2006 changed the definition of victim, and it ruled that anyone affected by the troubles through loss, trauma or injury would be classed as a victim. Now that means that proven murderers killed in an attempt to carry out another murder count as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims, and this is still relevant. In September last year, the Democratic Unionist Party used a motion in Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word innocent before victims.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Most of us would think of that as a tautology, but actually it was defeated by Sinn Fein, supported by the Alliance. So I think this is an incredibly central to this. The word innocent exposes the truth. It draws a line between terrorists and their victims. Vet to talk to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. Earlier veterans and victims are not mutually exclusive terms. Terrorists and victims are. And that's the significance of the. The the amendment I'm talking about today because in the group of people, the IRA active service unit that were killed at Lochore, there were any number for whom that applied.













































































































































































































































































































































































































































The clearest was Jim Lynagh, who was guilty of at least 20 murders, probably more than 30. His nickname was The Executioner. He was not an innocent victim by any rational judgement of that word. Now, why local? Well, it was the greatest single defeat of the IRA. It's the one they're most sore about. The one they still feel. Feel the scars of. Why? Because it involved the defeat of what they considered their most successful unit, the East Tyrone Brigade. What was the measure of that success? That so-called brigade killed 250 innocent people. This defeat at Lochore was seen as a humiliation of the IRA, and that means they are now desperate to rewrite that history, casting their murderers as heroes and British soldiers as amoral killers, which is why they want the coroner's inquest rather than the Legacy Commission, because, I'm afraid in Northern Ireland, the coroner's inquest is in many ways public theatre.



















































































































































































































































































































































































































It's it just is different. I mean, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made the point, but I will reiterate it in in in the rest of the United Kingdom, an inquest is not allowed to pursue a case. If it becomes at all apparent that it may lead to a criminal prosecution, a finding of unlawful killing. But in Northern Ireland the reverse is true. And even the Northern Irish judges are recognise the ludicrous nature of this. And we saw it with the case with soldier B, where there was judicial review attempt after judicial review attempt, which led to the judge saying, talking about the ludicrous nature of this challenge, funding it as is as it is by legal aid.





































































































































































































































































































































































































That was a the judge in that sequence that talked about, you know, having to make in slow motion indeed. Freeze frame views or judgements on decisions, life and death decisions for the individuals concerned made in fractions of a second. So, so that's the central reason for the my objection, as it were. Now, why did operations like Le Gall or Clonard or Coke or any of the other ones which are challenged by the supporters of the IRA and, and, and others? Well, the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland made this sort of operation necessary. How's that? The IRA knew how to frustrate justice.

















































































































































































































































































































































































They would murder or intimidate anybody who thought to be, who thought they might be a witness. And not just them, but their families. I have to say, if I were in that circumstance in Northern Ireland, I would baulk at giving evidence. If I felt that my family might be murdered as a result of my doing so, I would baulk at serving on a jury the same reasons. That's why we ended up with Diplock trials. You know, without juries, judges without juries, because it was simply not viable. And Diplock himself, when he when he recommended that talked about as an example, a man who was executed in front of his young son the day before he was due to give evidence in a terrorist trial.

































































































































































































































































































































































So that's the background of the circumstance. But the IRA didn't just stop there. They understood that as well as witnesses. The other thing that matters in court cases is forensics. That's why they wore this strange uniform a boiler suits, rubber gloves, shoe coverings or Wellingtons balaclavas, because they knew that they had to deny the evidence. And not just that, when they'd carried out their crime, the cars used frequently were abandoned and burned to destroy the evidence. And there were plenty of examples. I mean, I think Cornell was one of them where the where there was a crowd prevented the authorities getting close to the car until it had burnt out for a very simple reason to destroy the evidence, even in the case of the murder of the previous speaker at Stormont, Norman Strong and his son, they set fire to the house.













































































































































































































































































































































There again the same aim. So what does this what does this give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way? Hon. Member for giving a. Just on the issue of the IRA's determination to deal with determination to deal with forensics, would you agree with me that in addition to that, they actually blew up the forensics laboratory in South Belfast were forensic information had been gathered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gathered. The Alan Gemmell is exactly right and. And actually, it serves to focus our minds on the fact that to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy that, you know, this this was not something that happened by accident. They didn't just take to having boiler suits as uniforms. This was a deliberate strategy, which of course faced the state with a conundrum because doing nothing, just sitting back doesn't work. You know, if the jury process is and the, and the, and the, the other judicial processes don't work, it's still not an option.



























































































































































































































































































































Why do I say that? Well, I go back let's take the East Tyrone Brigade for an example. They killed 250 people before local. During the late 80s, they were killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state wasn't meeting its duty. So the only way to stop it was to catch them in flagrante, in the exact act of carrying out a crime and try to arrest them. Of course, that's always the first aim of the state to try and do this with minimum force if possible.













































































































































































































































































































But of course, the circumstance didn't always allow that. You had an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, excuse me, you're under arrest. Well, I mean, we we saw actually in the process of many of these events how dangerous this was at Coke, the case that went through all those judicial reviews. An SAS soldier had to dress up effectively as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.































































































































































































































































































Well, you saw that at Clonoe, as I think my right hon. Friend mentioned the again, another problem the intelligence there was wrong, which made it even more difficult. But they were facing a double barrelled machine gun 50 calibre sought to bring down light armour or aircraft. Yeah, three seconds. A burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. And that's the sort of thing we're asking our soldiers to carry out. And I'll come back to the local example, which is even worse in many ways. But that's the sort of thing, as I say, that we are saying to our soldiers, you must do this in order to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if we have to.













































































































































































































































































And this is not theoretical. Soldiers died. I mean, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland in the specific context of the Special Forces, which is what these three cases relate to, I. If people want to look at it, I recommend they look up the example of I can't read the Corporal or Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot on the moment of challenge, or Captain Westacott. There will be others. But. But those. Those will give you clear. Give the House clear examples of the sort of risks that had to be taken, but were taken by our brave and honourable and decent and law abiding soldiers.































































































































































































































































And so we come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

local. Now, the IRA, of course. Mark Francois. He's making a very powerful speech, and it explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Would he, in the coronial system. Would he, given what he said, agree with the words of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnson, who said just recently, because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews all for appeals, judicial reviews all the way up to the Supreme Court and families can access legal aid. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is lawfare on steroids. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that. Sir David.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with David Johnson. By the way. I think he's a very brave commissioner. You know, in a sense, his predecessor was effectively his predecessor was effectively fired for standing up and he's still standing up. So so yes, he's right. And just to go off go off at right. And just to go off go off at a slight tangent on this. Of course at other enemies learn from this. And we're seeing it elsewhere in the world today. And if we're not very careful, we will end up without the one of the best parts of our armed forces because we have ourselves destroyed.









































































































































































































































But let me come back to local. The aim of local was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who will be coming off shift at 7 p.m. it was actually timed at 7 p.m. it wasn't the first. It was the third such operation after Ballygawley, where they shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station and the birches where they machine gunned the station. Fortunately missed people, but they machine gunned the station before blowing it up and local. The IRA team attacked the police station in two units, in 1 in 1 unit, in a van, which carried a team armed with automatic weapons and with the intention of killing the three.

























































































































































































































Police officers as they came off duty. And the other unit, I think, is three men, was in a digger, JCB digger, which was carrying its bucket, a 3 to £400 bomb, 3 to £400 bomb. The attack happened at 7 p.m. As I said, when the police were due to come off, off shift inside the station at the time because of intelligence known there were three police officers and three soldiers, three SAS soldiers. I be frank with the house, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage taken to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by 3 or £400 bomb.











































































































































































































It is. It is beyond my imagination. But that's what they did. The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds. I don't know whether all of them were at the police station, but I imagine most of them were inside the station. People report being hit by fragments of bullets as they shattered, as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. Then the digger crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants.





























































































































































































Injuring is a two mile term for this. Frankly, one had a fractured skull, others have broken bones. Two fell about ten foot onto rubble. Two of the soldiers. Others, of course, had hearing injuries in the firefight that followed, all eight members of the IRA Active Service unit were killed. Now, these are the people otherwise described as victims in this exercise. Now, I've already detailed the worst of them. Jim liner are rather than detail the rest, I'll simply say that the weapons recovered after the event were responsible for 40 to 50 forensic analysis, responsible for 40 to 50 killings killings in every single county in Northern Ireland.













































































































































































 The effect well before the East Tyrone Brigade. No, not for a second. I'll give away in a moment. You may. East Surrey Brigade were responsible for over 20% of the IRA's activities and killings in Northern Ireland. Afterwards, they're responsible for less than 10%. This operation saved lives, I give way to them, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for the hon. Member for giving way. Can I just ask him to put on the record as well, that another man was killed on that day in that operation called Anthony Hughes totally, completely, utterly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hughes totally, completely, utterly innocent civilian, not involved in organisation. Yes, indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, indeed. I was about to come to that that point. And I will, in fact, probably come back to it again. And probably come back to it again. And that is the real tragedy of that day. That is the real tragedy. He was the real, the real victim and his son, by the way, I think, who was wounded as well. And, you know, one of the things about the British state is we do take our and I know the hon. Gentleman won't agree, but we do take our judicial responsibility seriously in these matters. And we have prosecuted our own soldiers.





















































































































































I mean, the name Clegg jumps to mind. But there are others as well who are prosecuted and sent to prison for for acting well, even bluntly, acting irresponsibly, let alone malevolently. So. So yes, of course, the worst tragedy is literally the next paragraph. I'll give him my paper afterwards so we can see. And incidentally, that's one of the reasons I would say that this should go to the Legacy Commission, because that's a really important thing to to investigate. But in a cool analytical manner, not in the front, frankly, the theatre of the court, because why do the IRA want to have a coroner's inquest rather than Legacy Commission?







































































































































Because they're humiliated at Loughgall and want to rewrite history with them as the heroes and British soldiers as the villains? Now we've heard, and let me give you a sort of an early sign of the house. Sorry. Beg your pardon, Madam Chairman. Give the House an early sign of. Of what sort of thing they're trying to claim. We've been hearing recently that the these IRA who only aiming to destroy the building. They weren't aiming to kill anybody. Completely different from the first, the operations where they actually murdered them in cold blood before they started blowing it up.



























































































































Yeah. And of course, that doesn't explain why they were firing 78 rounds at the building. Bullets kill people, not buildings. Why they were there at the shift change when the soldier, when the sorry, the RUC men were about to come out. It's plainly nonsense, but it's the sort of nonsense that they want to perpetrate in a court, and that. That's why one. One other reason why I would rather see the dispassionate actions of the Commission than the activities of of of IRA lawyers in, in the courts. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member, right hon. Member for giving way. He is making a very powerful speech. And making a very powerful speech. And look, all is in my constituency. And he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA were the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. And I think it is important to the House think it is important to the House just to remind them of the names. Even Martin Sir Norman Strong and his son James, the four UDR his son James, the four UDR soldiers of the Ballygawley land mine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, Harold Henry of Henry brothers, all names and families murdered by these people.



































































































So their CV certainly doesn't say that they were going just to blow up a building. When you look at that and he is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh with regards, and he was actually under investigation for Sir Norman Strong's at the time of the local. And Patrick Kearney convicted of firearms offences as well. So today today when we discuss this, the government have the opportunity to stop this second inquest. And would he agree with me that the government must do the right thing and actually include within this legislation your amendment 51, to stop this second inquest and show that when these people met real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

soldiers, it saved lives. Yeah. Before Sir David, David responds,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before Sir David, David responds, I know that. Please. Very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please know you and raised, but please know you and know your Sir David Davidson. Can I please remind the hon. Member many people wish to contribute in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate this evening, Sir David Davis. I'm very close to the end, Madam Speaker, but sorry, Madam Chairman. Speaker, but sorry, Madam Chairman. There we are. I've made a mistake. Now. Now he's exactly right. And that's the entire thrust of this amendment. Indeed, if I had my way, I'd say amendment 49 is better because it stops all of these and puts them all. It doesn't get rid of them. It puts them into a better process. It's the government themselves have now designed. And let me just finish on the question of the coroner's court. I spoke this morning.



































































I mean, I listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and now these are the people I'm talking to talking about. You can guess who they are a tough, intelligent soldier, but this is not their environment. When they're being harassed by a lawyer trying to get a story out of them, not get the truth, get the story out of them. And I spoke this morning to one of them who had been through more of these court cases, both in both in the inquests and in judicial review than most. And he tells me that IRA lawyers, his words, are more interested in drama than justice.























































And no, not on this for a second. I'm nearly at an end. I've been I've already been rebuked by the chairman for going on and and and this I'm afraid this is consistent with what I saw. I've never appeared in an inquest, but I've appeared in a Diplock court in Northern Ireland and and a Diplock court in Northern Ireland. Sorry, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm being heckled and and I sort of say the, the, the lawyers interested in making a historic Rosie Wrighting point rather than the that's why the IRA would welcome the restarting of inquest.











































They would view a lock all inquest as an victory in its own right, because it'll allow them yet another attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles. And by the way, one aside, I mean, it comes back to the the hon. Gentleman's point in a way, but the converse of it, one of the soldiers at Loughgall got the military medal. In my view, many of them should have. But he got the military medal. What for? For putting himself at extra risk to save civilians, to prevent the death of civilians. That tells you what you're dealing with.































With British soldiers in Northern Ireland. Last point. This operation was approved in detail by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. I believe it was approved in detail by the Secretary of State. It was reviewed by the DPP, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all of the information to hand forensics witness the lot. And remember, there'll be RUC people who had been not involved directly, but who were given witness statements. So do we want to run that through a circumstance when the evidence is degraded, when people's memories have got when some have died, I mean, one of them, one of the individuals involved has got dementia.



















That is that what we want to do or do we want to do it properly by dispassionate method, using an instrument that is designed for the process. And actually both sides of the House agree will work. So I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment for 50. Claire Hanna. Thank you very much, miss, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, miss, and thank you to all of those who have contributed to what has been a contributed to what has been a relatively constructive debate over the last two days, because it's not lost on me anyway that our work in this chamber, and over the coming days in the Northern Ireland Select Committee is about the legacy of Committee is about the legacy of the troubles, is about paramilitary transition, is about a 1990s parading dispute, as if we didn't have problems and challenges to deal with in the present day.

And the sad reality is that despite the seismic changes in our part of the
14:54
Claire Hanna Portrait Claire Hanna MP (Belfast South and Mid Down, Social Democratic & Labour Party)
-
-
world over the decades, past isn't the past it infects and it affects politics and policing and public services every day. And that's why we need to get through it. Most of all, it affects victims and all, it affects victims and survivors who through all the decades have changed, have been told to wait, to wait while the told to wait, to wait while the rest of us and the rest of society is allowed to move on. And while the murders of their loved ones are the murders of their loved ones are justified and explained away or minimised.













































































































































































Because the truth is that for three decades, the needs of those with most to hide are what have been prioritised, rather than the needs of those with most to gain. And the lesson that hasn't been learned by some in this House isn't that victims have dragged this out. It's the fact that we're still at this three decades on, precisely because the information that families need has had to be clawed and prised out of the hands of those with most to hide. So for them and for the Sdlp, this legislation isn't about being obsessed with the past.

































































































































































It isn't about raking over what has gone on. It's fundamentally about the future and our ability to move forward together. That's why we make no apology for supporting this legislation or for trying to make it better. So I want to address today's schedule, and I want to address some of the amendments and some of the arguments that featured in the debate, and that about the passage of time and some of the tropes about vexatious investigations and some statistics relating to those issues. I think my hon. Friend for Liverpool West rightly set out in very powerful detail the healing power accessed by truth of the Hillsborough family and, and and the meaning that has had for them.















































































































































Another fact that, of course, bears repeating is that tens of thousands of Republican and loyalist prisoners did go through the justice system for for their crimes, their terrible crimes, which our party stood firmly against in the face of provocation and sectarian horrors from every direction. So nobody here is calling those people heroes. And and in perfect as that justice is, it did take place. And those who wish to describe those people as heroes, none of whom are sitting on these benches or anywhere else, are bolstered by the failure, the failure to to show any sort of nuance, and by the blind defence of some of the most brutal killings of of the troubles.

































































































































So we understand the pride that many in this chamber feel in the British Army. We understand that of the 300,000 men, mostly men, men and women who served, the vast majority did go out to try and keep the peace and to serve. But we also need to restate that it has been. It practically single figures, the number of those who have been investigated. But we acknowledge that so many of those soldiers were subjected to horrors. We acknowledge their pain and indeed, the interventions of many of their families who are seeking access to truth, the same as any other families, because that's what this is about, not lawfare and revisionism.

















































































































And I have to ask people to be careful with their language when they use terms like IRA lawyers, because do you know what has happened to people in the past when they've been named in this chamber as IRA lawyers? They were shot dead in front of their families. So can we take a little bit of caution in some of the language that we are using? This is about the healing power of information and the right of families to access it. A right powerfully, as I say, articulated about Hillsborough families and partially articulated in the report published last month into the murder of Rory O'Reilly, a founding member of our party, a decent man, a family man who represented the non-violent civil rights protesters and who was brutally murdered while attending a funeral in his hometown by the provisional IRA.

































































































Because of his belief in and because of his professional service to the rule of law. So his case in the report, released last month with feedback from his family, gives some sense of the release and the comfort families can find in investigations, even if, in that case, no prosecution follows and it should be read and understood by those who want to smear those who support this legislation as being Republicans involved in IRA cheerleading. So prosecutions we all know, won't follow in most cases. But that certainly doesn't mean they should be off the table where evidence leads.



















































































And that brings me to the amendment, which designs in a vital role for the Attorney General in London and the potential undermining of the processes where legislating for today, independence of the judiciary is a principle worth protecting in general, and especially in these scenarios. When and even though I appreciate this is hard for many people in this chamber to hear, the UK government was not some neutral player. They were an active participant at many times in our horrible conflict. So how can families truly have confidence in in these processes, when a veto belongs to a government that they feel actively participated in the conflict and at many times covered up that information?



































































I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the cooperation that this legislation represents up to and including some op eds, implying that this is a move towards EU re-entry, a combination of some of the greatest hits we hear in this chamber. The facts are that the Stormont House agreement, signed in 2014 and enacted, created the potential for architecture at that time to go through legacy processes and to, I suppose, capture some of the many themes and patterns that members across the House have tried to highlight, and created possibilities for us to push back against some of the revisionism and counter-narratives that many of us oppose.















































That legislation was not enacted. That architecture was not built by the previous government, and we see the consequences of the practical implications when the two governments are not on the same page and in lockstep, we see that in the inquiry currently going on into Omagh. That makes clear that without the governments acting jointly, without the intricate and carefully designed terms of reference that those families deserve and many of us are watching in some distress that inquiry and the apparent missed opportunities to prevent that horrific bomb and the toll that it's taking on families. So the SLP is not here to say that Irish governments, past or present, have got everything right on legacy.

































We certainly aren't. But we are here to highlight the ludicrous hypocrisy of those who are declaring, decrying and inventing, in many cases, a lack of disclosure from Dublin while fighting tooth and nail to suppress every bit of information they can from this government. So I will finish where I started with victims and survivors for whom this is all about, and for whom all of this is certainly not confined to history books. Of all of the words written about the troubles, none get it more powerfully than the Ulster poet John Hewitt, who wrote in neither an elegy or a manifesto.



















Bear in mind these dead. I can find no plainer words, and we can't build reconciliation on concealment and secrets. We've tried that for the last three decades, and it didn't work. We can't ask families to just accept the truth is too uncomfortable when the truth is about the death of their loved ones, and we can't get to the other side of this ugly period without, unfortunately, going through it. So this legislation, this body, it isn't perfect, but it's the last and best chance for those families

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from all backgrounds to try and move forward. And we commend it to the House. Chris Coghlan Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Coghlan Madam. Chair, we. Owe our special forces an enormous debt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enormous debt. I understood. This more clearly when I served in counter-terrorism in the Foreign in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office. That debt has not been honoured with the endless and
15:02
Chris Coghlan Portrait Chris Coghlan MP (Dorking and Horley, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
honoured with the endless and unjustified litigation against Northern Ireland veterans in Northern Ireland. There has been a sustained attempt to paint a moral equivalence between those who are maintaining law and order and those who conducted murder. Veterans fear persecution. That is why I support amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend for Wimbledon. That will require a new evidence certificate to be issued before the resumption of any inquest. As the hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington has spoken so movingly about. On the 8th of May 1987, a heavily armed eight man IRA provisional IRA team approached a police station at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Loughgall. They used a JCB to breach the perimeter with a 3 to £400 bomb in the bucket. They're engaged by the SAS and killed. It was the largest single loss of life by the IRA. Tragically, loss of life by the IRA. Tragically, an innocent civilian was mistaken for the IRA and killed two. There for the IRA and killed two. There have already been four investigations or inquests into local. If there is another. What further answers are the families expecting? On their own terms? Their loved ones were members of the provisional IRA committed to violence for political ends.





























What would this mean for veterans? Anyone who opened fire will be anxious at doing their duty. Could be portrayed as a serious crime. I share the serious concerns of SAS veterans and their regimental associations. The failing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is that there is no robust objective test. Prevent the reopening of inquests without new and compelling evidence. Madam chair, I may be an MP, but I'm also a reservist soldier in the London Guards. I've served alongside soldiers who know that they have done nothing wrong, but now worry that in 30 or 40 years time they too could be hauled out of retirement to court.















How can that be right? British soldiers risked their lives for others. We owe them the just protection of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment. Al Carns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Carney. The conduct of this debate today and yesterday I found deeply yesterday I found deeply encouraging. I think it's been thoughtful. I think it's been meaningful. And the passionate speeches have informed my insight speeches have informed my insight and understanding to both Northern Ireland veterans and other issues all combined. Indeed, I think the all combined. Indeed, I think the my hope in democracy, candour and progressive Parliament has generally been restored after some
15:05
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
other debates which I have had the privilege of sitting in on Mark Garnier. As you'll be aware, yesterday I spoke to the House yesterday I spoke to the House about some of the changes the government have made to this bill, and I'm grateful to the Secretary of State for them. He. He has listened. The change on equivalence matters to me as to protections against people being investigated again and again for some of the again and again for some of the same events. I still think, however, that we've got the architecture of this bill wrong from the start.













































































































































































































 this bill wrong from the start. What happens to outstanding inquests is of concern and ability to balance truth and reconciliation with justice is almost impossible. And I'll explain why. We have 38 inquests which have stopped. They're going to restart under the Bill. Some will go back to the coronial system, with others going to the Legacy Commission. It would be really useful to the Secretary. State could answer me as to whether those inquests that sat with the Solicitor General, once they go into Legacy Commission or whether they go into the inquest into the inquest process, can they go straight into the Legacy Commission or do they need to be opened as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquest before they move as a recommendation into the Legacy Commission? When the Solicitor General does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the Solicitor General does his sift of those inquests of those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

processes, they will go straight to the Legacy Commission Al Carns. That's encouraging to know. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's encouraging to know. But these are the deaths from same the same conflict being considered decades later. Yet we're deliberately providing two different routes for dealing with them. Now, I've recommended now for over 12 months that we create one centralised body to deal with the troubles related to these issues. I know there are some that that would be uncomfortable, particularly those who represent families who have waited a very, very long time for an inquest. And I understand why. I'm not suggesting for a moment that those families should lose the work that has already been done.













































































































































































The evidence gathered should go with the case. Nor am I seeking to prevent prosecutions. If the commission finds evidence that somebody has committed a criminal offence, whether that person wore a uniform or indeed belonged to a terrorist organisation, that evidence should go to the prosecuting authorities. I am trying to get us to one process which you can have some confidence in. There is a reason I feel strongly about this. We need to be very careful about the history we're creating through the legacy process, and also why it's impossible to balance truth and reconciliation with justice.



































































































































































Indeed, the state kept records. They kept a lot of records during the troubles. Of course it did. Operations were recorded, reports were written, and the people involved can often be identified. There is an enormous amount of material about what the British state did and didn't do. The IRA and other terrorist groups did not keep operational records. There is no equivalent archive sitting somewhere with record records, who gave an order, who carried it out and what happened

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afterwards? Hon. Member, forgive me. I'm not sure we know for that, but the area didn't keep records. But that's an aside. What we do know, though, given all that we've seen over the last number of years and the reports that have been done, we know very well that the IRA and other terrorist organisations were riddled from top to bottom, with informers reporting directly into informers reporting directly into the British state. And those files exist. Those files could tell us a whole lot about what the IRA and other organisations were up to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Al Carns. Thank you for the intervention. But when those records are exposed outside and threatened either outside and threatened either national security or individual security, we've got to take that into account. Now, yesterday, I into account. Now, yesterday, I think we all agreed that families deserve justice. They deserve answers, and indeed, many wanted answers, and indeed, many wanted closure. But with the majority of murders and the troubles remaining unsolved and conducted by terrorist organisations, there just isn't the organisations, there just isn't the evidence to get to the truth or indeed the justice. I would like to ask, how is the bill going to change that?



































































































































Let me just have a think about that. How is the bill going to change the amount of evidence? Where is the new evidence coming from? Well, we need to be honest. I think with the families. Do we genuinely believe that ex-ira or unionist terrorists are going to come and give information to this process? If by coming forward to offer information that would provide answers at the same time will self-incriminate the witness or the individual providing the information? How many will generally participate? And then I hear Ireland. I hear new biometric and forensic evidence gathering capabilities.























































































































There just isn't the evidence that will get to the truth, the reality. And I could be wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I will hold my hand up. Is that very few terrorists, if any, will come forward? The quest for the truth will lie on slivers and I mean slivers of new evidence. That doesn't mean to say we shouldn't investigate it. Slivers of new evidence that are found, or indeed Ireland opening and giving the UK access to its extensive archives. But do we believe Ireland will do that? It will be politically very difficult. Legally painful indeed.











































































































Question the reputation moral compass of consecutive Irish governments and their reputation. We need to be honest with families. This bill will not magically produce new evidence, and this creates a very real problem when, 30 to 40 years later, we try to establish the truth through legal proceedings. Material available to investigators is inevitably much richer on one side than it is on the other. If we then put the cases through different processes as well, we make the problem even worse. I've described this before as creating a hierarchy of truth. I don't mean that as a slogan.































































































I mean something quite specific. What can be investigated most easily becomes what gets investigated most thoroughly, what gets investigated most thoroughly, produces the most findings. And after enough years have passed, those findings start to become the history of the conflict. I do not believe anybody in this House generally intends that to happen. I genuinely don't think that's the case. But intention isn't really the point. We need to look at where the system we are building eventually takes us. The bill is trying to prevent repeat investigations, and I welcome the work to do so. But a small example Soulja Boy from Coke has not been charged, but has had eight years of legal process.















































































Three court cases have ruled his actions were justified with the appropriate use of force. Yet the family have received legal aid to take the case again to the Supreme Court. Soulja Boy is unlikely ever to be charged, but he's undergone eight years of legal uncertainty and will endure many more. This isn't about prosecutions. This is about the process being wielded as the punishment. And that is also why I come at this as a Labour MP. The Good Friday Agreement asked an enormous amount of people to do very, very difficult things. There were decisions made as part of that settlement, which many people found very hard to accept and still do.

































































Prisoners walked out of jail. People who had been enemies were expected to sit in government together. Blair and Mo Mowlam understood that there was no settlement available, which could somehow settle every account from the previous 30 years. They were trying to stop another generation having to live the same argument, and I worry that we're in danger of doing the opposite with legacy in 10 or 15 years time. People in Northern Ireland's understanding of what happened will come in large part from what is being established now. And if over those years, one part of the conflict has been examined again and again, because that is where the records and the people are available.





















































While much of the activity of terrorist organisations remains beyond the reach, we should not be surprised if people begin to draw conclusions from that. That would be a poor legacy for a Labour government to leave them. None of this diminishes what families have been through. There are people who spent decades trying to find out what happened to someone they loved. Hundreds of people. They are entitled to pursue the truth. And I would never vote for a system designed to deny it to them. But I also know veterans who have lived for years with the possibility that somebody will reopen an event which has already been examined, sometimes more than once, in many cases more than once.







































Many of those people are now very old men. We cannot keep pretending that endless process is the same thing as justice. The government has chosen to strengthen the Legacy Commission, and I think that is the right thing to do. If we believe the Commission can do this work, then let it do the work. Give it these outstanding cases and the material already collected. Let families take part. And if it finds evidence which belongs before a court, then that is where it should go. Indeed, even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has questioned the justification for having two approaches to these revived inquests, and I think it's a fair question, and I have yet to hear a convincing answer to it, other than it will stress test the framework agreement with the Irish.

























I know the Secretary of State also has to deal with the Irish and the commitments which have been made there. I do not underestimate the problems of that, but Dublin has responsibilities here as well. If this process is going to have credibility, co-operation and access to information cannot run in one direction, and I am yet to be convinced that Dublin will open up its archives to expose the 30 years of cross border activity that has taken place. Now I resign from government, in part because I could not support where we got to on legacy. I did not do that lightly and I have not changed my views simply because I now sit on this bench rather than the front bench.













 I want the government to get this right. Put these remaining inquests into the same system, keep the evidence and work which has already been done, and let the commission follow the evidence wherever it goes. We spent nearly 30 years trying to move Northern Ireland beyond the troubles. At some point we have to leave the next generation something better than another set of processes through which to fight them all over again. And for that reasons above, I cannot support the government plans for Northern Ireland's legacy today.
15:16
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Gavin Robinson can I thank you >> Gavin Robinson can I thank you for calling me and can I say it is a huge privilege to follow the honourable and gallant gentleman. He is somebody who has been steadfast and faithful to not only the principles that he upholds and that he expounds, but to the bonds with his comrades and the consequence that is before us all in the legislation. And he has acted in a selfless way. And I guess that is the mark of the man. There are many in politics who wouldn't have taken the position that he did.



























































































































































































































































































































































































So it is a pleasure to follow him and I thank him for his contribution. Can I also make a Foyle? We need to do this given his contribution today. Just make mention of the hon. Member for Wimbledon, the hon. Member for Wimbledon started off his contribution this afternoon, almost apologetically, and last week, after the carryover motion, the hon. Member took sanctuary in Londonderry with me and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and I feared he had done something inexplicable. He had united the House against him and I didn't agree with that assessment, Miss Carney, but I do believe that he is approaching these issues with a level of diligence that we appreciate, and I thank him for that.









































































































































































































































































































































































Mr. Carney, I do. I mean, obviously, I spoke yesterday more broadly on terms of the bill and in respect of those amendments before the House yesterday afternoon. Sometimes I lament that on issues like legacy, there are far too many people who hear what they think is being said because of the person saying it, and they don't listen to the contributions that are being made. There are people in this debate who will think, well, they would say that anyway, wouldn't they? Always standing up for the Brits. Or they would say that, wouldn't they? Always standing up for the Irish, or they would acquiesce, wouldn't they?























































































































































































































































































































































Always in the face of terror. And I don't think it. Does this debate any good. There are people that I fundamentally disagree with will be in different sides of. The chamber, will be in different lobbies from this evening. But there are things that they say and contributions that they make in this debate that I agree with and miss. I do worry that so often in this debate, there seems to be a tension between victims and innocent victims. Soldiers, or should we say state combatants. Some would describe them as. I think it's disrespectful. But we pit individuals against one another.







































































































































































































































































































































 Why is it that somebody like me talks about veterans and the need for veterans protection is because those were individuals who volunteered to stand up for the things that we value in this country. I listen to the hon. Member who's not in his place at the moment, and it was Sunderland Central, perhaps Sunderland Central, and he said when the army were deployed in Northern Ireland, they didn't they weren't deployed for one side or another. It's not quite right. They were deployed on the one side that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland were on to, and that's those that believe in the rule of law and upholding decency of democracy.

























































































































































































































































































































They were deployed to stand up for our values. And when I say our values, I mean Protestant, Catholic dissenter, none in Northern Ireland, those who believe in the values that hold our society together, they were deployed on one side against those who wanted to destroy our nation, destroy our livelihoods, and take our lives. That's why they were deployed, and that's why we owe it to them. As a parliament, as a legislative chamber, to provide protections. And the right hon. Gentleman who I have huge regard for the we clashed many times in these issues. Will know that I asked him not to talk about protections for veterans if they didn't amount to measures that protected those very same veterans.







































































































































































































































































































 Talk of safeguards. Talk of measures you may bring forward that could provide some level of comfort. But let's not describe them as protections. If they don't protect and what we hear and what we see before us today and throughout the course of these debates, are the following measures. Fairness, dignity and respect. It's offered as a protection to veterans. There should be fairness, dignity and respect for anybody in these processes. And of course, it doesn't apply to veterans. It applies to everyone. Witness participation. Witnesses should not be compelled to participate unless there is new and compelling evidence.





















































































































































































































































































It's offered as a protection for veterans, but it's something that applies in principle to everyone. I don't challenge that, but I don't pretend it's something it's not. Older veterans. This legislation and amendments will force, will guarantee that they are treated with respect, with care, and that an assessment is made, if needed at all. That's their participation. It doesn't just apply to older veterans. It's presented wrongly, mischievously as a protection for veterans, but rightly it's an application of a principle that applies to all. And then we have the provisions around the Attorney General and the consent required for the Attorney General.

































































































































































































































































The government, new clause 50. Veterans asked for this. Veterans asked for the Attorney General to be incorporated into this process, who also serves as the Advocate general for Northern Ireland, and that it has been offered, satisfies the requests of veterans. And they do it because they don't trust. I heard earlier mentioned the politics of Northern Ireland and prosecutions. Well, our prosecution service is independent of politics in Northern Ireland. It is independent of politics in Northern Ireland. But this is given the consent required of the Attorney General is given because it's been requested by veterans and veterans.

















































































































































































































































Assume that it's going to add some level of protection. And it won't. And whenever it is challenged and whenever the Secretary of State has been challenged about why he is doing it and challenged by victims, challenged by loved ones and challenged by others, he gives an answer. And he gave it again last night. It's in Hansard. That's the wrong page, but it is in Hansard. Where he says, yes, completely. It 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 not only have a quasi judicial function and would use precisely the same prosecutor's prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.





























































































































































































































So what started as a request from veterans and has been welcomed by some veterans groups and think that it's going to add some level of protection or cover from the infected process they see in Northern Ireland. It's not. We know very clearly one applies to every one two quasi judicial process. Three, just replicating exactly the same principles of the prosecutors who are making the decision in Northern Ireland in the first place. So the question is this why do it at all? What benefit is there at all if they are replicating the same process approached independently, which is quasi judicial?















































































































































































































Is applying legal application? What does it add to the process at all? And I said it this morning to a wider audience in Northern Ireland. I'll say it again this evening. The problem with this proposition is that it started as a request, and that request was acquiesced to, and people were led to believe it was a level of prosecution when challenged, of protection when challenged by victims, to say, how can you be stepping in to protect, how can you provide a mechanism that is going to protect a certain cohort? The answer is, well, actually, it doesn't apply to them alone.



































































































































































































It applies to everyone. And actually, it's just exactly the same application of principle that you'll see in Northern Ireland. And it's quasi judicial anyway. And of course, it could be judicially reviewed. And the reason I raise these points, the reason I raise these points is because I think it's fundamentally important that people speak accurately, accurately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miss Carney well, I will. Can I ask, is he in favour of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask, is he in favour of the Attorney General move or not? I am happy to sit down and take a further intervention. I ask, a further intervention. I ask, what's the point if it replicates exactly the same process and applies exactly the same principle as adheres to Northern Ireland as adheres to Northern Ireland prosecutions, why make it a provision in this legislation? Why bring forward the amendment? It was acquiescence to a request from veterans. That's what it started then came from the Joint Committee. It has been presented as a protection for someone, yet it applies to everyone equally, and it's a replication of a process that already exists.











































































































































































So my question. It's not a question for me as to whether I support it. The question for the Secretary of State is why it's been introduced at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I have already explained at some length both yesterday and I said earlier today, and I think he said earlier today, and I think he was in his place when I said this, that this is not to take anything away from the prosecuting away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. They are going to be cooperating on producing be cooperating on producing guidelines on how these decisions are to be arrived at. But there will be some instances that relate will be some instances that relate to troubles related deaths in England. There will be some, a small number, relatively small compared to the number in Northern Ireland.





























































































































































It makes sense that there's consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. It's a it is a versus that has been used elsewhere. And that's why we're advocating it. But I ask again,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does he support the amendment or not? Every time the Secretary of State speaks Mark Garnier, he confuses issues. He muddies the confuses issues. He muddies the waters. Does this process apply to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every case or just those in England? This is a slightly odd no, but of course it applies to all cases. of course it applies to all cases. He knows this. I just ask again. Does he support the measure or not? He argued for it privately to me in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the past. First of all, I put forward the request from veterans organisations request from veterans organisations as well. He knows. But secondly. But secondly, and separately, if But secondly, and separately, if the Secretary of State is incapable or unwilling of arguing the added benefit of the proposition, given how it is presented today, then I how it is presented today, then I think that will be of interest to many listening in the House, many listening in the House. Don't pretend. Don't pretend that protections are being offered when they are not. Don't pretend that they do something different than they are intended to do.































































































































And for the Secretary of State to sit there and say what he has just said, I think says an awful lot more about him than I. It does. There we go. I mean, it is pathetic. Madam Deputy Speaker, or should I say Miss Gammie? So this chamber will consider amendments, I have no doubt, just with the lack of scrutiny and the lack of interest in most. That was before us yesterday. They'll be agreed on the nod. They'll go through on the nod, and then time will tell. Time will tell. Inquests and Miss Nooks have already got a good airing in this debate.











































































































I think it's clear just to. Clear, just to hear from the framework document, that seems to be the foundation for a lot of this with the Irish government about the numbers involved. Inquests that had already started. There are nine in total, nine in total, 20 inquests more recently have been directed by the Attorney General. And of those four remaining inquests from the previous five year plan 24 and nine. There seems to be a working assumption within government as to how many will survive. The sift from the Solicitor General. We haven't heard that figure today. I think it is incongruous that the government continue to present, rightly so, that the Legacy Commission complies with statutory obligations, discharges functions under article two is good enough for everyone, but not good enough for a select few.



















































































And so when given the opportunity yesterday, be it in euros 55 or given the opportunity this evening in amendment 51, I haven't heard a satisfactory answer as to why government are going to resist ensuring that the Legacy Commission looks at all of these cases, particularly when there's an argument around consistency of approach. Cannot say that you'll defend to the nth degree and upheld in Dillon that the process is provided for. Everybody else, are compliant, and then keep a select few for inquests. The Secretary state knows the danger of that process and yet not take steps to deal with that in amendment 32.



































































 Miss Nokes, I have tabled an amendment alongside my colleagues, just to starkly illustrate the point that if you want to have protections, if this House wants to have protections that are for and intended to assist veterans and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, then they can do so. But we will see new clause seven that will be considered, I think, is an important reporting function. We've heard people chastise one another over the chamber yesterday. We've heard people suggest that this will have a damaging and destabilising impact on recruitment of our armed forces. And I've heard others say that's nonsense.



















































It's never been as healthy. I'm not sure there are many in this chamber would really agree that our armed forces have never been as healthy. There should be no fear from agreeing to new clause seven. New clause seven is there to assist us all, not pretend that the world is as we would like it to be, but it is as it actually is. And a new clause 12 for the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Wimbledon the duty to promote reconciliation. It's often often overlooked, often overlooked. The old Legacy Act had a reconciliation part to it.







































It was at the tail end and it never gets focussed upon in this chamber. That is a challenge, Miss Nokes. For us all. A challenge for those in Northern Ireland who wish to reconcile but reconcile, not meaning appeasement, not meaning that we shouldn't have the right to stand up for the values that we hold to here. Some repentance or forgiveness for the hurt that has been done on others across our societies, ascribing blame but recognising that there is hurt on these issues and that there is a need for reconciliation. And I'm not sure government's mantra in the past used to be it's not for governments to reconcile one person's heart to another, but they certainly can provide the right basis and the foundation for doing so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Baker thank you, Madam Chair. The Good Friday Agreement and the peace we enjoy today would and the peace we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. What unites us in this House is the debt we owe to the thousands of British Army the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Operation Banner over four decades.

Many of them trace their story back to my patch. The home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, when the IRA launched one of its first attacks on mainland Britain against
15:34
Alex Baker Portrait Alex Baker MP (Aldershot, Labour)
-
-
the headquarters of 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost, their families and all those who lost loved ones during the who lost loved ones during the troubles are in my thoughts today. These issues are woven into the These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. It is why I have sat in this chamber for why I have sat in this chamber for all but last week's carry over motion. Over a year of this debate debate going on in this place. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans.



















































































































































And it's why I've spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations. And it's why I've facilitated direct discussions between veterans groups, between the Northern Ireland Secretary and number ten, working with my hon. Friend, honourable and gallant friend for Southend East and Rochford. Let me thank all members of our Armed Forces community who have engaged with me through this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association, the Aldershot branch of which the Royal British Legion and those watching over our debate in the gallery today. My determination has been to ensure your voices are heard in this legislation.



































































































































Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served. We have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in New legacy arrangements. And we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who serve to protect lives and the terrorists, who were only focussed on taking lives. I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People. They have listened, engaged and acted. I only wish we could have started from here.

















































































































The bill is now much more improved than the one that first entered this house. But I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will be abstaining on this Third Reading on this bill tonight. Madam chair, there are some in this House who would do away with this bill altogether. I disagree, because then we would lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families, including hundreds of armed forces. Families, deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veterans charter.



































































































I respectfully disagree with them as well. There must be accountability. But those who have dedicated their lives to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their lives fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that this legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve. It is clear to me there is still more work to be done. We have heard in this debate about the case of soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could face yet another process. If this bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause.

















































































As someone who is proud to represent a seat with 5000 serving personnel, I also want those who serve today and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the future to know we will always have their back. Was she loud? I will Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will Secretary. I'm very grateful. First of all, I want to put on record from the Dispatch Box the gratitude of the whole of the Northern Ireland team whole of the Northern Ireland team to her and her friend who's sitting behind her for the work that they've done, some of the changes they've done, some of the changes that we've been able to make to the bill at this stage would not have been able to have been made without been able to have been made without her contribution. And and and I also undertake. She referred to the process isn't ended.





































































I believe that too. And I and the whole ministerial team will work with her and others, and the Parachute Regiment Association and other associations as well to get the bill to the very right place by the time it is enacted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. And, you for that contribution. And, you know, it is to his credit for the progress that we have made in in in progress that we have made in in in recent weeks on this. And as I say, the bill is in in a much better the bill is in in a much better place off the back of the of the recent process. I want to come back to this, this piece about making to this, this piece about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back, whether it is in this bill or the Defence Readiness Bill that I hope will be coming very shortly to this House.



















































I believe there is more we can do to tighten up the Overseas Operations Act. So we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. And I know our veterans organisations, when it comes to this bill, have a lot of other ideas on how this bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those consideration, give them the fullest consideration. Madam chair, doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics. It is our shared duty. I cannot support this bill tonight. It is not something I do lightly, but I am not giving up on this bill either.

































There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across this House. I hope we can work together with those in the other place. I hope we can still work together with our Armed Forces community to get this right, and I will continue to play my part.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Suella Braverman thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm. The section that we're debating relates to the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval, inquests and the relaxations of the restrictions the relaxations of the restrictions on the police investigations and. Madam chairman, there's only really Madam chairman, there's only really one word to describe those measures contained in this section of the Bill and indeed the totality of the Bill and indeed the totality of the Bill. And I'm afraid that word is betrayal, because now the government demands much of its soldiers. It asks brave men and women to put their lives in danger and to sacrifice huge amounts.













And what do they get in return? We have ostensibly a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in its breach than in its observance. And the question really is what do our troops get in return? At a time when the government is proposing to cut the defence Budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and is at the same time asking men and women to step up and serve in its reservists.

The
15:42
Suella Braverman Portrait Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP (Fareham and Waterlooville, Reform UK)
-
-
truth is that this country treats our enemies better than it treats our enemies better than it treats our heroes. The truth. The truth is, I'm afraid that those of our people I'm afraid that those of our people who are our bravest get treated worse than those who terrorise us. worse than those who terrorise us. That's what the litigation shows. That's what this bill reflects. Now, the reality is that these sections build more architecture. They build more process, and process becomes punishment. That's what these measures institute, and they perpetuate the retrospective prosecution and persecution, if you will, of our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brave troops. Many decades after they were acting in national they were acting in national service. And that process, this extension of litigation, this extension of lawfare, wholly fails extension of lawfare, wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action. Terrorists, when they are planning to attack us, have the planning to attack us, have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it, how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, zero warning, and have to make decisions in split seconds, life or death decisions to defend themselves and to defend others.























































































































































































































































Now, many decades after those those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials, government Ministers are applying harsh rules to those people who put their lives at risk for our security. And those decisions that they made at the time were lawful. They were following orders. They were adhering to rules of engagement, often set by their superiors or officials at the Ministry of Defence or Ministers, indeed, none of whom are being held to account. Decades after the act. And let's remember our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva Convention, the the law of armed conflict, and they're known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force.





































































































































































































































But these this legislation, and indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation, have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots, and as a result, dragging them through the courts. Surely the cases of the late Dennis Hutchings, soldier F soldiers A and C, some of whom were exonerated after several investigations over several decades, only to be prosecuted again on charges of murder, should provide a warning and a salutary warning to the government that the measures in this bill are not fit for purpose.





















































































































































































































 They risk reopening historic investigations and avoiding the finality that many of our soldiers and many people involved in those troubles need and deserve today. And it's not just me saying it or this side of the House, but it's so egregious of the contents of this bill that the regiment associations are used to getting involved in politics have now come out and strongly opposed the contents of this bill the SAS, the Special Forces, the Paras, the veterans Associations have united and campaigned vociferously against the contents of this bill because they know that the impacts of this bill will be devastating.





































































































































































































And in my part of the world, in Fareham and Waterlooville, we have many, many veterans in Gosport, in Portsmouth, in Aldershot, in Hampshire, thousands of brave veterans and serving personnel, many of them have spoken to me about their real concerns of this bill. The truth is that many people from the veteran community, in fact, all of them come from good traditional patriotic families. They are people who believe in standing up for what they believe in. And this bill and this government, they believe is betraying those values, is targeting them unfairly, and is persecuting them through legal fees, through lawyers, through lawfare, unfairly and unjustifiably.





















































































































































































It's a slap in the face and the contents of this bill, frankly, move the goalposts and make it an incredibly unfair piece of legislation. Now, for my part, I worked on this subject many years ago, before I was an MP, as a barrister involved in instructing, working on behalf of the MoD, defending our soldiers against vexatious and frankly malicious claims brought by those people in Iraq against our brave soldiers who were on military action out there. Litigation class actions which resulted in zero convictions, mind you, which were which were initiated by China. Starmer was involved and I'm afraid Herma, that disgraceful trio who should hang their heads in shame for the part they played in bringing legal actions unfairly unjustifiably against our brave British troops?

































































































































































Yeah, well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. And one of the things, one of the serious things that points, I think she was making that points, I think she was making earlier on was around the operational context in which people served. I just wonder whether she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welcomes new clause 32 that we've tabled. It's in response to discussions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's in response to discussions from various colleagues. But the point is, the contents of this these measures that I've talked these measures that I've talked about, we are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question that they that you are that this government is continuing the the prosecutions is allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries many, many years after the act to continue. And you and the government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they've been exonerated or allowed to proceed. And I'm afraid because the government cannot provide that guarantee, this bill and these clauses are not fit for purpose.











































































































































And as Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the Legacy Act. It was very challenging to make it compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, namely article two. And it was working on this piece of legislation that actually convinced me that the UK does need to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, that Legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it did bring finality to a lot of these investigations and prosecutions. But the reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann and Macur and Finucane, have really meant that the interpretation of article two, that's the right to life has been expanded and extended and frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, such that really which is given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims.























































































































30 years after. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those. In fact, the local case, not industry indicate just how out not industry indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become, because they ruled that those eight wanting terrorists who are on a murder mission and who met their just desserts, that their human rights had been breached because of the had been breached because of the lack of proper investigation there they were shooting up a police station, special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists, which had been denied, is not an illustration of just how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ludicrous and out of control the become. My hon. Friend puts it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly powerfully the European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article two. Articles two protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It's an absolute right, and it was designed absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state state killings, state sanctioned killings, arbitrary killings. That was the right intention of the article eight drafting. But as my hon. Friend, as the hon. Member sets out, because of decisions like the one he refers to and many, many more, article two has now become to mean that people are entitled to a an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation.





















































































Families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as the hon. Member says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of the law abiding citizens and victims of terrorism. It's an absurdity. And that is why my position remains that we must leave the UK, the European

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Convention on. I will not tolerate allegations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not tolerate allegations of misleading, even from a sedentary position. Members must sedentary position. Members must observe the courtesies of the House. Suella Braverman madam Chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So this bill, I'm afraid, is a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards on from the Legacy Act, and it is really tragic that the government is asking, as I say, for many young people, to join up and serve their country. But why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They've shown incredible heroism and courage and bravery of levels many of us can never imagine. And they've always felt confident that the government would have their back, that they would be supported by those that whose orders they were taking.























































But today, there are many serving in the armed forces, many of whom I've met myself, who tell me that they question seriously whether the government would indeed back them. And when they pull that trigger, or when they take that decision today, will it be will they have the confidence of a government many years down the line to stand up for them? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? And today, frankly, they can't be sure that the government will support them in their acts of courage. And I'm here speaking on behalf of veterans in my own constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me that opponents there may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I'm here representing what's been told to me by those serving on our front line.



































The government asks the first duty of a government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the government stands by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This bill failed in that duty, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it should not proceed. Tanya Antoniazzi thank. You, Madam Chair. We cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Chair. We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. And do we know a long, year past. And do we know a long, year long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles? My colleagues and I, on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. And it's a message that stayed with me, and one I firmly believe. That is why I have tabled amendment NC 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee following our inquiry.













This amendment seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained within and carried forward from the 2023 act. One message came through consistently during our inquiry. Dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division.
15:55
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yet many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation about how the memorialisation provisions under part four of the act will actually operate in practice. So questions remain about practice. So questions remain about who will lead this work, how independence will be guaranteed, and what projects will ultimately and what projects will ultimately receive support. Amendment NC 54 asks the government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State within six months of Royal assent, to set out how these provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive government funding.



































































And those are not minor administrative details. Public confidence depends upon them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history, but of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process. But, Madam Chair, families are also at the heart of my other amendment. Amendment 277, and it concerns a matter that may appear technical, but it is deeply, deeply personal, deeply personal for many of those that have been affected by the troubles. It too, reflects a recommendation of our committee's inquiry, and during this inquiry we repeatedly hear that the impact of troubles related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation.

















































 Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades. The government has argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members, while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. And I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of the closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren. Aunts and uncles have acted as parents. Extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss.































While no statutory definition can capture every circumstance and we realise that it really should reflect that reality as far as possible. The committee heard evidence that the definition of close family member should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles two and three of the European Convention on Human Rights.















But ultimately, Madam Chair, this is not about legal definitions. It's about people. People who lost, loved ones who have waited many years for answers, and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of this process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore, urge the Secretary of State and the government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.
15:59
Alex Easton Portrait Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
Alex Easton thank you, Madam Chair. I rise, having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90 of the Bill, and the test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for government. It is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence, and does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny? However much time has passed, I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met this.



















































































































Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it. And where new evidence emerges to seek further answers. We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort. Despite the attempt at rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism in June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down My constituency, which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station.































































































His name reminds us that terrorists violence has victims, and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth. That principle applies to every family, regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims because it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny, and refuse to let any government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.











































































Having looked at the clauses there, there are some that have been improved and I recognise that on the run letters, and that's good, and I applaud the government that they're trying to get that right. There are other areas which I do still have concern, and the members not here for Birmingham, Selby and Oak Selby. Sorry. Salimi, who made a very powerful speech and I was very taken by his comments about the Irish government and their bill that is going in process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that bill. But unfortunately, that bill does not give a guarantee that victims families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish government.





















































And I do think that we are being sold a pup in regards to getting all the information we need from the Irish government and members across. Can say, but from experience from the Irish Government, we do not get very much information ever. And I stand by that recently. Well, many months ago I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. In that information that I got, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, where there was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier.



































The PSNI told me I could. They could not investigate it because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the Legacy Commission. The Legacy Commission would not accept the case for me because as an MP I couldn't refer cases to them. The only course of avenue for me to get this case looked at because of legacy was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the Secretary of State, the former Secretary of State, many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgement of where this case is going or not going.























And that makes me suspicious that something that I'm raising as an MP, which is a very serious issue about legacy, is not being addressed yet. We're expecting that this bill is going to answer all the questions. I do not think that the Irish government will give us everything

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we want on this, and yeah, yeah. I'll make sure that he gets an answer to his letter by the end of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the week. I thank the Secretary of State for that, and I do appreciate it. for that, and I do appreciate it. But I do have deep concerns. It's not that I do want truth. It's not that I don't want reconciliation. I've just had too many false dawns. And my colleagues and MPs right across Northern Ireland. We've had so many false dawns on this, and I just do not have huge amount of faith in this process.

For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the bill. Thank you.
16:06
Alison Taylor Portrait Alison Taylor MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire North, Labour)
-
-
Alison Taylor thank. >> Alison Taylor thank. >> You, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to support the government pleasure to support the government in this important debate for my generation. It seems as though the troubles were intractable and intractable. Problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles. We had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland geographically, so close, culturally close but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday Agreement represented such a massive breakthrough.











































Many members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement. Compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future. The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday Agreement, and it does fulfil a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the on the darkest moments of the troubles. Sorry. It does so whilst being respectful of the families affected and provides a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way.



























I know that there are concerns from veterans and veterans families, but genuine protections for veterans ensures that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my own constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time, and it. And it respects the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred.







Madam chair, I will conclude by saying, importantly, veterans voices will be heard in a process not rooted in blame and recrimination, but in truth and reconciliation.
16:09
Sorcha Eastwood Portrait Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)
-
-
Sorcha Eastwood thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make some Chair. I just want to make some initial comments on the Attorney General. I will be clear, and I will be fairly straightforward in my opinion on that. I do not support that. I have severe concerns about where that's going to go. A political appointee and a member of the government to consent to the prosecution of serious troubles related offences. This amendment matters greatly in Northern Ireland because it unpicks a key reform that flowed directly from the Good Friday Agreement itself. The criminal justice Review mandated by the Good Friday Agreement was explicit there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.









































































































































































































Now that reform wasn't created out of nowhere, it wasn't in the abstract. It was a result of proven politicisation of the AG's power to overturn DPP prosecutions, a system that allows such disparity cannot be relied upon, and it is why the Good Friday Agreement sought to take the power away. New clause 50 would give it back. Our concerns around this amendment are therefore not theoretical. They are based on past experience, experience. The Good Friday Agreement had to rectify this. Power for the AG cannot be allowed to return. I just want to make some wider points.



























































































































































































I made the point yesterday, along with many others, that this can't be a debate about victims versus veterans, but I note that there are still some veterans in the gallery. And I just want to reiterate, whenever I have this last chance to do so before we lose this and it goes to the other place, I would posit a different version of events. We heard some really excellent remarks from the Member for Sunderland Central and the Member for Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld hit on the same theme yesterday. Many of the people that came to Northern Ireland to serve were teenagers, or they were people from largely working class communities.













































































































































































People who sometimes have told me that they felt uncomfortable in another part of the UK in terms of how they were expected to often react to events or some of the conversation and chat around them and amongst them, or even about them. And there's something here, and I think it was the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington earlier, whenever he was referencing the operation at Loch Gall, and he said it had been approved by the GOC. Now there is something to consider. I know that there has been some ground gained in terms of the contemporary version of the operational environment in which people served in both the UDR, the British Army and the RUC, and for that I have the absolute utmost sympathy.



























































































































































But we're not going to have a situation if it arises where it's going to be. The GOC and the Doc are we? That's just not going to happen, and I'm not sure that that's actually correct or accurate or fair. I do want to have my final say on this around veterans, because there is a concept here of natural justice at play, and we shouldn't seek to suppress that. We shouldn't seek to make that dirty. We shouldn't seek to make that something that should be at odds with every other member of society. But were I depart from some others, is that there has been an element here of something that has entered this discourse, and I've been involved with veterans for many, many years, and this is something that's entered the discourse recently.









































































































































And I made the point yesterday, and I'll make it again today. There is some sort of thesis here that seeks to suggest that people who served inherently did something wrong, something wrong that could lead to the so-called knock on the door. Ten,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20, 30 years later. Now that troubles me deeply. The hon. Member. I will surely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will surely. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have many veterans in my constituency, some of whom have constituency, some of whom have come to talk to me. And I'd like to just quote from one a chap called Michael Kingscote, and he said, Michael Kingscote, and he said, there must come a point at which the country says to those who the country says to those who served, you did your duty. The state sent you there. The state must not abandon you. Decades later,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe that is the very point. I really thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I think her intervention, and I think that's one that a lot of members will have sympathy with. And I think it builds actually on the point that I sought to make point that I sought to make yesterday, because to me, this is completely related, and it is around the national security. V do we know for a fact that through disclosure and other troubles, legacy related cases, that actually legacy related cases, that actually some people involved within the security services, within the security forces at the time have said, we are being forced to redact or stop disclosure of information that, frankly, in the court of public opinion, makes things look a hell of a lot worse than what they are.







































































































In fact, it contributes to an ongoing narrative that takes me back to the original point that I was making before the intervention around this sort of inherent thesis that everyone who served at some stage did something wrong. I don't think that is the case. In fact, I know for certain that it isn't. But as I said yesterday, we cannot have a scenario that just because you wore a uniform means that any wrongdoing should not be investigated. And actually, it's veterans who have made that point to me, veterans themselves. And I'll reference one of them, David Crabb, who was in this building yesterday with the Commission for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland and has contributed such a huge wealth of experience.























































































In fact, I'll mention another one, a constituent of mine, Mary Morland, a veteran in her own right. Her husband shot dead, murdered in cold blood by the IRA. And if she is prepared to support this bill, imperfect and all as it is, will then so am I. Because this is the last chance saloon, and I want it to be known, and I want it to be on the official record that there were some seriously insidious and disgusting things that went on across all sides, and that includes the government. And that's uncomfortable. And that's uncomfortable for me to say, because I was brought up and I'm going to use the allegory of Loughgall that the Honourable right hon.









































































Member for Goole and Pocklington referred to. And it was this piece IRA men arrive up wanting to take life, wanting to murder those who were serving the state to stand against the terrorists. Yeah, OK. I think we can agree with that. I think most of us in the chamber today can can agree with that in terms of what they were trying to do to stop terrorism. But here's where that allegory becomes extremely complicated and where I think we do need to have a process and inquests and inquiries, because there was one innocent civilian murdered in that operation, and his name was Anthony Hughes, and that was replicated right across Northern Ireland.























































It is not black and white. It is shades of grey. And it feeds into why I oppose the role of the AG in this, because what we can do for all citizens, every single person, is make sure that the law itself is our servant, that it serves everybody. And I think it's a well known fact, and it shouldn't be controversial to state in this House that, frankly, there have been others who have been in previous governments who have tarnished the justice system, who have made attempts to do shoddy side deals, which is why the issue of making sure that it was absolutely beyond all doubt that the only wrong letters were null and void, that was an injustice to the court of public opinion that needed corrected.





































And I really appreciate the government for working with me over the last year on that, and indeed, other hon. Members on this side of the House who have sought to make the same point. But there is something there where we will never, ever know the extent to what went on, unless we have a full and complete and utter. Inclusion of the law for everybody, as it should be, that will involve the government owning up to some pretty insidious things. And I actually think it was the hon. Member for Northumberland yesterday, who's a colleague of mine in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that said, I want to start by saying sorry.























And it was actually a former Taoiseach that said the exact same thing to me. Should we start by saying sorry? And I actually don't think that's a bad place to start because I know some people will and they recognise this themselves, but it is not the role of this House to stop them in the attempt, but they recognise themselves through the passage of time, through everything else, that it will be highly unlikely that they will get any sort of justice through the criminal proceedings. But they want that acknowledgement. I think sorry is a good place to start, but it can only be done if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have the truth. Thank you, Madam Chair. Andy McDonald.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andy McDonald. Thank you, Miss Noakes. It's an absolute pleasure to follow the absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Lady opposite for her eloquence and her advocacy. She eloquence and her advocacy. She communicates that with such power and conviction and sense. And I do
16:19
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
and conviction and sense. And I do want to thank her for what she has said. And I want to thank all hon. Members and right members and gallant members for the incredible contributions that have been made over the last two days. People have come to this vexed and troubling issue with a great deal of commitment and determination to get to the right outcome for a better future and a better understanding of the past. So I thank her for that. I wasn't born in Northern Ireland and I don't live there, but my grandparents were from Belfast, a Protestant and a Catholic who left for the perfect peaceful idyll.













































































































































































































































































































































There is the west of Scotland and my maternal great grandparents from Carrickmacross in County Monaghan, and my wife's family are from Tyrone, all of them. And that part of the world supplied the working class labour that brought about the burgeoning iron and steel industry. So our connections and associations with the island of Ireland are deep, and there's a passion for people to see a positive outcome and resolution, and to include the many working class men who found themselves at those tender years on the streets in Northern Ireland. So I thank you for all of all of that.



























































































































































































































































































































And I do welcome this bill as an important improvement on the previous government's deeply flawed Legacy Act, repealing the conditional amnesty scheme and restoring civil proceedings are significant steps towards delivering truth, justice and accountability. And I recognise the vital importance of treating former service personnel fairly, including acknowledging the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which many served. I had the pleasure to be one of the founding members of the Royal British Legion Solicitors Pro Bono Group, and I have worked with service personnel at close quarters and. And I am overwhelmed and overawed by their commitment and their dedication to their duty.









































































































































































































































































































And I think it's been said in recent hours in this debate that nobody is questioning the performance of, of, of, of our service personnel who found themselves in that situation. And it is not veterans Against civilians. And I met with two senior retired Army officers last month, Lieutenant Colonel Reverend Nicholas Mercer and Brigadier John Donnelly CBE. Thanks to Amnesty International and the centre for Military Justice, but both challenged the suggestion that British forces have faced a flood of vexatious litigation under the European Convention of Human Rights, and I do worry about the scaremongering that's been been perpetrated in that regard.





















































































































































































































































































And as Nicholas Mercer has argued, the application of the Human Rights Act is vital because it means that the guilty can be held accountable and the innocent exonerated. That's an important principle. Human rights protections are not the enemy of fair treatment for veterans. They are part of what makes that fairness possible. Yeah. And but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must express my concerns that the the, The government's chosen to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's chosen to establish publish such a voluminous package of amendments with barely seven days notice, giving us just two days to consider them. That's a concern, and I. I am concerned concern, and I. I am concerned about some of the tonality which have explicitly presented this as providing additional legal protections and safeguards for veterans. Whatever the government's intentions, some of these measures may be viewed very differently by victims families, particularly those who spent decades seeking answers about the actions of the state and the circumstances in which their loved ones died. What is presented as to veterans is reassurance may be experienced by those families as another barrier to justice that matters enormously.























































































































































































































































The Secretary of State has a responsibility not only to improve the legal framework for dealing with the past, but to rebuild confidence amongst communities whose trust in the in the institutions of the state have been profoundly damaged by their experience of the troubles. And he referred yesterday, I think I, I, I quote him correctly as saying that the the principle of the duty of candour will will be imported into this legislation when the Public Accountability Bill passes. But I just want to. I hope he might intervene, because I'm seeking some clarification about the principle of the duty of candour.





































































































































































































































Surely it is that the duty of candour will be imported into this. Not simply the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principle, but I'm happy to give way to the. Secretary of State. Oh, sorry. Just to be clear, he's quite right Just to be clear, he's quite right that the Hillsborough bill, as most people think of it, is still going through its processes in the House through its processes in the House of Lords, as I've said to him privately. And I'll say again here, and we do want to mesh together the and we do want to mesh together the candidate the duty of candour into this bill. Once that Bill has completed its processes in the House of Lords, it will be House of Lords, it will be premature for us to do it now before the Bill has finished in the Lords.

























































































































































































































But as soon as we have done that, I committed to the hon. My hon. Friend who is sitting next to him yesterday, that I would work with him, and I'm happy to do so with him as well and to make sure that we get this right. But it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not just the principle, it's the concept. It's the duty of candour. Well. I mean. I'm enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That is immensely helpful. But I revert to my point helpful. But I revert to my point that this seeking to to reassure one constituency, there is a risk of undermining confidence of others, of undermining confidence of others, not only in its approach to reconciliation, but in their reconciliation, but in their ability to secure truth, accountability and access to justice. And more seriously, I fear that some of these proposals risk cutting across the detailed institutional safeguards established through the Good Friday Agreement and the reforms that followed it.





































































































































































































First, government, New Clause 50 and the Attorney General's consent to prosecutions. This would require the Attorney General's consent before proceedings could be instituted for the most serious troubles related offences. And I ask the Minister, you know, what is the compelling justification for introducing this additional political safeguard into the prosecution process? It has been raised by other members, and I join in that it's not simply a technical adjustment. It does risk undermining a central reform arising from the Good Friday Agreement. The 2000 Criminal Justice Review specifically sought to protect the prosecutor. Prosecutorial independence by removing the attorney general's power to direct prosecutors in individual cases or on policy matters.

















































































































































































That reform was particularly important because of the history of political interference and concerns about the prosecution of members of the security forces during the conflict, the Independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies evidential and public interest tests when deciding whether to prosecute. Why should a further decision now rest with the government appointed law officer potentially exposed to representations from ministerial colleagues, the De Silva report into the murder of Pat Finucane documented political pressure on the then attorney general over the prosecution of state agent Brian Nelson. That history demonstrates precisely why these institutional safeguards were introduced.



























































































































































The amendment also appears to impose no requirement on the Attorney General to explain a refusal of consent. While the availability of judicial review may be limited, how can families have confidence in the process where an independent prosecutor might conclude that a serious offence should be prosecuted only for a government law officer to prevent that prosecution without adequate explanation or scrutiny? Miss Noakes The Good Friday Agreement was not simply a political declaration of peace and reconciliation. Its implementation required detailed reforms to institutions, including the criminal justice system designed to establish independence and public confidence. We have to tread with the greatest care not to in any way undermine the Good Friday Agreement.







































































































































 We should be extremely cautious about disturbing those safeguards, particularly when doing so risks reviving precisely the concerns they were intended to address. So I urge the government to reconsider new clause 50. Fairness for veterans must not mean creating new a new mechanism through which serious criminality could escape prosecution. Secondly, inquests and the closure of the Legacy Commission government amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State's power under clause 85 to facilitate inquests. After the Commission closes, the Secretary of State has had an exchange with the Member for Goole and Pocklington on that very issue. But for families, an inquest is not simply another investigation.



















































































































It is a public judicial process through which evidence can be tested. State action scrutinised and the circumstances of a loved one's death properly established. The Ballymurphy and Springhill Springhill inquests demonstrate the importance of that process, particularly where families have struggled for decades to establish the truth. The government may intend the Legacy Commission to provide an effective alternative, but we cannot assume that every case will be resolved before it closes or that new evidence will never emerge. Why, therefore, remove the power to provide for future inquests? Again, I fear that a provision presented as offering finality and reassurance to veterans may be understood by victims families as the closing of another route to justice.































































































I ask the Minister how the government will guarantee effective investigations where new evidence emerges after the commission has closed. Thirdly, disclosure under clauses 13 and 17 and clauses 74 and 75, I welcome clause 13 provision for full disclosure to the Legacy Commission, but that commitment must be meaningful in practice. The Secretary of State retains significant powers over sensitive information, including powers that may prevent material being disclosed to families. I recognise that genuine national security considerations must be addressed, but there is an obvious difficulty where the state retains the authority to prevent disclosure of information concerning allegations of wrongdoing by its own agencies or personnel.











































































For families who have already experienced decades of secrecy, that is simply not simply a question of legal procedure. It goes directly to whether they can have confidence in the independence and credibility of the process. I therefore support my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington amendments 87 to 101 and the hon. Member for Belfast South and and Downs Amendment 65, which seek to strengthen the scrutiny of disclosure restrictions and reduce the scope for executive interference. Amendment 97, in particular, would narrow the National security test by removing the words Commons, risking damage to comma or clause commas, a speculative risk to national security should not automatically outweigh a family's legitimate interest to.























































In establishing the truth. Clauses 74 and 75 must likewise ensure that families can obtain meaningful information about deaths without the Secretary of State's powers becoming becoming an obstacle to accountability, I conclude this notes with a broader appeal to the government. The Secretary of State is right to recognise the concerns of former service personnel, but reconciliation cannot be achieved by providing reassurance to veterans if the consequence is to deepen the mistrust of victims families and communities who have long questioned the actions of the state. Nor should we overlook how carefully the Good Friday Agreement and its subsequent reforms sought to address the historical causes of that mistrust, including through the independence of criminal justice institutions.



































The government has an opportunity, through this bill, to repair some of the damage caused by the previous Legacy Act, and to rebuild confidence across communities. It will be a profound disappointment if, through the amendments introduced in the name of protecting veterans, it instead weakened confidence in access to justice and disturbed important safeguards arising from the peace process. I urge Ministers to reflect on these concerns, reconsider the amendments and ensure that this bill strengthens rather than undermines the foundations of confidence on which reconciliation must rest. I want to acknowledge the views of the 200 families whose concerns were expressed in a letter published by relatives for justice and the Pat Finucane Centre this week.



















The test must be whether this legislation delivers truth, justice and accountability on an equal basis, not whether it reassures one group, while leaving others fearful that the doors to justice are being closed. That is the test this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation must pass. Hear, hear. Robin Swann very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Robin Swann very much, Madam Chair, and I thank you for calling me in this part of today's debate. Reference has been made earlier on Reference has been made earlier on by a number of members in regards to the Stormont House agreement in to the Stormont House agreement in regards to how we come about. Getting the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval. Can I just put on record that my party just put on record that my party objected to and opposed the Stormont House agreement because of the provisions in it that actually brought about an amnesty by default to all but murder?

So therefore,
16:36
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
that was a flawed expedition at that point in time. But I will get back to the Secretary of State in back to the Secretary of State in regards to my earlier question about the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and clause 725, which does say that the ICR 725, which does say that the ICR must not do anything which would risk prejudicing or or would prejudice the national security prejudice the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland. See also says it would risk having, or would have a prejudicial effect on any axle of prospective, prospective legal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.









































































































































































































I asked the Secretary of State again on an earlier intervention. He said he would try to find out by the time I spoke. Who makes that assessment? Who makes the assessment of something will be prejudicial to the national security of Ireland, or who makes the assessment that it would in fact, be prejudicial to a prospective legal proceeding in Ireland, because it's not the remit of this government, it's not the remit of this place, nor will it be the remit, or should it be the remit of the I see, I hear we are on yet knowing who the body corporate will be and who will actually be part of it.



























































































































































































The Secretary of State said he would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

try to find out. I don't know if he has or if he wants to write to me. I'll give way. Yes. Inspired. I'm grateful to him. So first of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him. So first of all, obviously national security is a matter for the respective governments. So but in the UK it's governments. So but in the UK it's solely a matter for the UK and the provision in the Bill reflect replicates the drafting from the replicates the drafting from the ICIR treaty, which was signed by the conservative government and the Irish government back in 2015, and Irish government back in 2015, and it also replicates the drafting from Ireland in their general scheme of the Troubles Bill, which states in performing its functions, the ICIR shall not do anything could reasonably that could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security interests of the Irish state or of the United Kingdom.













































































































































































In other words, we look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

after our security, they look after theirs. Robin Swann. I fully appreciate that. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I fully appreciate that. That's not what this bill says. This bill actually says the ICIR will make actually says the ICIR will make the decision. I've asked the secretary state who makes the assessment on behalf of the Irish assessment on behalf of the Irish government as to what is national security. It's not solely about the United Kingdom's regards to that, but I'll take I'll I'll engage with the Secretary of State to seek clearance on that point, because he quotes what was said previously. That doesn't explain to me what this bill actually contains, because, again, he does talk about the Irish government on its role, and I welcome his comments on it.































































































































































Commons comments in the past, when he said the government would work in lockstep with the Irish government, and he knows the distrust that many of us have about actually what the Irish government will bring forward and when they will bring it forward. And the last Assembly stayed. Then what plans does he have if they don't? I know he's talked about the enactment of parts of this bill that will be in lockstep with Irish government when they produce their legislation and actually enact it. But what happens if they don't? Will he start to repeal parts of this bill or the parts that have already been enacted?

















































































































































Will they still stand? I think I know the answer to that question, but it shows where we have that concern about the Irish action actually acting in lockstep with the United Kingdom, because I do see where the government is going on this, and it does come from experience. It comes from experience of being involved in negotiations with the Irish government. Stormont House Fresh Start, HRC Sullivan all those other things were actually sat in a room with Charlie Flanagan and Danny Kennedy at that stage, who discussed what would come forward from the Irish government over Kingsmill.





































































































































And there was a. He promised the release of documentations that the Irish government have. And what did they. The Kingsmill families actually finish up with was a folder of newspaper clippings, and that is where that inherent concern still comes with many in Northern Ireland in regards to what the Irish government will release. Indeed, if they release anything in regards to a number of those substantive cross-border incidents that we still raise concerns about that, that I hope this legislation will be Secretary of State, with working with the Irish government, is more productive than any other government has been beforehand in regards to some of the other provisions that have been talked about by other members, it's and I think the right hon.





















































































































Member for East Belfast has a. In regards to what in the previous iterations were put forward as protections for veterans, we were told in those days that they didn't need to be in the legislation because the government said they were going to be there. And I welcome the fact that those protections now are part of the legislation, but they're not solely for veterans. And I think it's important that that that is clarified. And I have asked the Irish people we met him before in regards to those protections, in regards to what will be there for our veterans and in regards how they wouldn't be the first port of call, it would be to the Ministry of Defence, it would be to the corporate body in regards to that.







































































































But what body acts on behalf of former RUC and police officers? He has said that they do know what's in the bill, that there is a power within that to put a duty on a body, but there's no body specified in regards to that. So we're looking at a dual process in regards to what protections could be there. And I'm thinking of the joint operations, the joint vehicle checkpoints between UDR and RUC that often happened, whereas the UDR may get support via the Ministry of Defence, but there's nobody there to support that former RUC officer who was standing there at the same point, at the same duty, under the same threat and defending the same right of democracy in Northern Ireland.

























































































So it's it's I would ask him to expedite who that body would be, because what worries me that it does fall then on those voluntary organisations who are currently stepping up the likes of CF and indeed, as mentioned by our previous speaker, the Royal British Legion, Who members are already going to seek those support from them in regards to that new clause. 51 has been mentioned and it talks about the on the on on the run letters. It says that it will prevent the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content still relating to the content of an on the run letter.











































































 Madam Chair it is wrong that those letters exist, not that they can't be relied on any longer. So I thought it would have been better if the government had actually brought forward an amendment that actually nullified those on the wrong letters, rather than simply saying that they will prevent prosecutions for reasons that are relating to the content of those letters, the Attorney General's role indeed has been mentioned in his remit in regards to this, and I've heard a number of opponents as to why that shouldn't be. We do agree in that instance in regards to actually what was brought forward in the first iteration was a panel of of judges to look at it rather than a political appointee.

























































But I would say and again, that that role of actually involving the attorney general of that section is actually a replication of the Overseas Operations bill, and what it would, again, seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State that this government isn't, by default, looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland as an overseas operation, and that there are parts of this legislation that are starting to encroach upon that which would treat us very, very differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. And in regards to the atrocities that that were brought about in regards to the hon.











































Member for Wimbledon, the Lib Dem speaker, the Lib Dem from bench, his amendment 12 in regards to reconciliation. Can I say to him, can I thank him for bringing that forward? He has been a champion for that, and I do know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are now taking a serious piece of work in regards to what reconciliation actually looks like. I think this bill has expanded the scope of who should be involved, who could be involved, not just in the work of the committee, but also the work of the government and bringing forward what reconciliation truly looks like in Northern Ireland, because it's not enough to simply put money into some communities or some community organisations, or to support some individuals, to encourage them to no longer carry out their activities of their past.

























But it's about bringing communities together, bringing families back together. And it's to make sure that part of the conversation that we've had in these past two days, and it has been, I think, a respectful debate that veterans and victims aren't different. They're all people. They're all part of our society in Northern Ireland. And surely we should be working in lockstep with them as a government, as an assembly and as individual politicians to make sure that their wishes are represented in this House. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amanda Martin thank you, Madam Chair. Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted and spoken to me about this bill and the amendments, and to those who have served and and to those who have served and are in the gallery today. Madam chair, I was surprised not to receive more correspondence from local veterans about this bill, and I don't think that's because they're not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with what we've got on this bill.



I fear that for some, it's because confidence has been worn down over many years. They've heard assurances before. They've been misled by those trying to score political points. And too
16:46
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
often they've experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that did not feel that it a system that did not feel that it was designed for them. New clause 49 and 50 in yesterday's amendments, I hope, will start to rebuild some I hope, will start to rebuild some of that trust and the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday. He recognised the important truth He recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace, but equally that justice must be pursued in a way justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community.





























































































































































I particularly welcome the government's efforts to address long standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have quite rightly argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. And personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken and the pain and the agony that this has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction, not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.

















































































































































We must also honour, Madam Chair, our current serving personnel and those cadets and our future cadets, men and women who will serve our country. And although it's not related to this bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise in my city or in government data or government policy the picture that the member from Fareham and Waterlooville painted. I am proud mum of a serving personnel and the work we have done as a government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes in their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented.







































































































































And we are. And those members are proud to serve their king and their country. And they are what we call patriotic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here they are. I want to add that I need to also set the record straight so that people can see, Madam Chair, that the previous government left a Legacy Act in 2023, which made false and undeliverable promises false and undeliverable promises and veterans leaving them in legal limbo. And it could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist immunity for members of terrorist groups. This was not OK, and they should be sorry for that, too. Madam chair, I know this government doesn't believe that there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and the indefensible act of terrorism, and it is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving.























































































































And to be fair, Madam Chair, the majority of the debate in this chamber has been conducted in that way, and I welcome the contributions from across the House and have been proud to be a part of this debate. It is a challenging area and left unworkable. This government would have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further and I do not reckon, but I do recognise we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions.











































































































More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this chamber could fully comprehend. Any process examination taken during the troubles must therefore take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made. And I agree with my hon. Friend for Middlesbrough and Thornby and Cardiff West East Surrey and I too am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we've had to review it, but I do welcome the government's determination to ensure the operational context is reflected in the legislation.































































































I also welcome measures intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations in government amendment 240, where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability, but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone extensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. This is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly. Most veterans, or many veterans are now elderly.



















































































Some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible, and amendment 277 would widen that family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents. Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that safeguarding Parliament intended intended intent are clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence. They will not face repeated investigations. And so, in the words of amendment, we see that in the words of amendment 240. However, Madam Chair, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on where this bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published?



































































How will veterans be able to understand whether the test has been met and what assurance they will receive that an early investigation is properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long until new evidence will be brought again. The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called outside of events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, anonymity may be requested and decision makers have considered the person's age, health and well-being all things that were made important to me and I am glad to see that the amendments were addressed with this yesterday.





















































I would welcome the reassurance from the Minister that this support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and the veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. This cannot become a new procedure to be followed. Veterans, their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout this process. As my friend from Belfast South and Mid Down so eloquently put, we must avoid framing this debate as veterans versus suicide versus victims families, because in many cases, these categories do overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well.









































Service personnel were killed, were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict. No legislation dealing with the legacy of troubles will satisfy everyone. The wounds Madam Chair are too deep and the experiences are too varied for that. But I do believe the government has moved significant towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations I've had with the government, with the Ministers and with my veteran community. And although not perfect, as my friend from Lagan said, it is a last chance and something that is needed from the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans.



























I welcome the government's recognition of the unique role played by those who serve. Their commitment to ensuring their operational realities are properly considered, and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition while continuing to pursue truth and accountability. Madam chair, we all know for too long it's been empty promises and words on a page, and rightly so. Veterans will and should judge this legislation, not by the promises made about it, but by their experience of the system it creates. We therefore have a continued responsibility in this place, and the other to listen to them, to explain the changes honestly and to ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for all that have been affected. Jim Allister thank you, Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Allister thank you, Deputy Speaker. Madam Chair, Secretary is not known for selling himself short, not known for selling himself short, but I think even he would have to acknowledge that the bill he has produced and amended has fallen produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim, that it has unimpressed a lot of people and indeed a lot of interests. It's not that there's no good in the bill, but it's a
16:54
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
question in many instances of the balance or the lack of balance that balance or the lack of balance that it strikes. And indeed, I think one it strikes. And indeed, I think one of the fundamental failures of this bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous in terms of the biggest number of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland was the Omagh bomb. And yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in this bill, which excludes investigation of that bombing by the Legacy Commission.















































































































































































































On the other hand, one of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was what God. Where the IRA, with eight heavily armed terrorists, came to destroy a police station with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a van load of terrorists to shoot up the police station. And yet, the Secretary of State has chosen in respect of that matter, to include it within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests. So, on the one hand, he excludes Omagh from the framework of this Bill, but includes within this Bill the most audacious of the IRA attacks to give to the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to have a full inquest and then proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests.





















































































































































































It is preferences such as that that the Secretary of State has drawn that causes this Bill to suffer from the lack of balance and lack of appreciation and support across the entire community. And when we think of love God, there cannot be a more undeserving case for an inquest. Hardened terrorists. Murderers or who had, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, who had dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder. Under a leadership of Patrick, Kelly and Lina, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists that ever was involved, who had already carried out a carbon attack on Ballygawley police station and then on the Birches and Ballygawley that murdered police officers who came at the particular hour when the policeman would be leaving at the end of the shift, came with their digger, with her bomb concealed in the rubble of what was in the front of the digger.





















































































































































 Came with a load of terrorists. Shoot up that police station and repeat what they'd done at Ballygawley and the purchase. And happily, yes, happily, they met the SAS and happily the SAS ensured they would never murder again and that they saved countless lives because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. 2017 declassified documents showed that ballistic tests on the weapons that they had have been used between 40 and 50 murders. These weren't Boy Scouts on an outing. These were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and to kill. And when they were dealt with as they ought to be dealt with, what does the government do?



























































































































The government says, oh, within our legacy Bill, we're going to give you a special place, a special protection, so that your families will have what other families won't have. You will have a full blown inquest at public expense or cost, whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aide all of you to be represented so that you can try and pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers. That's why I say to the Secretary of State, it is by making choices such as that he has given this bill a bad name, and that unless and until those inequities are addressed, this until some balance is put into this and you treat Loughgall as you treat any other inquest request, and you send it to the Legacy Commission, which is the proper body now to deal with these things.



































































































 Then I say to the Secretary of State, he is but digging deeper into the loss of public confidence, or which hatches to aspects of this bill. So I do think that that is a fatal mistake. Or within this bill can be rectified. And I'm very pleased to support tonight the amendment 51 from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, which would do justice by removing the call from the inquest parameters. And that is what a self-respecting government should do. Who cares about the reputation of its special service forces? I do say to the Secretary of State, it's not too late to do the right thing in that regard.











































































Madam chair, I also wish to refer to amendment 20 in my name and that of colleagues, because in Northern Ireland we have this bizarre situation, and we saw it in one of the inquests where, unlike in England, where if you reach the point during the course of a hearing that there it's suspected by the coroner that there's a possibility there was criminal behaviour here. Then he stops the inquest, he sends it to the PPS. They make their decision. And what happens thereafter with the inquest is determined by the outcome of that. But in Northern Ireland you continue right through the inquest process, even though the coroner might think there's something here.



























































The PPS should look at. No, you carry on and you get to the point and we've had this with the coroner then issues his opinions, commenting on all the legal issues and all the liability issues, including the criminal liability, totally covering the eventual dealing with that in the proper way through the PPS process. So that's why amendment 20 sets that we should replicate what happens in England, and we should have within the inquest system that point where, if you reach it, the coroner thinks there may be something here of criminal liability. He stops the inquest, he refers it to the proper authorities.









































Why would we not do that in respect of these inquests? So I do say to the government that there is merit in considering that. But at the end of the day, no doubt this bill, with the overwhelming size of the government's majority, will find its way onto the statute book once discovered in this House. It's not about winning the argument because the government can always win the vote. But I do say to the government that they could take a significant step towards making this bill more palatable by removing the special status of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Go inquest. Thank you. Euan Stainbank. Madam chair, today I'm thinking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chair, today I'm thinking of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I've had the chance to speak to them about this issue, to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly, about the issues affecting veterans and the armed forces and defence spending in my forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service, and the overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the over 300,000 Veterans of Operation Banner.











I am also thinking, as I think is the incumbent duty, not just from a constituency standpoint, but of the people of Northern Ireland who, especially for backbenchers from other parts of the United Kingdom. I do believe it's incumbent on us to remind ourselves must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice. But of our government amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner in our constituency.

We should never forget, as I think a few members have rightly commented on, that
17:05
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
those Operation Banner veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. There is no false distinction that we should get into in this House between service in this House between service families and an associated other of victims, and I think that is important principally because if we don't, it reduces the status of don't, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces and impedes those victims right to access justice. Now, whilst I'm aware it's not at this stage, I do want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in this bill.













































































NCA 32, and the government's name is the Secretary of State. Referred to, does require the Legacy Commission to recognise the circumstances in which armed forces and police served in the split second decisions they did take. I would like the Secretary of State to elaborate a bit on how that will take into consideration the chain of command, because it is a question that has come up from veterans in my constituency and from members across the House, but I mean to speak very briefly to allow us to get to summing up on new clause 51 and 50, which I do think address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in our constituency.

































































New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on the run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up, and I want to touch on every single group, but especially the excellent and fantastic veterans together Forth Valley. This was one of the issues that evoked the strongest anger amongst the people. The mere ambiguity surrounding those letters, and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. And I am glad that it is this Labour government are decisively ending that ambiguity around those letters.



















































I support New Clause 50 as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in principle that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles related offence. What I hear from veterans is trust within the process is at such a low ebb amongst their community. I do believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country checks. It provides government accountability, but also provides the right degree of independence and accountability, and also enables us to build up confidence in the public interest of any prosecutions that are brought forward.







































I would welcome the Minister, though, on that point, setting out the summing up of how the safeguard will support the government's commitment to protect the public interest, where there may be a dispute about the evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains. I would also appreciate if you could assure the House that the Attorney General's role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no government, now or in future, can use it to politicise decisions that must be taken with the utmost seriousness of the evidence and public interest.





























In summing up, Madam Chair, I do believe that this Bill provides the last chance for many in our community service families to access the truth to what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I do believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme that the previous government failed to deliver utterly does not. Therefore, as it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Legacy Act as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans. And as. More than anything, I believe it allows us to progress forward.















I will be voting for this bill this evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John McDonnell. Can I apologise to the House? I left the debate earlier because to left the debate earlier because to attend a debate in Westminster Hall, which was highly. It was a Heathrow which was highly. It was a Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their threatened with the loss of their homes, so that's why I attended. I just I tabled amendments 106 107, and that relates to the section of the bill on Interim Custody Orders. I don't want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications, and the decisions that were taken at that stage.

I tabled these amendments because I'm
17:09
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
anxious. I'm anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation in this retrospective legislation in this House. I think it sets extremely dangerous precedent, and it is dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to the ECHR article seven. If I can just read into the record If I can just read into the record the article itself, it says no punishment without law. No one shall be held guilty of any shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which does not did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed.









































































































































































































































































Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed, and this article should not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised, civilised nations. So I find it very difficult to understand how this clause within the Bill, these two clauses within the Bill that have been set out actually comply with article seven. And the reason I say that is because once you start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters.



























































































































































































































































And I just refer members to the House, to the section in the clause 89, which is bizarre to say the least. It says this section is to be treated as always having had effect. So we're inventing a historical precedent here, and we're literally creating we're creating a truth when there's actually an untruth within the legislation itself. So I just raise that as a point that I think we need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It does fly in the face of the ECR, and I'll be interested to know what the how the the government actually squares that argument.













































































































































































































































And also at the same time considers it won't be open to challenge at a later date.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Sorry. And and Minister indeed. Thank you very much, Miss Noakes. It's you very much, Miss Noakes. It's very good to see you in the chair, very good to see you in the chair, as always. First of all, can I just refer to the points where I think we are all agreed. And there has been remarkably, quite a lot of been remarkably, quite a lot of agreement both yesterday and today on a series of things. First of all, on the on the issue of on the run letters, I note the point that was made by the shadow Secretary earlier on today and his gratitude for putting this finally in legislation.































































































































































































































And this is a matter that has been raised by several hon. Members. And secondly, I am grateful to those who agree that it's important that we're not going to start any new inquests once the Legacy Commission has completed its work, and the Legacy Commission will have five years in which people can still make applications to it and five years to complete its work. But at the end of that period, it surely must be right that we aren't then going to be starting any more inquests. I think there has to come a time at which this process comes to an end.



















































































































































































































I'm also grateful to everybody who has recognised that we are wanting to work in lockstep with the Irish government and not running ahead of them, not running behind them, but working in lockstep with them, because it's only when we get full cooperation between the two governments that we are going to be able to deliver the kind of answers that lots of hon. Members have been referring to. I understand that there is scepticism around the House. The hon. Gentleman who is chuntering from the front bench again, he is full of scepticism on nearly everything, I think, related to this government and.







































































































































































































And in fact, I sometimes think when I see him sitting there, I think he could probably have a a row with himself if he was stuck inside a cardboard box all on his own. But but on these occasions, there are quite a few things where we agree together, and I think that's where I. I'm trying to start my remarks today, and I also want to agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who is right. I think these debates yesterday and today have proceeded much more amicably and respectfully than people perhaps had anticipated. And I think that that's probably because they've been informed by many different perspectives and those who have been around for many years in this House and, and have served those who have never served before, those who have direct experience of living in Northern Ireland, and those who have many constituents who have served in Northern Ireland, many different perspectives and many different political perspectives.



















































































































































































And I think that and that's important. But of course it does. In the words of her late Majesty, it does mean that sometimes recollections may vary. And I I've heard various different accounts of almost identical occasions today from different perspectives. And I think that that has informed our debate rather than undermined it. Because in the end, what I and I know my predecessor have been very keen to achieve and the whole government is very keen to achieve, is a balanced piece of legislation. My. My hon. Friend the my fellow Minister has been talking to other.





































































































































































Whilst I've been here in the chamber she's been talking to people in some of the other armed Forces associations and. And one of the points that several of them have made is that they just want it to be fair and balanced, and I. And as I said to my hon. Friend for Aldershot earlier, and I say to to our three friends who are sitting at the back there, I do very much want to continue this process of making sure that we end up with a fair and balanced piece of legislation that ends up on the statute books, and I guarantee to work with them, and I'll guarantee to work with anybody across the House to try and achieve that.



























































































































































And I think the other point that has been made by several hon. Members, and I completely agree with, is that everybody should be treated equally under the law. It is, after all, a fundamental principle of the of our rule of law in the United Kingdom. There are other parts of it, the separation of powers and so on. But the fact that everybody should be treated equally under the law is a fundamental principle that we all agree on. Now, there are things where we disagree, and one of these relates to the Omagh inquiry. And I note the points that the hon.















































































































































Member has made from Belfast. Eastleigh we actually decided on this subject yesterday and as you know, Miss Noakes, it's impossible for the House to decide twice in in in a single session on the same subject. And so we've already decided on this matter on the date in relation to the bill. But I would just say that there is an inquiry, a public inquiry on the Omagh bombing, and it specifically sets out in its terms of reference, that the adequacy of the policies and practices of UK state authorities, including the police, security forces and intelligence and security agencies in sharing intelligence between themselves and with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the activities of those dissident republican terrorists who have been involved in terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks.





























































































































In the period from the 1st of December 1997 to the bombing. That is all part of the terms of reference, along with any other matters which are relevant to whether the Omagh bombing on the 15th of August 1998 could have been prevented by UK state authorities to the extent it is relevant to the issue of preventability by UK state authorities. This may include information sharing and investigations with and by state authorities in the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the terms of reference of the inquiry make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prevent the Omagh bombing. Of course, I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Very grateful to the Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the Secretary of State again, but he misses the point. Yeah. All of that information sharing which is information sharing which is permitted in in their gift, is to answer the question before the inquiry, which is whether UK state inquiry, which is whether UK state authorities could have prevented the atrocity. It does not deal with the atrocity. It does not deal with the other side of the coin, with information that could point to whether the Irish authorities had information that could have prevented the atrocity that can be dealt with in one of two ways a parallel inquiry in the South, which is before the courts today, again because of refused to give it or at least allow the fail safe mechanism that the Legacy Commission could consider this case.



































































































Now, the reason it's raised today, because he's right that it was for yesterday, Miss Noakes. He is right. He raised it because he recognised the cross-border nature of the Legacy Commission's ability to take information from the Irish government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. Well, I think we're relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I've already said, but the hon. Member for Antrim North earlier made made an argument that our our made made an argument that our our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There's situation in Omagh. There's actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and I think it will be an appropriate to be putting be an appropriate to be putting this into the Legacy Commission because it is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work.





















































































 Just like the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period of time. And now, Madam Most notes, the hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 39, which I think he's intending to push to a vote in a few short moments. And I just want to speak to that briefly. I think this falls at the first hurdle because, as he referred to in his speech, it will be inappropriate for us to have measures that only applied to one category of people.









































































 We do not believe it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focussed on getting information for families, does so in a way that does not needlessly duplicate aspects of investigations that have already obtained valuable information that does not serve anyone, not victims, not witnesses, and not the Legacy Commission, which will want to ensure that its resources are used as efficiently as possible. The collection of protections that the government has put forward were designed following consultation with veterans. That is true and were not included in the Legacy Act.





























































All of these measures have been introduced in order to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. And for those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment number 32. Now, the hon. Member for or my hon. Friend my right hon. And benighted friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington. He his amendment number 51. I think he's also intending to have a separate division on. And I understand the anxiety and the concerns that there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on, on, on how we should proceed.















































But as he will know, the government has a long standing commitment. It's something that we committed to before the general election and as part of our manifesto to restore those inquests that were in progress but were halted by the Legacy Act. We will and we are intending to deliver on that commitment. Indeed, one of the reasons for that is, and I can quote Andy Simon, who is the brother of Private Tony Harrison, who was murdered by the IRA in 1991. He said, my brother's case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed the opposition, i.e.



































the Conservative Party cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims families, including military victims, when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite. Respect for veterans and accountability are not opposing principles. They are both part of the same principle, the rule of law. And we're not. Opening a new inquest into Gaul. We are restoring the inquest that was underway as a result of being directed by the former attorney general, Jeremy Wright. The right hon. Member for Kenilworth in order to comply with our human rights obligations, as he said in September 2015, following careful consideration of a huge amount of material, I have come to the decision that new inquests into the deaths are justified and Madam Miss notes there are two other issues which I think people are intending us to vote on.



















The first is New Clause seven, in the name of the Shadow Secretary of State. I must say I think this is a very. I understand the thrust of what he's trying to say. And though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment in the. Into the Armed Forces is up now for the first time in about a decade, it's up 7% in general. And the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. And I don't know, I don't think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces.







I'm absolutely certain that he wouldn't expect us to be being specific about the numbers in Special Forces. But more importantly, his amendment is is importantly, his amendment is is rather cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. And the idea of setting up a new person to be setting up a new person to be investigating into recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he's put it in his amendment, I think is inappropriate, which is why we're not intending to support his amendment. Of course, I give way to the honourable.
17:23
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State, for giving way, and I understand he's not going to support our amendment. However, I hope he will appreciate However, I hope he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on Special forces. Can he pressure on Special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within Special Forces? Yeah, this is this is extraordinary. This is extraordinary. This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having.





































































































































































































































He shakes his head. But I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to understand his explanation of why he won't make this small concession. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. It's not germane to the matter that we're considering today. And that we're considering today. And and I. Know it's not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. And I would simply say to him that I think it's inappropriate to try and make some false equation between the false equation between the legislation that we're considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces. And if he's going to continue making those kind of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I would just refer the right hon. Gentleman to all of the remarks that have been made in the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members generals and senior former members of the Special Forces. He is not arguing against me. He is arguing arguing against me. He is arguing against them, and I strongly I strongly encourage him to re

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider. Yeah. No, I, I honestly think I know he's getting himself worked up, worked up about this argument. I don't think that he really believes the argument that he's advancing the truth of the. I, I read it rather differently. The truth of the matter is, the truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as has the. The. Both the Ministers who are here beside me. I've spoken to a large number of those who have served, and. And actually they are very keen to make sure that we have a bill that is balanced and fair, and that's precisely what we're going to achieve.



































































































































































































But I think these arguments, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier in the debate, I think the Member for Sunderland Central, I think it does us no favours when we and when we seek to undermine recruitment into the armed armed forces and in particular into the Special Forces. No, I'm not going to give way to the. No, I'm not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I'm not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! The Secretary of State is not obliged to give way. Sir Chris Bryant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for giving way. The reality is, across giving way. The reality is, across the conventional force, we've seen an uptick in recruitment and a an uptick in recruitment and a reduction in people leaving on retention issues. That's the first time in 10 to 14 years we've seen time in 10 to 14 years we've seen an increase. It's a huge success. We've got to be careful of convoluting two things that are going on within some of the more specialist community. One is in Northern Ireland Bill, which, whether we like it or not, doesn't resonate with a large rank and file of the individuals within our community.











































































































































































And then other inquests, inquiries and in some cases do. And what I would say is, as we move forward, we need to keep a very close eye on that within the Ministry of Defence. And I'm sure the Secretary of State will work with the Ministry of Defence to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure we're monitoring it and putting remedial action in place, should that be the case? I think my hon. Friend makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point that it's important not to conflate things which which don't necessarily belong together. don't necessarily belong together. And I think being able to fill it through the different aspects of what affects recruitment is what really ends up delivering results. And that is absolutely the role of the Ministry of Defence. And my ministerial colleague is sitting ministerial colleague is sitting here, and it's one of the things that he has very much in mind. Miss Noakes. If I just proceed with a couple of other things. So the. The hon.

























































































































































Member for. Who's who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Wimbledon has tabled a new clause 12, which I think he's also intending to push to a vote. And that amendment adds a new duty to promote reconciliation, which he imposes on the Secretary of State. And he wants the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I know I've tabled quite a few of these kind of amendments of my own in the past and never expected or really wanted the Secretary of State ever to take these on, and I suspect that this is a sort of probing amendment that he himself has tabled.













































































































































The bill itself already says that it that in clause 11.1 of the Bill, it already explicitly requires the Legacy Commission and its individual members to exercise their functions in a way that is consistent with the principle that reconciliation should be promoted. And that is precisely what we intend to do. Madam, Miss Noakes, two other issues that have been particular have been of particular concern. One is the question of essential. As you know, we have stated, we state in the Bill that there should be no replication of a process. That is a duplication of a process that has already been undergone elsewhere, either in a in an inquest or in the Legacy Commission.































































































































This is a really important part of what we're doing. The previous legislation introduced by the Conservatives used a lower bar, namely the word necessary. We think essential is a higher bar. I hear the comments that people have made about there not being convinced by that, and this is one of the issues that I'm sure we will want to return to in the House of Lords. The other point is around compelling new evidence. One of the key asks that was put to me on a regular basis was around making sure that there that before anybody could be interviewed as a witness or brought before the Legacy Commission, there had to be compelling new evidence.



















































































































I can I completely agree, and that's precisely why that is one of the things that we have tabled in the bill. I think we've put it in the right place in the bill, rather than right at the very beginning. And then the the final point on which there's quite a bit of disagreement is around this issue of the Attorney General. I know the that my hon. Friend who speaks for the Sdlp and the hon. Lady from Lagan Valley have both said that they disagree, and I hear other members pulling me in a different direction as well, because they're not entirely convinced about this.









































































































 I just want to make it absolutely clear that the attorney General is also the advocate general of for Northern Ireland, and we are not seeking to undermine in any sense at all the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. It will be completely. It would be completely inappropriate for the Attorney General to bear in mind at all in making this prosecutorial decision, any political considerations? The only thing that they are able to bear in mind is the traditional prosecutorial issue of whether there is more than a 50% chance of a successful prosecution and a conviction.



























































































And secondly, whether it is in the public interest, I think that by doing this, we will be providing a greater sense of reassurance that there is going to be consistency across the piece. I'll end with this. Miss Noakes, the hon. Member for Belfast East and my hon. Friend from Middlesbrough both agreed in one sense that there is no point in the Bill swerving from to appease one set of stakeholders and then to another, and I completely agree with them. It is more important that we make sure that the bill is balanced and that everything that we are doing right the way through is consistent with fundamental principles.













































































I, I want to pay tribute to our armed forces, not only the 300,000 who served under Operation Banner, but in particular the families of those people who were killed in active service, defending our peace and trying to make sure that people could live their lives in peace. I want to say, along with all hon. Members in this House, thank you for your service. I also, however, want to pay tribute to the families who lost people, both those who have struggled for justice over the years, and those who have frankly stored their pain in their hearts without any complaint.































































I want to say to them too, thank you for your service, because that was part of establishing the peace in the Good Friday Agreement. I also want to pay tribute to the doctors, the firefighters and the nurses, the council officers and and the witnesses to the troubles, including the children who lost their parents and the council officers who had to find new placements for children who of those who had been killed. I want to say to them too, thank you for your service. I believe that with our amendments, Miss Noakes, this will be a balanced bill, which is why I urge all hon.



















































Members tonight to vote for our amendments, to oppose those that we are resisting and to support the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is that clause 72

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 72 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the committee, I will put leave of the committee, I will put together the questions on clauses 73 to 76 stand part. The question 73 to 76 stand part. The question is that clauses 73 to 76 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.



































The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 232. Formally. The question is that government amendment 232 be made. As many as of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 77, as amended, and clauses 78 to 82 stand. Part of the Bill, as many as of that opinion say, are Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments 233 to 235. Formally, the question is that government amendments two, three, 3 to 2, three, five be made.



















As many as of that opinion, say, are of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 83, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 51 to clause 84 has been selected for separate decision. I call David Davis to move amendment 51 formally.

The question is that amendment 51 be made as many errors of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary.
17:34
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As As many As many that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many that opinion As many that opinion say As many that opinion say I contrary no, no tellers for the ayes I Lincoln Jopp and Aphra Brandreth Tellers for the noes I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right 176 the North to the left. 329.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North to the left. 329. The ayes to the right. 176 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 176 the noes to the left. 329 to the The noes have it. The noes have it. En noes have it. The noes have it. En bloc. I call the Minister to move government amendments two three, 6 to 2, three nine. Formally, the question is that government amendments two, three, 6 to 2 three nine be made as many as I say. I, I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister. Should I call the Minister to move government amendments? Two, three, six. I've done that, I amendment 32 to clause 84 has been selected for separate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision. I call Gavin Robinson to move. Amendment 32 formally. To move formally. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 32 be made as many of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Observing Observing the Observing the rules as normal and should be seated if I am standing, including on my left, seated on him. The question is asked on the Order Paper. Many that say I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes I Lincoln Jopp and Aphra Brandreth and Tellers for the noes as Shaun Davies and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right 117. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 117. The noes to the left. 331.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 331. The ayes to the right for 117 the noes to the left. 331 so the noes have it the noes have it unlock. Order under the order of the house of the 19th of October. I must now put the questions necessary to bring proceedings on Committee of the whole House to a conclusion. I call the Minister to move government amendments 240 to 243. Formally. Question is that Government amendments 240 to 243 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.













































































































































































The question is that clause 84, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 85 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, no. I think the nos have it, the nos have it. The question is that clauses 86 and 87 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. II Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.





























































































































































The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendment 244 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that government 240. Government amendment 244 be 240. Government amendment 244 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, I say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that have it. The question is that clause 88, as amended, and clauses 89 and 90 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. New clause 49 to 53 formally. Formally. The question is that new clauses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clauses 49 to 53 be added to the Bill, as many are as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause seven has been selected New clause seven has been selected for separate decision. I call the opposition spokesperson to move new. opposition spokesperson to move new. Clause seven formally. The question is that new clause seven be added to the Bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, Is that new clause seven be added to the bill?

































































































































As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. The Tellers for the ayes of Lincoln Jopp and Aphra Brandreth, the Tellers for the noes Harpreet Uppal and Shaun Davies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The Ayes to the right 179. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 179. The Noes to the left 336.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 179 the noes to the left. 336 so the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. New clause 12 has been selected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New clause 12 has been selected for separate decision. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to move new clause 12 formally. Customary to stand up. The question is that new clause 12 be added to the bill. As many as of that the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary. Is Is that Is that new Is that new clause Is that new clause 12, Is that new clause 12, sir Is that new clause 12, sir Desmond be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary. No, no.





























































































Tellers for the ayes, or will false from Bobby Dean the Tellers for the noes Harpreet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The eyes the right 184. The Noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left 330. The ayes to the right were 184.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 184. The noes to the left 330. So the nos have it. The nos have it. Unlock. Unlock. I call the Minister to move. Government amendment 245. Formally. The question is the government Amendment 240 made as many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 91, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments 267 to 275 formally, formally.

























































The question is that government amendments 267 to 275 be made as many errors of that opinion, say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that schedule six, as amended, be the sixth schedule to the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 92 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.













































I call the Minister to move government amendments 246 to 248 formally, formally. The question is that government amendments 246 to 248 be made. As many as of that opinion, say I. I contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 93, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government amendments 249 and 250 formally, formally. The question is the government amendments 249 and 250 be made?































As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as of that opinion, say I. I contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that ayes have it. The question is that clause 8094, as amended, and clauses 95 and 96 stand part of the clauses 95 and 96 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Government. Amendment 251 formally. Formally. The question is that Government amendment 251 be made as many as of that opinion, say I. I the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause 97, as amended, and clause 98 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. Order, order! Order! Whip to report. I beg to report that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report that the Committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with amendments. Under the order of the House of 19th October. We now proceed 19th October. We now proceed directly to consideration. No amendments on consideration. Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. Minister, to move. Third Reading. Secretary of State.
18:32
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move Third Reading of the bill. But I want to start, first of all, by expressing my very sincere thanks to the team who have been working on this for some considerable time. Daniel Thrower, Charlotte Brennan, Sharon Carter, Niall Haughey, Philip Shaw, Will Durkin and the whole of the legacy team in the Northern Ireland Office. Also to the Minister for veterans who, sitting by my side and the Northern Ireland Minister, and of course, to the former Secretary of State who brought this bill in in the first place.















































































































































I pay tribute to every single one of them. Madam Deputy Speaker, we normally associate legacy with our inheritance from our parents or from our ancestors. In some cases, that means wealth or property, or perhaps a family tradition that has been handed down through the generations, something that one family does differently from another. For most, though, our common legacy is a positive thing a sense of our shared history, our national pride in the things that we do phenomenally well. Our National Health Service, perhaps our storytellers, authors, playwrights, musicians, our bravery in two world wars, our armed forces.

































































































































But the legacy in Northern Ireland is different in many ways. In many ways, it's a legacy of division, antagonism, sectarianism, a legacy of violence to a legacy of extraordinary trauma. Trauma, originally, of course, just in Greek, means a wound, but it means so much more. It's an open wound. In many cases. It's the wound felt by a woman who lost her brother, an RUC officer, years ago, and has nightmares all the time about how he died, or the man who goes to Marks and Spencers every day and sees the man who he knows killed his father, who served in the armed forces, or the man who gave up his college music course to join the army when his brother was blown up, and still worries that he's never lived up to his brother because he never found out precisely what happened to him when he was killed, or the young woman who worries that she can't even remember her daddy who was killed when she was so young she can't even remember his face.











































































































And she feels guilty about it. Or the teenager who sees photos of his grandad who was murdered by the IRA before he was born, and sees it every single time. The troubles are reported on the news, or the family who still haven't located the body of the family member they knew was killed. Patrick Keefe, in Say Nothing wrote this perhaps the cruellest and feature of forced disappearance as an instrument of war is that it denies the bereaved any such closure, relegating them to a permanent limbo of uncertainty. I felt this so strongly recently when I had the deeply sobering experience of visiting an active.



























































































 ICLVR dig at Derry clone in County Antrim, where the Commission's dedicated investigators are to this day searching for the remains of Seamus Maguire. Seamus was just 26 years old when he was disappeared in Lurgan in 1973. And my thoughts are, of course, with the Maguire family, as well as with the families of Columba McVeigh, Joseph Lynskey and Robert Nairac, who await the return of their loved ones. That's a phenomenal trauma that still lives in many families lives. And the thought that even when those had disappeared, they still got letters pretending to be from their loved ones was a particular form of cruelty.











































































When people say to me that people need to move on in Northern Ireland, my answer is no. No one has moved on more than the victims and survivors of the troubles. They're not living in the past. They're living with the past. And if it's not resolved, if people don't get answers, that trauma will pass on to the next generation. Now, I know there are lots of people who don't support every clause of this bill. There are some who don't support any clause in this bill, but I would just relay the words of the Royal British Legion who said this week, veterans and those armed forces, families who lost loved ones in the conflict deserve answers.



























































It is in the interests of the whole of the armed forces community affected by the troubles, that steady progress is made to ensure this legislation's provisions are effective, and in recognition of the fact that although much of the debate here has been about veterans yesterday and today, actually, this is primarily about families. As Joe McVeigh, the victims Commissioner for Northern Ireland, said, as parliamentarians, you have the opportunity to provide legislation that puts victims and survivors at the heart of the new bill and also provides mechanisms that will give confidence to victims and survivors who have waited too long.















































Their voices must shape and determine what happens next. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to explain briefly why this really matters to me. Back in 1986, I was one of the first British people to be in Argentina. After the dictatorship had come to an end. Many of my friends have been tortured, and I knew that they'd been tortured. They spoke about it, and one night I went to a pub or a bar with a friend of mine, and he went to the loo, and he stayed there for a very long time, and I wondered what was happening.

































So I went to find him, and he was lying down in the cubicle on the floor in floods of tears, because he said that the man at the bar who was standing next to us was the man who had tortured him systematically for two months, several years earlier. And I said to him, how can you possibly know? You always told me that he was blindfolded throughout that. And he said, well, the thing is that when somebody pushes your head down into, icy cold water until you nearly drown five times a day, and when they apply electrodes to your genitals three times a day, you get to know them by the way they breathe, by the way they walk into the room by the tenor of their voice.



















And I know that man is the man who tortured me. And I say that story, it's from a long time ago and from a different country. But I've met people in Northern Ireland who have faced exactly the same people who have never had an answer. They've never had a moment where it's even been recognised in the public domain, that what's happened to them and to their loved ones actually happened. And so this bill isn't about one group or another. It's not about special favours for one group or another. It's about honesty, candour, the pursuit of justice and most importantly, truth.





 Because in the end, it's only truth that can really set us free.
18:40
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the bill be now read the third time. Shadow now read the third time. Shadow Secretary of State Alex Burghart here. >> Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days and to hear some fantastic contributions from both sides of the House and from all sides of the argument. And, you know, I pay tribute to the moving story that the Secretary of State just told about, about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we've been debating for now, two years at Third Reading, but I don't want to do that. You know, I think the House knows how the Conservative Party feel about the bill, but I want to try and take things forward.































































































































 I want to and to do that, I want to take us back to what the last government tried to do in 2022 with the Legacy Act. Which set out the ICRIR with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers. Most of them were obviously members of the public, people from all communities, and at the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles, inquests and civil cases and so on. And when the government came into power in 2024, it had in its manifesto one election said that it wanted to address the concerns with our legislation, and it wanted to put public confidence into the ICRIR.









































































































And I know that I'm not asking the Labour Party to move its position on ECHR. I know what its positions are and I know that it will it will put those amendments through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR is constituted by the Conservative Party is working. I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, in his remarks yesterday, quoted from the first report that have have published about the murder of Rory O'Kelly when his his daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said, in incredibly moving and indeed poetic terms, it had moved the family into a place of serenity and light.























































































All anger taken away. That is what I am proud to say. The institution established by the last government has managed to do, and I'm pleased to say that in 2026, where we are now, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR 123 investigations. We believe it is working. There are two issues that I want the. I hope the government will consider as this bill moves into the Lords. Two issues that you know, the Secretary of State has touched upon. The first is about this bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on essential and new and compelling.







































































It's very clear from the legal evidence that we've seen that essential is not the bar that he intends it to be, as has been said to us by leading legal advisers in the KC, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence. So there is no there is no essential bar. And the essential in the legislation at the moment is not defined there. So it will be expanded and contested with new and compelling. The. You know, that does exactly what it says. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations Act.





























































It is a legal term that has certainty. It's not subjective. The evidence must be new, as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling in a way that will impact the outcome. So I, I encourage the government, as we move into the Lords to consider this again, because I think we're trying to achieve the same thing. But obviously, we we believe that new and compelling would be much more effective for that purpose. The second is on what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. And he says that he wants to see an end to repeat, rinse and repeat investigations.

















































And we would dearly like him to succeed in that. And I say this next bit in the context of at the moment, the veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment, there are no veterans groups who support the Bill as it stands. The. As Liberal Democrat colleague from Dorking and Horley said, the. That call itself, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend from Goole and Pocklington is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995, and in 2001.



































And because of this government's decision, it will go before an inquest. Again, this is rinse and repeat. There is a way of going of doing this differently, which was discussed by the right hon. The hon. Gentleman from Birmingham Selly Oak, who I'm pleased to see in his position, was also raised again by my right hon. Friend from Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the Legacy Commission. It is to put us take us into a place where everything is going down the same route. Now, the the Secretary of State has rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance.



















And that imbalance was drawn out very powerfully by the hon. Gentleman from North Antrim, where he said, we have the case of OMA. But when we compare what's happening with OMA to what will happen with local, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out. I raise all of. I raise both of these issues overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords, and I believe that although we would rather the government was not undertaking this Bill, that if it makes the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative Party but by colleagues throughout the unionist communities in Northern Ireland, the Liberal Democrats and indeed from within the Labour Party.



This bill can be made stronger on its own terms.
18:46
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Very good. Hilary Benn thank you >> Very good. Hilary Benn thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has handled these two days of Committee stage, which such skill and grace and understanding, because the fact that the temperature and the temper of the debate over the last two days has been markedly different from that which we experienced previously, is a sign of what I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday, that the government has listened and that point has been recognised. I want to join him in thanking the civil servants in the NIO and other government departments for all of the work that they have done on this bill.



























They are as fine a group as civil servants as I have had the privilege to work with. I mentioned yesterday that the first time I. That my first visit to Wave and Sandra Peat, that wonderful human being, sat me down and she said, Hilary, one of the things that you need to understand is how intimate the violence was in Northern Ireland. And the story we've just heard from my right hon. Friend, indeed, the stories we've heard from so many honourable and right hon. Members over the last two days and the last 28 years, is proof of that.















But today is a chance to recognise that this issue can now finally move on. I said to the House many times, if dealing with legacy was easy, we would have dealt with it a long time ago. It isn't. It's really, really difficult. It's really, really hard. And the last group of people I want to thank are all honourable and right hon. Members on all sides of the House for the contribution that they have made, because it responsibility falls on all of us to get this right in the interests of the people who send us here to represent them.

Yeah.
18:48
18:50
19:03
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number four on Housing Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number five on Social Security Minister, to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number six on Social Security Minister, to move I. The question is, as on the Order The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I contrary no. I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say aye. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number seven on Excise Minister Tamworth. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number eight on business of the House. 21st of October. Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Point of order, Steve Darling.
19:05
19:06
19:07
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page