Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.

[Jim Allister]

There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.

It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:

“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”

Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.

I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:

“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.

It is the one that records the fact that we

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s

“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”

the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that

“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,

whether it appeared that the

“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,

and the extent to which they

“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”

Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?

We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that

“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.

Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.

The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.

There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Bryant]

This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate.

A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital. In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them.

I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury. There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.