Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

The peace process in Northern Ireland was hard-won, and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, it did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the troubles—either by terrorists or by the security forces—and nor did it provide an amnesty for crimes that had not yet been prosecuted.

Let us also not forget that, according to data from the House of Commons Library, around 3,520 people lost their lives during the troubles. They included 1,441 British service personnel, 722 of whom died at the hands of paramilitaries. Three hundred RUC officers were killed, and 301 individual deaths were the responsibility of the British military. Of those, 121 were republican terrorists, 101 were loyalist terrorists, and the remainder were all civilians. We therefore have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the troubles are dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally.

The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found several provisions of that Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and should therefore be disapplied. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found additional aspects of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the ECHR.

There are many separate elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I will keep my contribution to two specific areas: immunity from prosecution for historical crimes, and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving forward under the new legislation. As a veteran, I have never sought or agreed that, as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service. We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols, whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in.

There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said:

“This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it”.

Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, said that the British Army is “not above the law.” Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is now chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said only last week:

“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”

We must also understand that it is not just British service personnel who were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation; it was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. More than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers were shut down upon the enactment of the legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers’ families.

Immunity from prosecution is dangerous, because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims’ rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law and undermines long-term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution. It sets an awful precedent. If it were to be implemented by foreign Governments currently in military conflicts, we would be rightly appalled.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member have any views on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that did exactly that?

[Mr Foster]

I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers.

Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the speech that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has just given, and the reason I welcome it is that he recognised correctly, fully and truthfully that almost all those who were victims in those terrible years of the troubles were UK citizens. They deserve the same recognition, respect and protection as any other citizen of the United Kingdom. One of the foundational reasons that I am a Unionist is that I believe that we are all equal on these islands—or rather, on that part of these islands.

I understand where we are, but we can look back a lot at history. We can look back a lot at what has got us to the position we are in, but if I may, I want to drag the Government’s eyes forward. The reality is that what we are doing here, in reopening and ending our own version of the South African truth and reconciliation committee—with all the problems, failures, lacunas and gaps that that necessarily has—is ending the opportunity to move on, with all the pain that that brings. We are reopening wounds that, sadly, we all know will never close.

I can look at the agreements that were made in the 1990s. I can speak about the deals that Tony Blair did, and like everybody here, I can be deeply critical about the injustices that he allowed, but I cannot then welcome the peace that he brought. I cannot welcome the peace if I am critical of the process that he and others needed to make it happen, so I am very cautious about those who would go back and criticise and call out. I understand the pain of so many, but if we want peace we have to move forward, and that is where this Bill is really difficult. It does not just affect the peace of these islands, important though that is; it also affects the peace of Europe and the wider world, because it is telling people across these islands that their service when they sign up will not be for five or 10 years, or whatever it says on the recruitment contract, but for as long as our enemies and those who seek to do us harm wish to bring prosecutions against us. I wrote about this for Policy Exchange in 2013 and again in 2015, in two papers: “The Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”.

The fundamental point is that we think this is about us. We in this Chamber have the idea that, somehow or other, the law, the justice system and what we shape and decide here is all about us, but I am afraid it is not. You do not need to take my word for it. Read the Mitrokhin archive. Read what the KGB was doing using instrumentalising. There were many honourable people in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but there were also some who were willing to co-operate with the KGB. Members should read what the KGB and its successor organisations have been trying to do around the world, using the law as a way of continuing actions against British forces and a way of disarming our forces before they get into conflict.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister—he and I have always got on very well, and I admire his dedication—but the tragedy is that, for all the well-meaning aspirations of this Government, and although he, the judges and inquiries have a responsibility to the past, the system that was set up had inquiries and an ability to find justice and the truth. Yes, it made a compromise that many of us did not like, and yes, it gave conditional immunity that many of us found pretty abhorrent, but it also gave the possibility of moving forward. It sent a message to our enemies that we would simply not tolerate our soldiers being dragged through the courts ad infinitum, because all that does is demonstrate weakness.

Let us look at the numbers. This country has a population of roughly 65 million people, and we have security forces numbering maybe 350,000. The equations and challenges are pretty clear. We also have enemies mustering at our gate, as we know very well. Our friends in countries such as Denmark and Sweden are reintroducing conscription, because they realise the threat from the east. Countries such as Poland are spending much more on defence than we do, because they know that Russia is a real threat. We will simply not be in position to stand with them and defend ourselves and our values if we are not willing to stand behind those who risked everything to serve our country.

I have fought on the frontline and know what the heat, dust, confusion and fear can be like. There is a difference between that and having to explain oneself in a courtroom 20 years later, when all we have is gossip and rumour—because nobody else was there, nobody else was telling the truth, nobody else witnessed the reality of the difficult decisions that were taken. All we are doing in holding lance corporals, corporals and commanders all the way through the process is abdicating our responsibility for choosing to send them.