Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.

In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.

Sinn Féin 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 Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that 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. While 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 are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the 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, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.

I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch 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 is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles-related crimes. On the question of those who have escaped across the border, I have had opportunity to mention Gerry McMonagle. He was taken to court for the murder of Hugh “Lexie” Cummings in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and in the time it took to correct it at the Omagh court, that gentleman escaped across the border. He has risen to be a significant member of Sinn Féin. He has been the mayor of Donegal county council. The fact of the matter is that he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? Should this not be one of the cases on which the Republic of Ireland works with the Government here, to ensure that that man is jailed?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working

“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]

I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.

All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it 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, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.

Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, 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. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee 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 as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he 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 was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?

[Alex Burghart]

That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.

Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. 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 Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for 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. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.

Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—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.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.

The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I just want to make sure that I understood him; he said that inquests have not dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, they have: the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill inquest brought truth to families almost 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. If we are going to talk about this, let us talk about it in the round.

[Alex Burghart]

I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman.

In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on.

Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that 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.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very mindful, as we often are in Northern Ireland, of the experiences we have with many people. I think of the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan. The person who did that was Colum Marks. When Colum Marks was later in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC in Downpatrick, he was shot. He deserved to have that capital punishment in Downpatrick. The family should never try to engineer an inquiry for someone who was quite clearly the head of the IRA in the area. When he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He is burning in hell today—couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened.

As my right hon. Friend the Member 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 Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.]

There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?

[Alex Burghart]

While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.

Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday.

I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it:

“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”,

but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations.

The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?

[Alex Burghart]

The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential.

The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—

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

Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.

[Alex Burghart]

Finally, a bit of order!

[The Chairman]

Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.

[Chris Bryant]

Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.

[Alex Burghart]

As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.

[Chris Bryant]

I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.

[Alex Burghart]

it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—

[Chris Bryant]

No.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have 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.

“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.

Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It 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 historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare 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. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I clarify the point the hon. Member is making? Is he putting forward an argument that if special forces are not allowed to do whatever they want, in whatever theatre, outside legal boundaries, people will not join up?

[Alex Burghart]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.

[David Davis]

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

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.

This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although 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. 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 on how this House can be reassured 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 I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.

I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues.

Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and 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. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. 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 lie at the heart of this debate.

This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments.

The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their 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, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We are relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I have said. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) argued that our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There is actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and it would be inappropriate to put the matter into the legacy commission. It is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work, as with the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and that into the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 32, which I think he intends to press to a vote in a few short moments, and I want to speak to that briefly. I think it falls at the first hurdle because, as he said in his speech, it would be inappropriate for us to have measures that apply only to one category of people. We do not believe that it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focused 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 have put forward were designed following consultation with veterans—that is true—and were not included in the legacy Act. All these measures have been introduced to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. For those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment 32.

Turning to amendment 51 by my beknighted friend the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), on which I think he also intends to have a separate Division, I understand the anxiety and concerns there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on how we should proceed. As he will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment—it is something 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, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On one of the reasons for that, I can quote Andy Seaman, 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”

—that is, 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. We are not opening a new inquest into Loughgall; we are restoring the inquest that was under way as a result of being directed by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), to comply with our human rights obligations. 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 Loughgall deaths are justified.”

There are two other issues which I think Members intend for us to vote on. The first is new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State. I understand the thrust of what he is trying to say, though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment into the armed forces is up now for the first time in about a decade. It is up 7% in general and the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. I do not think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces. I am absolutely certain that he would not expect us to be specific about the numbers in special forces. More importantly, his amendment is cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. The idea of setting up a new person to investigate recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he has put it in his amendment, is inappropriate, which is why we are not intending to support his amendment.

[Alex Burghart]

I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being 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? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.

[Chris Bryant]

Because it is not germane to the matter that we are considering today—

[Alex Burghart]

It is entirely germane.

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman and simply say to him that I think it is inappropriate to try to make some false equation between the legislation we are considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If he is going to continue making those kinds of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.

[Alex Burghart]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.

[Chris Bryant]

I know the shadow Secretary of State is getting himself worked up about this argument. I do not think he really believes the argument that he is advancing. [Interruption.] I read it rather differently.

The truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as have both the Ministers who are here beside me—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I have spoken to a large number of those who have served, and they are very keen to make sure we have a Bill that is balanced and fair. That is precisely what we are going to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said, it does us no favours when we exaggerate and seek to undermine recruitment into the armed forces, in particular into the special forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. 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 up 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. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on.

When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working.

I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family

“into a space 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. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working.

There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is 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. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective.

The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. 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 that support the Bill as it stands.

As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat.

There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out.

I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.