All 1 Andrew Murrison contributions to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Mon 9th Jul 2018
Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill
Commons Chamber

Money resolution: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Northern Ireland Office

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts
Money resolution: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th July 2018

(5 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 2 February 2018 - (5 Feb 2018)
Michael Fallon Portrait Sir Michael Fallon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am very happy to accept that particular challenge. My amendment may well not be watertight. I understood that there were some reservations in the PSNI about a statute of limitations. That is one of the complexities.

There are other complexities: if we introduce a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland, why not introduce it elsewhere, where the British military is involved in other campaigns? I am sure that we will hear from the Secretary of State about other difficulties involving the European convention on human rights and so on, but the principle is that there should be some form of limitation. We cannot endlessly go back. Are we to reopen cases where it is alleged that Canadian or British troops shot prisoners out of hand in one of the more difficult days after the D-day landing? Should those cases be reopened? Nobody in this House would say yes. There must come a point when we have to draw a line.

Andrew Murrison Portrait Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his amendments, but does he agree that we need to tread very carefully, as there are important principles of law here? Our armed forces do not want to be aside from or above the law; they uphold the law. Does he also agree that under the military covenant our armed forces must suffer no disadvantage—that is the test—but that in that important regard they are at a significant disadvantage under the law as it stands?