Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Clause 17 gives formidable, sweeping investigative powers to the commissioner’s office and officers. I have made my views very clear on that. We must ensure that these powers will not be disproportionately weaponised against the state that kept records, while republican and loyalist terrorists who kept no records walk away scot-free. I am keen to see justice for those who served in uniform—those who I knew personally and those who I did not know—and for those families who grieve today. As the MP for Strangford, I want to see justice for the Ballydugan Four, for Stuart Montgomery and for others across the Province. I want to see justice for them, but in this process, the Secretary of State has yet to convince me that it is coming.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I tabled a dozen amendments. There is not time to go through any of those now; in the few minutes I have, let me briefly explain what those amendments were all about.

I do not think anyone else in the Chamber was here in ’97 and ’98 when the Good Friday agreement discussions were taking place. It was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. People had to go out, convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process. Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners, which was a huge breakthrough. They were prisoners on all sides—it was not sectarian. One of the constituencies we had to convince, as well as part of the Irish diaspora in this country, were the families of victims on all sides. We had to try to get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. To be frank, I do not believe that we can have peace without justice.

I desperately want to support this legislation, but I am struggling. I am worried about the message that we are getting from victims. I do not know whether people have seen the letter from the Relatives for Justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that—we have veterans among us—but we need to take heed of the victims. Let me quote very briefly from the letter, which is from 200 families. It states:

“We have listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict.

We have read government statements and press releases and followed debates in parliament and recent media interventions made on the legacy—our legacy.

It is as if we don’t exist and the only ‘real victims’ are veterans.”

I worry that, if we lose the confidence of the victims’ families, we lose the confidence in the overall process. The architecture that we designed was intended to give them confidence. One of the key elements of it was the independence of the legal system. In 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations that we installed in part of the agreement. It stated that

“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.”

It is also stated:

“The functions of the Director”

of Public Prosecutions

“shall be exercised…independently of any other person”.

The problem is that we are now undermining that architecture. We are giving power to the Attorney General to determine cases and, if necessary, even to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward; power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information; and power over appointments to the judicial panel. I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave with regard to the exercise of that power, but that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the term “national security”. We are no longer talking about the threat to actual national security. We are talking about the “risk” to national security. That puts into people’s minds a concern that the breadth of the interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of decision making. We have even undermined our own legislation, which I believe we supported, in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein decision making, for instance, about the issuing of warrants on national security grounds is at least determined by a test of whether it the warrants are necessary and proportionate. That test is not built into the Bill.

The debate has been dominated by the issue of veterans. As someone said, 300,000 veterans served. Between 2010 and 2024, there have been 25 prosecutions. Six of them were of veterans, and there was only one conviction. Let us get this in context. Victims are standing to one side, thinking that they are not even being heard or listened to. The independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. We are on a dangerous edge here, and I hope that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that can restore confidence, not just for the victims and their families, but for some of us who were here during that very difficult and precarious period in which peace was secured.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Secretary of State.