Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

And it is not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings being undergone either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. I will not comment on the specific incidents. I have made my views clear about why there should not be any amnesty for people involved. There was legislation introduced that meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand the kind of arrangement that that was. There were people and political parties who did not support the Good Friday agreement, and maybe these are some of the issues that were always troublesome for them. For me, it is important that at this stage we recognise that we need to get as many answers as possible for people, and that there cannot be that kind of immunity, amnesty—whatever we may call it.

The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now.

The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction. Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work.

Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control.

Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through. Anyway, finally—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Amen.

[Chris Bryant]

Very good.

Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government do not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This Government believe wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions on prosecutions taken by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are always taken independently, in the light of the individual facts and circumstances. However, there is a public interest in how such cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That serves to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy. This did not happen by accident, and the IRA did not just take to wearing boiler suits as uniforms; this was a deliberate strategy.

The IRA’s strategy faced the state with a conundrum. Doing nothing and sitting back does not work—if the jury processes and other judicial processes do not work, that is not an option. Why do I say that? Let me go back and take the East Tyrone brigade as an example. It killed 250 people before Loughgall. During the late ’80s, it was killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant that 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state was not fulfilling its duty, so the only way to stop it was to catch the East Tyrone brigade in flagrante—in the act of carrying out a crime—and try to arrest them. Of course, the first aim of the state is always to act with minimum force if possible, but the circumstances did not always allow that. This was an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody, who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, “Excuse me, you’re under arrest.” We saw from many of these events how dangerous that was. At Coagh—the case that went through all those judicial reviews—an SAS soldier effectively had to dress up as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.

At Clonoe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned, there was another problem: the intelligence was wrong, which made it even more difficult. There they were facing a double-barrelled dushka machine gun, .50 calibre and capable of bringing down light armour or aircraft. A three-second burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. That was the sort of thing we were asking our soldiers to do. I will come back to the Loughgall example, which is even worse in many ways. That was the sort of thing that we said to our soldiers, “You must do this to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if you have to.” This is not theoretical; in the specific context of the special forces, which is what these three cases relate to, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland. If Members want to look into this, I recommend that they look up the example of Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot at the moment of challenge, or that of Captain Westmacott. There are others, but those cases give the Committee clear examples of the sorts of risks that had to be taken—and were taken—by our brave, honourable, decent and law-abiding soldiers.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?

[David Davis]

I agree with David Johnstone—by the way, I think he is a very brave commissioner. His predecessor was effectively fired for standing up, and he is still standing up. He is right, and to go off on a slight tangent, our other enemies learn from this, as we are seeing elsewhere in the world today. If we are not very careful, we will end up without one of the best parts of our armed forces, because we ourselves will have destroyed it.

Let me come back to Loughgall. The aim at Loughgall was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who would be coming off shift at 7 pm—the attack was timed for 7 pm. It was not the first such operation, but the third; it came after Ballygawley, where the IRA shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station, and the Birches, where they machine-gunned the station—fortunately, they missed people—before blowing it up. At Loughgall, the IRA team attacked the police station in two units. One unit was in a van, carrying a team armed with automatic weapons with the intention of killing the three police officers as they came off duty, and the other unit—of three men, I think—was in a JCB-style digger that was carrying in its bucket a 300 lb to 400 lb bomb.

The attack happened at 7 pm, when the police officers were due to come off shift. Inside the station at the time, because of intelligence that was known, there were three police officers and three SAS soldiers. To be frank, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage it takes to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by a 300 lb or 400 lb bomb. It is beyond my imagination, but that is what they did.

The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds; I do not know whether all of them were fired at the police station, but I imagine most of them were. Inside the station, people reported being hit by fragments of bullets as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. The digger then crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants. “Injuring” is too mild a term, frankly—one occupant had a fractured skull, while others had broken bones, and two of the soldiers fell about 10 feet on to rubble. Others sustained hearing injuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The Secretary of State is not obliged to give way.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place.

We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as

“a direct threat to national security.”

General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?

[Mr Francois]

I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.

This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.

[Mr Francois]

No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.

Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:

“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”

Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.

Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.

New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.

The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Francois]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will.

The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”.

As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked a lot about the republican movement. Maybe it would be worth it if he took the opportunity to make it clear for those listening that not every victim of state violence was involved in the republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British forces on that day. Can he make it clear that there are lots of people out there today crying out for truth and justice if possible, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the republican movement or any other organisation?

[Mr Francois]

I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year:

“There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?”

That is a very realistic point.

With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words:

“Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.”

On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement:

“The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.”

Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion:

“The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.”

It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.

[Mr Francois]

The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity?

The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn.

In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

The second thing the veterans wanted was a reference to the operational context in which people were serving, which is important. Thirdly, they wanted to ensure that there could be no repeat either in the commission or in inquests—a lot of hon. Members seem not to have noticed this, but we are also saying that in inquests there can be no repeat of processes that have already been undergone elsewhere, unless essential. They wanted us to ensure that there could be no cold calling of veterans, and that any approach would go not to the individual but to public authorities first, so that all evidence that public authorities might have should be garnered first. They wanted us to use the term “new and compelling evidence”, which we have put precisely in the place where it makes a difference, meaning that nobody can be called as a witness unless there is compelling new evidence. They wanted us to put into statute a proper review of all the instances, and to say that we would get rid of the supposed protections that the “on the run” letters afforded, as in amendments tabled by other hon. Members.

[Mr Francois]

Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?

[Chris Bryant]

It does actually, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands quite how our amendment operates. Let me turn to new clause 21, which I think he thinks is key, and which we oppose for several reasons. First, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews, and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. That includes cases in which the Government have already been found by the European Court of Human Rights to have failed to discharge their obligations. The Opposition have clearly learned absolutely nothing from their own legacy Act.

Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required, and that creates more legal process not less. That is why the Government have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Opposition new clause seeks to introduce a judge—a Supreme Court judge no less—at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, thereby changing long-standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court. I note that having asked everybody who has advocated for this new clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court there is absolute silence from Opposition Members, because they know perfectly well that it is a completely and utterly unworkable proposal.

Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that

“individual personnel acted in good faith”

unless

“the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.”

This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process: that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

Supreme Court Dillon Judgment

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As is traditional, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, in that—as he said himself—the judgment in the Dillon case is a complex one. We on the Conservative Benches certainly agree. I suspect that this judgment will be pored over and, indeed, argued over at considerable length, not least in the other place should Labour’s benighted troubles Bill ever make it there.

I will just make a point about immunity, and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I was serving on the Select Committee on Defence under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—an excellent Chairman—when, in 2017, we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. In fairness, I think the Secretary of State has read that report. What was proposed by the Select Committee is akin to what the legacy Act turned out to be, and that in turn was based on the South African truth and reconciliation commission.

We never legislated for absolute immunity for anybody; we legislated for conditional immunity, so that if someone who was involved in a troubles-related fatality came forward to give evidence to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will return to the commission in a moment—the commission could judge whether they had fully co-operated with it, such as by revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the commission believed that that individual had genuinely co-operated in good faith, they would be granted immunity. If not—if the commission felt that that person was lying, dissembling or trying to hide something—the commission could recommend that a prosecution still go ahead. Contrary to the Government’s position, the legacy Act and ICRIR, which the Act established, only ever allowed for conditional immunity. It is important to put that on the record this morning.

I have three specific questions for the Secretary of State about his statement. First, will he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Secondly, as he knows, many of the cases brought against veterans were funded by legal aid in Northern Ireland. He referred very briefly to the implications for legal aid, but can he say something more about that? Thirdly, we heard at business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House in Committee on 2 June. I was quite involved with that Bill. Under its programme motion, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has two days for Committee and remaining stages. When do the Government plan to bring it back to the Floor of the House? Perhaps he could answer that specifically.

I am sad to say that Labour has been cynical today. I humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on 21 January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As we all know, he is otherwise occupied today. Even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted legislation that he did not have the courage to vote for himself.

That brings me to encapsulating exactly what is going on today. While this Government prepare to tear themselves to pieces over a mixture of post-electoral fear and vaulting ambition, what is the Labour party’s absolute priority this morning? It is to advance legislation to facilitate the prosecution of brave Northern Ireland veterans, many of whom gave their lives to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland—in essence, to defend all of this around us today. That sums up the Labour party. It has clearly chosen today as a not-so-good day to bury bad news. The very bad news is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, Labour would rather help Sinn Féin chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what it is: not a complex legal treatise, but a disgrace.

[Hilary Benn]

I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes the judgment as a complex one; he is absolutely right about that. I should make it clear that protected disclosure relating to the location of remains of those murdered by the IRA—in almost all cases, they were buried in the Republic of Ireland—is covered by separate arrangements that were introduced when the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains was created. That had support right across Northern Ireland, because people rightly judged that the most important thing was to enable families to be reunited with the remains of their loved ones. Sadly, there are four individuals whose remains have not yet been found.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the conditional immunity scheme. The fact remains that if a terrorist who committed one of many horrendous crimes—some of which are being investigated at the moment, such as the M62 coach bombing, what happened at Warrenpoint and the Kingsmill massacre—came to the commission and told the full truth, the last Government’s legislation said that the commission “must”, not “may”, grant them immunity from prosecution.

[Mr Francois]

If it believes they have co-operated—that is the nuance.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, I am afraid it is not a question of nuance. The reason why—[Interruption.]

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.

We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?

[Hilary Benn]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

No.

[Mr Francois]

He is on the Committee.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, how could I resist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—

[Mr Francois]

And learned!

[Alex Burghart]

Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend.

The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires.

Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

We have a greater percentage, I think the hon. Gentleman will find—[Interruption.] I did say that.

[Mr Francois]

So where are they all?

[Mr Kohler]

Listen to what I said.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

That’s what the generals said.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.

[Mr Francois]

He didn’t say that!

[Peter Swallow]

Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?

[Mr Francois]

What are you talking about, you idiot!

[Hilary Benn]

I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as

“a direct threat to national security”?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, ma’am.

This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service.

One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.

For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot.

Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there is no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us, but his Bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded, because they will be hounded.

[Mr Francois]

On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable.

First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light.

Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons.

Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome.

Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release.

Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans:

“If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.”

What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently:

“If potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their Government will stand by them, when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why risk joining at all?”.

Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a

“direct threat to national security”.

If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless.

When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan:

“We must reverse it as soon as possible”.

The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill.

In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023.

Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I.

Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army.

When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.

On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.

Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.

A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Matthew Patrick]

I do not have time.

I now turn to the issue of inquests, which has been raised by hon. Members. As the Government have long committed to, clause 84 makes it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared with an inquest.

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I start by welcoming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his place. We all know that Secretaries of State do not have to answer Adjournment debates. He and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this, but no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task and so I thank him for being here.

In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland. We must approach that with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers. We should also remember that the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances.

This is not simply a question of policy detail, but a question of principles: the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction; the principle that we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces; and the principle that we do not bend to the demands of terrorists or, indeed, their modern sympathisers. I am afraid that the Government’s proposed legislation does little to show any willingness to defend those principles, to which I will return shortly.

In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs—Government-supporting MPs—argue:

“The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 7WH.]

That is, the Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That is plain wrong. The truth is that there has long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles.

Blair’s Government created the Good Friday agreement. It is an agreement that, for the purpose of achieving peace—a good aim—drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. The Good Friday agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. Four hundred and eighty-three terrorists were released from prison early—effectively pardoned—of which 143 had been sentenced to serve life sentences, and they inevitably included many killers. At least 16 terrorists were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—also effectively a pardon. They included hardened terrorists, guilty of extreme violence, such as Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200; the three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott; and Fergal Toal, who held down his victim’s arms while two of the victim’s fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. They all received the royal prerogative of mercy.

It was also the Blair Government who authorised the so-called on-the-run administrative scheme—that is its formal title—and the letters of comfort that accompanied it. It was a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters. It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, “it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs.” The name speaks for itself: those people were on the run from the law.

It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Féin opposed them on the grounds that it would have protected soldiers too. Those were their explicit grounds. Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it; they already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. The Government are coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort and many others were listed in Government communications as “not wanted” by the authorities.

Again, we are talking about vicious murderers. Ninety-five of those in receipt of letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations—295 murders. The letters were clear. I quote from the first letter of comfort issued:

“You would not…face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom.”

Those were letters given to murderers.

The Government will, of course, retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters were not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered—as does any amnesty. The Government are hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

John Downey.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important.

He stated there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”

He could not be clearer. He concludes that

“it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge.

The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Conditional immunity.

[Hilary Benn]

As I say, the legacy Act’s offer of immunity in return for statements that the legacy commission regarded as truthful and credible could have given immunity to terrorists. That is why the immunity that the last Government sought to put in place was rejected by victims’ and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and was found by the courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Therefore, as I have said to the House before, and I have said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Act was no basis on which to try to help those families find the answers that they are looking for. That is why we need a different approach—building on the establishment of the legacy commission, I grant him, because I took the decision that we would not abolish it but reform it. That is what the Bill that we will debate shortly seeks to do, and I look forward to it being scrutinised by the House.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Louise Jones]

I will make some progress and then come back to the right hon. Gentleman. It was a law that was forced through to try to curry favour in a desperate attempt to save the dying Administration of Boris Johnson. Among all the complicated arguments around how best to properly deal with the impact of the troubles, there is one huge, incontrovertible fact, which was ignored in the previous speech, and which no amount of clever talk or posturing can obscure: the legacy Act, as it stands, gives immunity to terrorists. That is abhorrent.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

You sent them letters of comfort.

[Louise Jones]

To address that point, the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said that the letters that the right hon. Gentleman refers to grant no immunity. The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands. That is a simple fact. If we want to protect veterans—I know that everybody in this room wants to—we must remember those who were murdered in cold blood by terrorists. Those terrorists now sleep soundly in their beds, free from the threat of prosecution—the threat of justice—precisely because of the Northern Ireland legacy Act. They were given that by a British Government. A British Government have given terrorists who have murdered British personnel complete immunity.

There was an article in The Guardian today about the family of Tony Harrison, a British para who was murdered in east Belfast. He was shot while at home with his fiancée. He was not on military operations—there was no firefight. He was shot in the back in his own home. He was just 21 years old. Under the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands, there is no route for his murderers to be held to account. No wonder his family have now launched a legal challenge to the Act, because they refuse to have Tony be denied justice. We must never forget, but always remember, the 200 personnel whose families are being denied justice because of this Act and how it stands. That is fundamental to why the legacy Act must be repealed and replaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, as we debate this critical petition, which has over 176,000 signatures, some 6,000 of which were added today. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduced the debate so ably. It is a privilege to have in the Public Gallery some 30 veterans who served their country bravely in Northern Ireland, including five from the Royal Hospital Chelsea. For obvious reasons, these veterans have a very strong interest in our proceedings today. I say to them, and to all those who served alongside them, “Thank you for your service.”

For context, some 300,000 British soldiers served in what became known as Operation Banner, the British Army’s mission to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Of those, well over 700 were murdered, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries, at the hands of both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists. If we include the UDR and the RUC GC, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the leader of the DUP, rightly said, the total comes to more than 1,400 dead.

The previous Conservative Government introduced the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 to try to assist the community in Northern Ireland to move on from the difficult history of the troubles and to provide protection for many of those veterans from an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often inspired by Sinn Féin. The Labour party’s election manifesto stated their intention to repeal that Act in favour of new legislation, although no such legislation has been forthcoming, even in draft form. Labour has even sought to claim that the legacy Act somehow protected alleged IRA terrorists from prosecution, when it was the Blair Government that famously handed hundreds of such men letters of comfort so that they could not be prosecuted anyway—and, even if they were, they would only get a maximum of two years, even for murder, as brilliantly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

Pending new legislation, the Government have produced a so-called remedial order under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998. By this method, they seek to remove some provisions of the legacy Act that, they state, have been found in the lower courts to be incompatible with the 1998 Act—even though the incoming Government could have appealed to the UK Supreme Court but, seemingly deliberately, did not.

The net effect of that remedial order is twofold. First, it would allow the conveyor belt of coronial inquests in Northern Ireland to resume, a number of which have led to verdicts against the soldiers—at Clonoe, for instance—

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) brilliantly highlighted Clonoe in his very moving speech. The remedial order would also remove the clauses in the legacy Act that currently prevent Gerry Adams and several hundred of his associates from attempting to sue the British Government, and thus the taxpayer, for compensation.

At Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister faithfully made this promise:

“We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record.—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 324.]

Nevertheless, the remedial order, pushed through the Joint Committee on Human Rights barely a month later with Labour and, I am sad to say, Liberal votes, remained unchanged, and still does.

These proposals have evoked considerable concern, not least from the Royal British Legion, which stated in its briefing note:

“The Royal British Legion calls for the Government to urgently provide clarity and their intent regarding the process of legacy prosecution. We believe that the anxiety and uncertainty created by the current situation is unfair and is having a substantial negative impact on veterans and their families.”

I cannot speak for the Royal British Legion—but, having met the organisation recently, were the Government to proceed with this ill-advised course so obviously injurious to veterans, I cannot foresee the legion standing idly by. Moreover, the three Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are neither ill-informed nor naive, recently issued a powerful joint statement that

“we stand united in our firm support of the motion to be debated in Westminster on 14 July…we are deeply concerned by the prospect of retrospective legal action being taken against veterans who were carrying out their lawful duties, often under immense pressure and threat.”

Incidentally, the Government have been dragging their feet for months on their absolute promise to create an English Veterans Commissioner, and we now know why. Indeed, we now understand that the British Government and their counterparts in the Irish Republic have been negotiating some form of sordid backstairs deal, part of which, we fear, will lead to further attempted prosecutions of veterans while assisting Gerry Adams in return.

This form of Government-sanctioned lawfare is self-evidently a case of two-tier justice at its worst, and that is why we on the Opposition Benches are utterly against it. Will the Secretary of State therefore provide absolute clarity on whether the Government still intend to proceed with a remedial order, which would likely result in a high-stakes vote this autumn, or whether they now intend to go straight to primary legislation instead? Our veterans, who unlike the provisionals never received letters of comfort from the Blair Government, and many of whom now effectively have a sword of Damocles hanging over them yet again, deserve a straight answer from the Secretary of State this afternoon.

In addition to the powerful moral argument against this misguided policy, as made by many of my hon. Friends and others today, there is also its potential adverse effect on recruitment and retention.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No. Who would wish to serve a Government—

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Later.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister has made it clear that he is not going to give way.

[Mr Francois]

Who would wish to serve a Government who may ask them to risk their life fighting for the state, only to be prosecuted in a courtroom half a century later? As General Lord Dannatt, a highly respected former Chief of the General Staff, put it so well:

“Why would any sensible young person think of putting on the Queen’s uniform if they thought they could be tapped on the shoulder years after an operation and questioned over false allegations?”

The Secretary of State will already be aware from his colleagues in the MOD, some of whom have a distinguished special forces background, that this process is having an adverse effect on morale in the special forces community, and in the Army more widely. It would be an act of sheer folly, and aid to our enemies, to continue with this act of military self-harm so that, put bluntly, even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave. This is therefore not just morally but operationally mad, and a gift to our adversaries to boot.

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Member talks about recruitment. Does he recognise that 14 years of Conservative government wrecked our armed forces, and that what the Labour Government are doing to invest in our armed forces and in their housing has led to an increase in recruitment, because new people recognise how important that is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman on recruitment. If it had not been for the brave men sitting in the Public Gallery, there would be no Good Friday agreement. Thank God they joined up and had the courage to serve.

I say to the Secretary of State, in all candour, that what he is doing is wrong. Many of the soldiers who served bravely in Northern Ireland were recruited from so-called red wall seats, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley, and they served in proud regiments in Northern Ireland to uphold the rule of law. Surely the Secretary of State will not try to dragoon Labour MPs through the Division Lobby to throw veterans to the wolves while doing Gerry Adams a favour. The events of the past fortnight show that Labour Back Benchers can no longer be taken for granted—and surely not on this. How could they possibly go back to their constituencies and look local veterans and their descendants in the eye after voting for such a pernicious proposal?

Perhaps I can conclude with a poem. It is by Rudyard Kipling, and is called “Tommy”, about the ordinary British soldier and the ingratitude of his country after he had fought for it in war. Perhaps the Secretary of State will recognise the final stanza:

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”

But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;

An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;

An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!”

Secretary of State, these brave men fought against the IRA, one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen. They did their duty to their country. They defended us. Do not aid and abet their former mortal enemy. Let these brave men live out their lives in peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am afraid that because of the time I am not able to.

That is why, as well as listening carefully to veterans, which we are doing, we also need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel who served so bravely.

More than 200 families of UK military personnel are still searching for answers about the murder of their loved ones 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The Police Service of Northern Ireland confirmed on 30 April 2024 that it had 202 live investigations into troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 33 into the killings of veterans. The following day, on 1 May, each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the legacy Act.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I am not going to give way.

The other challenge that all of us have to face is the lack of confidence in the Act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, and in the commission it created, which we will seek to reform so that it is more capable of commanding confidence for those who are searching for answers. We owe it to all those families; the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) reminded us to remember them and their search for answers. We owe it to them and to all communities to get this right, including trying to reach an agreement with the Irish Government. Doing nothing is not credible.

Clonoe Inquest

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

By repealing the Bill.

[Hilary Benn]

By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR.