“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the small team that helped my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton draft his apology for Bloody Sunday, I stand by every word in that Statement. But in the case of soldier F, 15 years after the 12-year Saville inquiry, the judge was clear that the evidence presented fell well short of the standard required for a conviction. Meanwhile, last month, a different judge in Belfast dismissed the challenge against another former soldier, after four years of investigation, as being “utterly divorced from reality”. Does this not reinforce what we have consistently said about the chances of successful prosecutions at this distance from the Troubles being vanishingly small? Given that, will the Government now think again about the provisions in their Troubles Bill that will leave the terrorists largely untouched but mean elderly veterans once again facing lengthy investigations and being dragged back before the courts?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his work with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in response to Bloody Sunday. We need to remember at this point, as at all points, that we are talking about people and their experiences. With regard to the substantive point that he raised, I remind your Lordships’ House that the current legacy Act did not halt the prosecution of soldier F. Unfortunate false promises, as it turns out, were made to the veterans community about immunity, but they would never have been able to be applied.

I remind noble Lords that we have drafted our forthcoming Troubles legislation, which we will have many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House, with veterans at its heart, to make sure that the provisions that veterans community organisations have asked for are reflected in it, along with the protection of our veterans. During this week of remembrance, it is incredibly important that we put on record every day our thanks to those who are currently serving, those who have served and those who served in Operation Banner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in the other place, my colleague Al Pinkerton pointed out that prosecution should not be persecution. Clearly, there is a whole set of issues that we still need to resolve in the context of Northern Ireland, having gone through a long period agreeing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act. Obviously, we welcome the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward as another opportunity to look at this. But does the Minister not agree that this is a very difficult time for families of victims and that it will be essential that, with the new legislation, victims as well as veterans have trust in the process?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are not bringing forward legislation for the sake of bringing forward legislation—noble Lords discuss legislation to the nth degree. We are bringing it forward so that victims and their families can get the answers that they are still waiting for. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that it has been 50 years; other people have waited even longer for answers. It is incredibly important that victims and their families are at the heart of our legislation, so that we can deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and what we pledged in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, to make sure that legacy is dealt with too.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, now that the 2023 Act has been suspended, it is open season once more on veterans. Quite recently, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced six protections for veterans. Do His Majesty’s Government intend to put those six protections in the new legislation, and if not, why not?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, let me be clear that the legacy Act still stands; nothing has been put into abeyance. We are bringing forward two things: the remedial order to tackle the issue of civil cases and immunity—this was in our manifesto—and new legislation. I can go through the protections for veterans and am happy to write to the noble Lord to specify exactly where they will be, but the overwhelming majority of them are in the Bill.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State in the other place told us that the Irish Government have moved to a place where they would give their “fullest co-operation”. When will we see the Irish Government move to that place? Where is the evidence for that? Some of us would like to have seen any co-operation over the past 50 years.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. That is why it was so important that we announced a joint framework with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Tánaiste to make sure that they are committed. Obviously, I cannot speak for their actions —we will all be judged on how we deliver—but this Government are moving forward with our legacy plans.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, when even the judge in this case has said that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, can the Minister understand why most people regard these prosecutions, particularly this one, as vexatious? Can she understand the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland, from all communities, that a blind eye is turned to the ringleaders of terrorism, who continue today to boast of their involvement in crimes and who eulogise and glorify terrorism? There is legislation on the books, but nothing is done. They may be elected politicians in Sinn Féin—some of them are MPs and some are even in the Executive. Why is it that certain people are immune from prosecution while our veterans are hounded?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, no one is immune from prosecution and nor should they be. As the veterans’ commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said collectively in July, this is a call not for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That applies not just to people who wear uniforms; it should apply to everybody. With regard to the prosecutions, over the last month noble Lords have heard me, in different guises, talk about the independence of our Public Prosecution Service and our judiciary. Those are incredibly important parts—the core basis—of our British values. That is why people put on uniforms to protect them, and it is incredibly important that that is what is delivered.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, can she explain how many prosecutions of former public servants—Army and police —might be happening? We know of some that are pending. How many prosecutions are pending for former terrorists—enemies of the state—who were shooting British people, both Northern Irish and English? What about Mr Gerry Adams, known for being on the Army Council in Belfast?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the vast majority of live cases are actually against paramilitaries. We need to remember that terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the Troubles. Over 25,000 of them were imprisoned during the Troubles. Very difficult decisions had to be made to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. Some of those were around the early releases. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of current live cases are against paramilitaries.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that the decisions in the case of Soldier F and the other cases that have been highlighted where judges have taken a particular view demonstrate the impartiality and appropriateness of the way in which judges act? Could she further confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the same tests to all these cases as they do to other cases and that those should be based on the probability of successful prosecution and whether the prosecution is in the public interest?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and can confirm both aspects. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is independent and has clear structures to determine what cases it does and does not take up.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, language matters. In taking forward the new legislation, will the Minister and Government reflect on the fact that, although this is often presented as an issue of veterans versus victims, in a great many instances the veterans and their families were victims too? Will the Government ensure that, in taking forward this new legislation, they do not create yet more victims among our veterans community?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord and I absolutely agree with him. One of the most important parts of this is recognising that there are many members of the military community who still do not have answers themselves and whose families are awaiting justice. That is why we need to make sure that they have trust and faith in the legacy commission. That is why they will have a role in the governance structures, as outlined in the legacy Bill.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. It is impossible not to conclude that successive Governments have failed in their duty of care to our veterans. The process itself has been a punishment. This has not gone unnoticed by serving members of the Armed Forces today, who want to know that, when it comes to making split-second decisions of life or death, they will have the backing of the Government who they serve. Can the Minister put in simple language to those veterans and members of the Armed Forces that they have the backing of this Government, and why the Government continue to rule out a statute of limitation or time bar on civil cases?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Noble Lords are aware of my personal commitment to the military family and of my entry on the register of interests. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: we have the back of our Armed Forces. We celebrate the fact that they put on a uniform to protect us and that, in Operation Banner, as in many different environments, they run towards danger. With regards to the statute of limitations, it would apply also to paramilitaries. As we have heard from numerous veterans’ groups, they do not want that to happen either.