Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

At the outset, I pay tribute to the veterans who came to Parliament Square today, the veterans who have sent messages of support and are watching at home, and the veterans who are with us in the Gallery. I also pay tribute to the shadow Defence team, who have done so much to hold this Government to account for the mistake that they are making.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Burghart]

No.

We are now entering the season finale of the tragedy that is this Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It has been a long season. Despite taking office in July 2024, with a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, they have taken 15 months to bring this Bill to the House. Despite a Second Reading in November, nearly six months ago, the legislation has gone nowhere. Despite bringing forward their remedial order to strike down parts of the legacy Act in January, the Government have since failed to bring it before the Lords, because they know that the Lords do not support it. The troubles Bill is stuck in a legislative purgatory,

“Doomed for a certain term to walk the night”

till its “foul crimes” are “burnt…away.” The reason for that is an open secret in Westminster. The truth is that the Bill is trapped between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and No.10, with the Prime Minister and his team unable and unwilling to make a decision about what the outcome will be. We have read this script before.

For its part, the Northern Ireland Office is simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister when he came to power—the instruction in the Labour manifesto—and the orders of Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, about whom, it must be said, some extremely serious allegations have been made in recent days: not least that he may have drafted or approved documents alleging serious crimes by soldiers without reasonably credible evidence, and that he continued pushing settlements after being told that his clients were lying.

The Ministry of Defence is all too aware of the open hostility held towards this legislation by members of the armed forces, present and past. It is all too aware of the dangers the Bill presents to morale, retention and perhaps even recruitment, but its Ministers are not always prepared to say what needs to be said in order to get their way.

[Mr Bailey]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way now.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for giving way. We are having this debate because in hindsight the military forces deployed in Northern Ireland were not provided with adequate protection. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely cared about veterans and the protection of members of the forces in future, he would have submitted amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to prevent a recurrence. Can he make us aware of any such amendments?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I gently remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

[Alex Burghart]

I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to take time to read the Armed Forces Bill amendment paper. The two gentlemen sitting either side of me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have tabled very many amendments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go out this evening and to try to find one veterans organisation that supports what his party is trying to do with this Bill.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so he should know the lie of the land there. He has talked a lot about veterans. Has he read the letter from Sandra Peake, the director of the WAVE trauma centre? She is an unimpeachable character, who has stood up on behalf of all kinds of victims. She is imploring us to put the Bill through tonight so that we can properly scrutinise it. Has he read that letter? Is he going to mention victims at all in his speech?

[Alex Burghart]

I have read that letter. I have great respect for the WAVE trust; I did some work with it when I first came to the House. I respectfully disagree with what is in that letter, for reasons that I will set out in due course.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government Member, including Ministers, who wants to be taken seriously by armed forces personnel needs to condemn the remarks of Lord Hermer and the disgraceful disparaging of our armed forces?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there will be ample opportunity for them to do so tonight.

Tonight the Government and Labour Back Benchers have a choice, and the choice is simple: to reject this controversial and unloved legislation, which promises much but would do no good.

[Mr Foster]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Foster]

It appears to me that the only two organisations that agree with immunity from prosecution are the terrorists and the Conservative party.

[Alex Burghart]

We will get to immunity in a moment, but the Labour party needs to look down within its soul and its history before it says such things.

The Bill will reopen the door to vexatious litigation. It will drag old soldiers through the courts and subject split-second decisions taken under high stress decades ago to the post hoc algorithm of a legal framework that did not exist at that time. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said that military forces were not given adequate protection at the time—what has happened subsequently is that the legal framework has changed beneath their feet and held them accountable in a way that could never have been intended at that time.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Is the shadow Secretary of State more surprised that the promised amendments leaked to the papers at the weekend are missing from the debate or that the Armed Forces Minister is missing from the Chamber and will not be here to vote for this disgraceful carry-over motion, because he knows that it should not be voted for?

[Alex Burghart]

I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.

[Jim Allister]

The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?

[Alex Burghart]

I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.

The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.

The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. However, this faux outrage was never—[Interruption.] My Committee has done some excellent work on this very sensitive matter, and when we were in Westminster Hall there was no faux outrage. These people did not turn up to speak up for the veterans they speak of now. The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job—so is my Committee—and I find it very wrong that these matters are being presented in this way on the Floor of the House. We need a carry-over motion. We need to be in a better place, where there will be amendments.

[Alex Burghart]

I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this.

When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill.

Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that really concerns me is that this carry-over motion has been pressed by the Irish Government. That absolutely boggles my mind. The double standard is entirely shocking. The Irish Government need to be held to account for their role in protecting IRA murderers across the border. We think of all those ones who were murdered: Kenneth Smyth, my cousin; Daniel McCormick, his comrade; Lexie Cummings, and Stuart Montgomery. They were just four, but there were many, many more. Whenever there were murders, the murderers raced across the border. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anger on behalf of my constituents and my family, who want to know why the Irish Government have more say in this than the victims of Northern Ireland, my family and others?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point.

The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion.

All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that.

In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation.

Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that.

I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is articulating it perfectly. Does he agree that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is no comfort at all for these people who are subjected to years of gruelling inquiry just to establish what we already know: they are innocent?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Would the hon. Member accept that when the process exonerates the soldiers and the veterans at the end, the whole point of the process and taking them to the court in the first place is to give the daily headlines in the paper to allow Sinn Féin and the IRA to rewrite the history of the troubles?

[Alex Burghart]

I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.

[Colum Eastwood]

Has the shadow Secretary of State read the Saville report? He referenced the Saville inquiry not that long ago. Has he read what it says about Soldier F, about how many people he killed that day—unarmed, innocent people marching for civil rights shot down in cold blood by Soldier F, by his own admission? Has he read that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that if ever there was a demonstration of the two-tier process in terms of legacy, we have it as a result of the Saville report? The same Saville report that was used to pursue Soldier F contained an assertion that Martin McGuinness probably had a submachine gun on the same day. He was never questioned, never mind pursued or taken to court—not once.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have made.

Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how

“a peacetime human rights framework”

now wields

“an effective veto over efforts to close the past.”

Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that

“those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”.

This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them.

I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow.

The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.

[Several hon. Members rose—]