Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am very reluctant to give way too many times, because I am conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and catch your eye, Ms Ghani.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not given way much to Members on this side of the House, so I will take one intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I will also take an intervention from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and then I promise that I will really crack on, Ms Ghani.

[Colum Eastwood]

It would be good if the Secretary of State cleared something up for the House. We have heard a lot about justice, vexatious claims and everything else. Will he tell us how many of the 25,000-odd people who served time as a result of troubles-related crimes were members of the security forces?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether this is a quiz. I do not know the precise answer to that question, but I think my hon. Friend has made his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.

This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.

Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:

“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”

Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.

Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.

New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.

The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Francois]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will.

The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”.

As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked a lot about the republican movement. Maybe it would be worth it if he took the opportunity to make it clear for those listening that not every victim of state violence was involved in the republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British forces on that day. Can he make it clear that there are lots of people out there today crying out for truth and justice if possible, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the republican movement or any other organisation?

[Mr Francois]

I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year:

“There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?”

That is a very realistic point.

With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words:

“Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.”

On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement:

“The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.”

Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion:

“The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.”

It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and for his consistent analysis, scrutiny and support of all things Northern Ireland.

As my new clause is not going forward, we will continue —unfortunately, in my mind—with a twin-track approach. We will have the legacy commission on one hand, which in some cases is underfunded, and inquests on the other hand. We will waste a huge amount of money through that process, because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is very unlikely to come about. We will allow the process to drift on, potentially for up to 15 years. Think about what that means to someone who is 80, 75 or 70 years old—15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether they will be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form about an incident 30 or 40 years ago. Sometimes, I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. We will keep our brave veterans, who I think have served valiantly, waiting in limbo.

Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors, the first of which is the willingness of Ireland to support us. I completely support the Secretary of State’s move to hold Ireland to account for what it has said it will do, but let us see whether that happens. The second factor is the costs, which are astronomical. At minimum, an inquest costs £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go, and even if they go into the legacy commission, we are still talking about £5 million per inquest. That is significant. Then we have politics to think about. As this process progresses, it will consider Sinn Féin’s activity—either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland—and how that affects both the legislation and the agreements Sinn Féin have made recently. On top of all of that, if new evidence—new biometrics, the smoking gun—is found, people will only go to prison for two years, so what is the point?

As for information recovery, there is no new information unless it comes from Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood]

This is nonsense.

[Al Carns]

It is highly unlikely that there will be new evidence. We can say, “This is nonsense”, but the reality is that it is not going to happen. It has not happened for the last 10 years; it is unlikely to happen now, except in one or two cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

I respect the hon. Member’s opinion on this, but does he accept that over the last week and a half, there have been two former paramilitaries in court on the basis of things that happened long ago? It is not the case that these cases are not being brought forward. The hon. Member’s biggest complaint is that too many cases are being brought forward; now, he is saying that there is no chance of new evidence. I do not really understand this argument.

[Al Carns]

The likelihood of having a huge amount of new evidence that justifies the amount of money spent, and the pain and anguish that all these people are going to be put through, just does not weigh up. There needs to be one single delivery process; instead, we have a twin-track approach that is going to cost a huge amount of money, and the victims sat underneath cannot decide which way to go. It is completely contradictory. I agree that if there is new evidence, by all means bring it forward —of course we should do that. That is in line with the rule of law, but it has to be balanced with the greater aim, which is truth and reconciliation.

From my perspective—this is perhaps equally important —we will also allow those in Northern Ireland who were defeated in a military campaign to now engage in a political one—one that uses every operation to rewrite history, paint the state as the aggressor, and convince the good people of Northern Ireland that reunification is the answer to all of their problems. For a 15-year-old in Northern Ireland now, if they have to put up with five, 10 or 15 years of this going through the courts consistently, it will paint the state in a negative light. Morally and ethically, this approach does not support our veterans as it should, and strategically, it deals the best possible hand to our adversaries.

--- Later in debate ---

My position is simple: those who commit crimes in uniform should face justice, bereaved families deserve the truth, and those who have already been investigated deserve finality. Those aims do not conflict, and a fair system delivers all three. Amendment 103, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would help to deliver that system.

[Colum Eastwood]

It is frustrating sometimes, going through these debates. I know from speaking to victims, as many of us in this House do—although not enough of us—how frustrated they have been by some of the language that has been used in our many debates on this issue. I feel that the first people we should always talk about are those who were murdered and those who were left behind, not those who did the shooting. That is what I feel.

We let ourselves down in this Chamber by focusing far too much on veterans. People in this place are entitled to be proud of the British Army if they want, but why is the focus nearly wholly on those who have been charged, or should be charged, with shooting children, for example? Some 26% of the children killed during the troubles were killed by somebody in a uniform. People would not really understand that, listening to some of those in this room. I get that Members want to represent veterans, and I understand the politics around all of that. Yes, veterans might be worried about getting a knock on the door, but there are other people who got knocks on the door over 30 years. They might have got only one knock on the door from a police officer and never heard from anybody else about the matter ever again. Those are the people we should be concerned about.

I listened this morning to the “Today” programme. Someone I know very well, Emmett McConomy, was on representing his brother, Stephen. How about this for a split-second decision? Stephen was 11 years old, playing with his friends in front of lots of witnesses on Fahan Street in Derry. A British soldier shot him in the back of the head with a plastic bullet. He died a couple of days later. The soldier was pulled in, interviewed for about half an hour and let go again. Not long after, the police and the Army raided Stephen’s mother’s house. The bishop of Derry at the time, Bishop Daly, said they were in the house longer than the soldier was in the interview suite. Was that a split-second decision? Should the soldier who did that not be hauled in front of a court? They would have been, if this had happened on the streets of Manchester, Liverpool or Edinburgh. People who most Members of this House would see as British citizens were shot and murdered by the British Army or a British police force. Should those people not be entitled to the same level of justice, if it can be achieved, as any other citizen in the United Kingdom? I do not understand the argument against it.

Many people have made the argument, including victims, that justice is becoming more and more difficult to achieve—I get that—and that many victims want different things. However, they are entitled to seek justice, and they should not be barred from seeking it by any Government; their rights should be upheld, just as any of us would expect our rights to be upheld.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), gave a fantastic and important speech. He reminded us who this debate should be about. He talked about Majella O’Hare. I spoke to her brother Michael today, as I do most times when these issues are coming up. I want us to remember what that was about. She was a 12-year-old girl going to chapel, to go to confession. She was shot by a member of the Parachute Regiment and killed. That was not a split-second decision. Majella did not have a rifle in her hand, or a coffee jar, or anything else.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) gave a powerful speech, and I understand his personal experience and I respect it, but he talked about the issue of memory loss, as have some others; I do not know about other Members in this room, but if I shot a child of 12 years old on her way to chapel, I would remember it until my dying day. That argument cannot be used as an excuse for not doing anything.

Last week, WAVE trauma centre, a fantastic organisation, brought some victims to this Chamber. I know that many people met them. They had good experiences and bad experiences with some of the people they met. Patsy Gillespie’s daughter Jennifer was among them. A braver family you could not meet. Jennifer was 12 when the IRA came into her house, held her and her mother at gunpoint, took her father Patsy away, chained him to a van full of explosives and made him drive that van into the British Army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry, killing Patsy and five soldiers. Patsy tried to warn the soldiers, but the IRA remotely detonated the explosives. Jennifer is no supporter of the republican movement. She wants truth and the justice possible for every victim that can get it.

We also met Mo Norton and her husband. Her brother, a soldier, was killed in the M62 bus bombing. She said a very powerful thing to me: “Why are we never talked about when they talk about veterans? What about all the soldiers and police who were murdered, or the families who were left behind? Are they not entitled to seek truth and justice?” That is where the argument that some people are making would lead us. I just do not understand why we do not talk about those soldiers when we talk about this issue.

I was at an event last week with the family of Sean Brown, who was the chairman of Bellaghy Gaelic athletic club. He was closing the gates when he was taken away and shot repeatedly and left outside his car. There have been two court cases already. Five High Court judges, the Lord Chief Justice included, have mandated this Government to open a public inquiry into what happened. We think 25-odd people were involved in that murder, and the state has admitted that they included state agents. Next week, we will have to go to the Supreme Court, because this Government are appealing the judgment that mandates this Government to bring about a public inquiry. I appeal to the Government today to take the opportunity to listen to what Bridie Brown has had to go through. She is an elderly woman, and her husband was brutally murdered. She is demanding a public inquiry, and she should be entitled to it, because the court has said that she is entitled to it. I ask the Government to drop that appeal.

One of the reasons why I am opposed to some of the disclosure elements in this Bill is that I looked at the files that were released to the Sean Brown family. It was black pages from start to finish. I have seen that a thousand times with victims. They have to fight and fight to get disclosure, and all they get are blanked-out pages. There are cases right now of dead children where the families still have not got access to their files and will not for many years.

We have issues with some of the provisions. We have issues with the national security veto, which has been used many times before. It is a national embarrassment and should not be used again. However, this is the last chance we have. I have been working on this issue for 20 or 25 years, and others have been working on it for much longer. Victims have had to think about it every day. I get that some veterans are worried, but my first concern is for the victims and those who were left behind. We have amendments, and we will support other people’s amendments—even people with whom we do not normally agree. The bottom line is this: if we do not pass this legislation, we will not pass any legislation on this issue. It will not happen. We saw what the last Government tried to do: they tried to close down access to truth and justice. Let us take this opportunity, despite all our issues with this Bill, to give those who have been left behind by the process some chance of truth, and the hope—the vanishing hope—of a prosecution.