Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The issue that we are discussing today goes back decades, and we in this place still have unfinished business to deal with. Today is an attempt, although not a perfect one by any means, to do our duty. It reminds us of our duty of care to the people of the whole of this country—in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere—who have been so badly affected, so traumatised, with lives lost, as a result of what is euphemistically called “the troubles”. Today I have listened to harrowing accounts from Members of what they have experienced themselves or have heard from others. We, as Members of this place, have a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves—those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles, and those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth of, or justice for, what happened to their loved ones.

Today we are once again trying to right some of those wrongs of the past, but let us be clear about the fact that we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is ensure, or try our best to ensure, that people who have suffered in all their different ways can, if not get closure—we have heard about that again today—at least find out more about what happened to those they lost.

During the debate it has been said a number of times that we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our Government to try to keep the peace—because that is what it was to start with: an attempt to keep the peace, not to fight and win a war, because nobody won out of those troubles. The end of those troubles began, apparently, in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, but the violence went on, did it not? Since then, successive Governments have tried to bring about some form of justice, some way of bringing back the truth about the people who suffered in that violence, and time and again, that has not happened. I wish to God that, as a Member of Parliament elected only two years ago, I did not have to deal with this, but I know that, actually, I do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it.

I cannot speak for all the victims, but we have heard much about them today. I want to focus on a group of my constituents who have come to me and asked for answers and reassurance. They are a group of local veterans who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They were not trustful, because they saw an attempt to take away their protections under the legacy Act and thought that we in this place were going to leave them exposed. I said, “Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s find out about this.”

I can tell Members that when we sat down, it was a very tense environment. I thought, “I’d better not talk now. I’d better just listen.” I listened to them go through, one by one, what had happened to them when they were serving for Her late Majesty in Northern Ireland. Each had their own traumatic experiences, and a couple were in tears. One said to me, “Will this ever end? I still live this trauma, and I don’t see how you or this Government are going to protect me.” I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to the Government. We went through their concerns, and we summed them up in just two points. They were not saying, as has been said before, that we should not talk about the past or that we should just brush it under the carpet and repress it. They wanted to know that if and when anyone asks them, “What were you doing there?”, they will not be judged guilty from the start but will be protected.

The veterans were scared of receiving a letter from a commissioner, a lawyer or whoever, and one said, “Will the MOD not protect me?” I took that question on board. Another said, “What happens if I do have to give evidence or get involved in proceedings that I don’t understand? Will the Government be there to give me the support that I need?” I took those points away, and I know that the Government have been listening to many individuals, groups and Members of this place since then. I am pleased to see that there is progress on that. I am particularly pleased that we will not be cold-calling veterans, who still need support. I have said that I will give them that support, and after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again. I will listen to them again and say, “Does that give you reassurance?” If it does not, I am pleased—and I will say this to them—that it does not end here. We cannot ever draw a line under the troubles, and we must remember that. We will listen again, and I am pleased that that provision is included in the Bill.

We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served and all the people we represent, who expect us to do the right thing. We should not talk about “traitors” or “betrayals”. We are trying to do the best we can, because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. We have a chance again to make things a bit better, and some of the amendments that have been tabled do that. I will support the Government amendments later, but it does not stop here.

I want to say to everyone listening, whether they are a victim, a veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening: we have a duty of care to you all.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I will always stand on the side of innocent victims and with those who put on a uniform to protect them, but regardless of whether this Bill passes or not, veterans sadly continue to live in a state of uncertainty and are continually faced with the threat of future lawfare and vexatious investigations. We need only recall the outrageous persecution of Soldier F. Despite the slurs and inaccurate comments from Members in this place last week, I want to remind the Committee that Soldier F was acquitted. He was found not guilty of murder, but how much of his life in his elderly years was spent defending himself against a prosecution in which the evidence fell well short? Veterans live with this fear every single day, and while some of the amendments may be superficially attractive, the Secretary of State must explain how they will actually protect those who serve. We cannot accept provisions that are, in substance, legally ineffective.

Loughgall has been mentioned throughout the debate. The Secretary of State’s clarity is stark, and it is not lost on veterans. Those in the East Tyrone IRA killing wing were bloodthirsty. They went to that police station armed to the teeth with guns and a bomb. They were not scouts going to the police station. They went there to kill, and they met real soldiers, who stopped them and saved hundreds of lives as a result. We cannot allow their murderous intent to be forgotten while those soldiers face further proceedings almost 40 years later.

There has already been an inquest, which concluded in 1995, and there is no need for a further inquest. The Secretary of State is not taking the opportunity to protect those who saved countless lives, because this Bill will allow for the 2015 proceedings to resume. I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), which I and my hon. Friends have signed, to prevent this resumption. Those soldiers were sent by this country to confront the IRA, and they did so courageously and bravely. This Government now need to explain what protection they are actually going to give them.

On further protections for veterans, we are told that they will get a warning before being contacted and can give evidence via video link. Under new clause 45, the warning procedure does not even apply when someone is contacted because they are suspected of an offence, but that is exactly what many veterans fear. Even for witnesses, contact can proceed after 14 days whether or not the warning has reached them. The ability to give evidence remotely remains subject to whether that is considered practical. Does the Secretary of State think that veterans will stop worrying because they can answer questions from their living room? The veteran’s family will still be living with the same fear about what comes next. Basic courtesy and a broadband connection are not meaningful protections for our veterans.

Amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which I have signed, would prevent people being appointed to the victims and survivors advisory group if they are or have been members of political parties with links to or that support paramilitary or terrorist organisations, past or present. Why should innocent victims be expected to accept people with those political associations on a group established to represent their interests? They should not, and I, along with my hon. Friends, will be supporting that amendment.

On the on-the-run letters, the Secretary of State will know that I tabled new clause 9, supported by my hon. Friends, to make it clear that the on-the-runs administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution. I am pleased—the Secretary of State should take note, because that does not often happen—that the Government have tabled new clause 51 to prevent criminal proceedings being stopped or decisions to prosecute being quashed on grounds founded on the content of those abhorrent letters. Leaving aside the fact that this rotten scheme should never have been secretly contrived by the Blair Labour Government in the first place, it is welcome that the Government are legislating to have their legal effect extinguished.

However, I do have one concern. The Committee will be aware of the ongoing prosecution of John Downey, who previously escaped justice for bombing England via reliance on the OTR letter he had received. He is currently being prosecuted for other terrorist offences, and this prosecution has commenced. Therefore, new clause 51 must ensure that its provisions encompass proceedings that have already commenced but not concluded. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity tonight to expressly confirm that? Will he also confirm that no transitional or saving provision will preserve reliance on those letters in such cases? We cannot see another prosecution stopped because of an OTR letter issued under the Labour Government’s abhorrent scheme.

There are also serious shortcomings in the scope of the Bill. By its definition, the troubles end on 10 April 1998. That leaves out the Omagh bombing, the single deadliest atrocity of the troubles. Members have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) give his commentary on that important issue, and I urge them to support amendment 23. On 15 August 1998, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins—31 lives were taken. It is simply wrong that an atrocity of that magnitude falls outside the scope of legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles. The Government should accept the amendment. I sincerely ask sincerely: what is the problem?