Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.

As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that

“peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”.

The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.

We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case.

The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.

On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005.

That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

In essence, what my hon. Friend is talking about here with the agreements about the destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a sense, one way. There is no way on earth that the same process would have been allowed for soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. All evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction. When the Government talk about equivalence, they are wrong. It has never been about equivalence; it has been about one-way traffic.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.

When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.

We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate Members who have spoken, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He set out eloquently, in precise and excellent detail, exactly what is wrong with what is happening today and what will be wrong when the Government next bring forward their Bill. I still do not understand the reason for the rush to get the order through today. We have legislation coming before us, and surely it would have been reasonable to allow the courts to get on with their business and for us to legislate on the basis of what they bring forward. I simply say to the Government that it is badly done that we are rushing this order through and that the House is being forced to vote on it today.

The points I want to make are not about the legalities of this, because those have been raked over endlessly. As I said, the right hon. Member for Belfast East gave a brilliant exposition of them, and there is nothing I can add. I want to talk simply about what the previous Government were trying to do when they brought in the previous legislation. Back in about 1993 or 1994, I went out to South Africa with a delegation to look at how people there were trying to bring the country together again and clear themselves of the baggage of what had happened over those desperate years. During that time, many more men and women were killed in South Africa then we are dealing with in Northern Ireland, tragic though that was. It was the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa that persuaded me that something along those lines was vital for Northern Ireland.

I say that as somebody who served in Northern Ireland. I also say it as one of those who lost a good friend, whose name I have mentioned before—Captain Robert Nairac. The main point I am making is that I no longer wish to pursue the people involved. His parents have died, and the rest of the family do not want to pursue those people for justice; they want to find out what happened to Bob Nairac. Nobody knows, and no one will come forward with the possibility of prosecution hanging over their head. What happened was terrible, but we want to know what it was. That is the bit I feel strongly about: the knowing is important to end this and draw a line under it. I am afraid that the Bill will continue the pursuit of individuals, particularly those who are Northern Ireland veterans, as I am.

There is no help here in respect of Ireland and its pursuit. What are we going to do? There is nothing to say that Ireland will now agree to drop what it is doing and open its records. So much of what happened is in its records, because people fled there from their brutal crimes.

This is not about equivalence, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As have I said before, equivalence came about when a limitation was put on incarceration periods back in 1998. That brought equivalence to terrorism and to terrorists. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who is not in his place, made the point that the vast majority of prosecutions have been of terrorists, but over 3,000 of the deaths were down to terrorists and only about 300 had anything to do with the armed forces. So of course there have so far been more prosecutions of terrorists, but there will never be enough while we cannot get the records—they do not exist—of those who committed these foul acts. I again make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that it is a one-way street.

Time is limited, so I will finish simply by saying that I remember a conversation with Norman Tebbit, who died quite recently, during which I asked what was the worst thing that had happened to him. He said that it was not lying under the rubble or even believing that his wife had died as she lay next to him after the bombing. He said that the worst thing was when he had to swallow hard and watch the person who had set the bomb and blown his wife into a different future walk free. He said that that was the worst thing, but he understood why it was necessary. He swallowed it and determined against a prosecution. I was hoping that with the previous legislation, we could get to the truth of things, rather than have this ridiculous pursuit, which will never end, of those gallant veterans who, like me, served in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Myself and my party, the DUP, stand squarely—[Interruption.]

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

[Jim Shannon]

indicated assent.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us will be very important. I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The door to justice must remain open. No equivalence can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrator. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved one, and there should be appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles investigations.

I am here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice. My family seeks justice, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks justice for his friend and comrade. It is for them that I underline the major flaws in this remedial order. It does not provide protection for service personnel. There is the recent history of members of the security forces being maligned and dragged through the courts as a result of vexatious allegations. Let us never forget that those stem from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelmingly about paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear: I talk about those with clean hands.

The announcement of the Irish Government’s role in the process, considering their perceived inaction on legacy issues within their own jurisdiction, which includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing, is yet more salt in the wound of those who watch murderers skip over the border with impunity. The reason that we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear and warranted: it was a murder haven for years.

Without information, there can be no Irish influence. Anything less is the gravest insult to the memory of those murdered and to the families who grieve them. The fact of the matter is that we can never equate the death of a terrorist killed when carrying out murder—[Interruption.]