Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

It is difficult to know what to say in these scenarios, because everyone on these Benches, no matter what our politics, feels this personally—in our home and in our communities. We never feel that we have done the issue justice. I say to Members from across the House: know that this is not going to be perfect. Know that we will all want things that have not come to pass, and that we will all be seeking to influence the other place; but know also that if we do not do this, it will never get done.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). She made a powerful speech. I commend her for her honesty, and for sharing her personal experiences. I also commend the many other Members who have done so in this important debate.

The Bill is about one thing: how do we deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland? In my view, we cannot deal with that legacy unless we focus on three things: truth, justice and, ultimately, reconciliation. Everyone affected by the troubles deserves truth and justice—that seems to be the core of what the legacy commission is about—but if we are honest, the difficulty achieving an adequate balance between the two fundamentals of truth and justice is why this Bill and the last Government’s legacy Act 2023 have been so contested. It is why, at times, there has been more heat than light in debates. It is why victims and veterans have so often been rhetorically pitted against each other in these debates. As we have seen today, that is a false dichotomy. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made a good point: so often, veterans are victims of the troubles.

We have to ask: why is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill necessary at all, 28 years after the Good Friday agreement? The answer is that all parties to the conflict have failed to take the steps necessary to deal with its legacy, so here we are, literally re-litigating the troubles.

First, truth is important, and the legacy commission will enable important work to establish the truth, including for hundreds—arguably thousands—of veterans and their families. Regardless of what has happened in their life, many victims and survivors of the troubles need the closure of knowing who did what, when, to their loved ones. Both the reformed legacy commission and the independent commission on information retrieval, which will be discussed tomorrow, create the possibility of our learning those truths. Furthermore, in the legacy framework, there is a seminal commitment by the Irish Government to introducing new legislation that ensures the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities on legacy issues, including through a new Garda unit. That opens up new opportunities to uncover the full truth and is truly historic.

The commitments made by our partners in the Irish Government must be followed through with. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to confirm that the entirety of the framework, including our pledge to reopen a limited number of paused inquests, is contingent on the Irish Government putting their commitments under the framework into Irish law at the same time as this Bill becomes law.

The second key foundational element is justice. As we have heard, justice is so necessary, but the people of Northern Ireland really need to determine what form of justice will satisfy them. We heard from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), about the South African truth and reconciliation commission. The Good Friday agreement avoided any extensive public or social quasi-judicial process, so we have been left with not just the legacy of the troubles but the legacy of the last 28 years of smouldering, pent-up frustration about the lack of justice for, and at times even acknowledgment of, the events of the preceding 30 years.

In part 5 of the Bill, the legacy commission allows for the uncovering of truth in a quasi-judicial setting through an “inquisitorial proceedings” approach. Suspected crimes that are uncovered in that way can be referred to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that the criminal justice route remains possible for troubles-related crimes.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is not in his place, talked about giving false hope to Mrs Jones, but at times, it is the absence of a process, as much as anything else, that brings people fear, disappointment and frustration. Even if they cannot get full justice—whatever that may be, and however we define it—the opportunity to look into how their loved one was affected, killed or maimed is itself part of justice.

It is important that any attempts to wage lawfare against veterans are confounded. I therefore welcome new clause 50, under which the Attorney General would have to give consent to all serious troubles-related prosecutions. I also welcome new clause 32, on the explicit requirement on coroners or the commission to recognise the operational circumstances in which veterans served—the fact that they had to make split-second decisions, and so on—and amendment 192, which requires the commission to consider whether there is compelling new evidence before contacting witnesses. But the question must be asked: at what point will we all realise that we cannot litigate or prosecute our way out of the legacy of the troubles?

I come to my last point, on reconciliation. The missing piece in Northern Ireland—the whole reason why we are in the Chamber—is the failure to pursue and deliver what we might call positive peace. In many ways, the Good Friday agreement has been a huge success; it stopped a large majority of the violence we saw in the troubles, and there is no question but that Northern Ireland is a better place today than it was in 1998—I saw that improvement with my own eyes, as I lived there between 2002 and 2007—but the mere absence of violence is not enough to enable us to deal with the legacy of the past, let alone build the future that Northern Ireland deserves. That is the reason why, despite the much more peaceful society that we see today, Northern Ireland still feels frozen to some degree at a moment in time—in 1998, to be precise. How else can we explain the visceral response we witnessed so recently on Garvaghy Road?

Some may say that Governments cannot make people or communities reconcile. That is correct, but that cannot mean that Governments, and politicians like us, cease to have a role in fostering reconciliation. Clause 11 outlines that the first principle of the legacy commission is that reconciliation must be promoted. However, there is scant, if any, detail thereafter on how that will be achieved, even if part 4 of the legacy Act is taken forward. That is why I put my name to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and grouped for consideration tomorrow, which would commit the Government to engaging seriously with efforts to foster reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the troubles.

Some people want to see justice done; others want to see truth uncovered. Those are legitimate desires, and the Bill seeks to help them come to fruition, but when it comes to the legacy of the troubles, there is clearly a great social and corporate need for acknowledgment, and even contrition, on all sides. A generation after Trimble and Hume won the Nobel peace prize, our ambitions for reconciliation have fallen silent. We politicians need to lead by example. This is not familiar territory for any Government; truth and justice are easier to deal with than the fragilities of confession, forgiveness and, ultimately, love.

When President Mandela spoke in Cape Town cathedral at the commissioning service for the South African truth and reconciliation commission, he led by example, acknowledging:

“The whole South African nation has been a victim, and it is in that context that we should address the restoration of dignity and the issue of reparation. The healing process is meant for the individual, the family and the community. However, above all the healing process involves the nation, because it is the nation itself that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself.”

I ask us: what could it mean if the people of these islands—Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland—could convene moments in which we could acknowledge, repent and heal? What could it achieve if the UK, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments convened, resourced and facilitated memorialisation of the troubles and symbols of forgiveness and reconciliation? As we have seen throughout the world, it is only Governments who have the scale and authority to create such spaces and moments.