What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech, for which I am grateful. Mackintosh himself started as an apprentice architect aged just 16. Would my hon. Friend agree that as we restore the building, which must be done, there is an important opportunity for the next generation of Glaswegians and others to be part of that project, allowing them to secure their own future?
Businesses such as Cairnhill Structures in Coatbridge play a critical role in supporting infrastructure repairs in Ukraine, including the rebuilding of bridges destroyed by Russian forces, to help reconnect Ukrainian communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our continued support for Ukraine can go hand in hand with strengthening Scottish industry, supporting skilled employment and driving economic growth? If he gets the opportunity, will he visit Cairnhill to see the work it is doing?
Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the challenge of legacy remains unsolved. That is so important to remember when agreeing on the amendments tonight and moving forward with the Bill tomorrow. It is an honour to be part of a process that will be so historic for the future of Northern Ireland. I praise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for all their work on the Bill and for bringing us to this place. I also thank the victims groups and individual victims, many of whom have not spoken out in this process, but of whom we are thinking. I praise the veterans—my grandfather is from Northern Ireland and served in the British Army—as well as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are bringing forward legislation all the time to create a peace for Northern Ireland, and the community leaders who are building that peace every day. I say to people across Northern Ireland that we hope that passing this Bill and agreeing to the Government amendments, which I support, will bring us closer to the permanent peace, justice and reconciliation that everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the UK, can build on. As we proceed this Committee stage, every clause and amendment should be judged by one simple test: will it help victims and bereaved families to finally get the answers that they have waited decades to receive? They have woken up waiting for those answers every single morning, and although they do not want to, they are passing that wait on to future generations—to their own children—and looking ahead to it being passed on and on with despair. We want to draw a line, and the Bill should enable peace and reconciliation to set everyone in Northern Ireland free from the dark past. Earlier this afternoon, members of the Victims and Survivors Forum spoke to MPs about parents, siblings and grandparents killed during the troubles. One victim said: “It has now been 53 years since my father was murdered. I have moved on from justice. I just want the truth.” That window of truth, and the potential for getting that truth, is closing. More than 3,500 people lost their lives during the troubles, and nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved. Behind every case is a family still living with those unanswered questions. The greatest risk before us is delay, so for those Members who are considering voting no to the Government amendments and no to the Bill, that is what is before us. Every year that passes makes establishing the truth harder. Witnesses pass away, memories fade and evidence is lost. Doing nothing means accepting that some families may never learn what happened to their loved ones, instead of accepting this carefully balanced Bill. The former Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have stopped and listened so carefully to victims, and have brought forward the Bill and the amendments. As has been said, the previous legacy Act failed to command confidence across Northern Ireland. It closed down routes that families had pursued for years and left many feeling further away from truth and accountability. The Bill takes a different approach. The reformed legacy commission will have stronger investigative and disclosure powers, and a clear focus on providing families with as much information as possible, as well as learning from the Kenova inquiry and that victim-led process—a way of taking action that means asking victims at every stage what they want to know. Not every case will lead to a prosecution. Many are now 40 or 50 years old. However, where prosecutions are possible—it has been proven already that they are—families should have the fullest possible account of what happened. I welcome Government amendment 192, which ensures that documentary evidence is considered before witnesses are contacted, and requires compelling new evidence before individuals are approached. I welcome new clauses 33 and 34, and amendments 148 and 149, which establish a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. This is so important—I see that it has come from many conversations with WAVE, which has been mentioned before, as well as other victims groups. Those groups have asked for a statutory place where victims’ voices will be heard. If the process is to command confidence, victims’ voices must be at its heart, as they will be with the new advisory group. I also welcome new clause 35, which states that the legacy commission must carry out its duties “in a way that avoids any unnecessary cost”, because too often, lawyers are the only winners in this process. However, can the Secretary of State explain how unnecessary costs in the process will be checked and reported to the House? The provisions relating to inquests are equally important. Families who have fought for years for answers deserve a process that is effective, independent and focused on delivering outcomes. Alongside that victim-centred approach, the Bill contains important protections for veterans. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—we have gratitude for them—did so with courage, professionalism and distinction. I welcome the statutory duty to avoid the unnecessary duplication of previous investigations—the rinse and repeat clause—as well as new clause 32, which recognises the operational circumstances in which veterans served. These amendments provide real clarity for some things that were in the Bill already but were needed to provide assurance. I welcome amendment 240 and new clauses 45 and 46, which protect veterans from inappropriate cold-calling by requiring contact to be made through the Ministry of Defence. The provisions protecting older witnesses are also sensible and proportionate, and a result of many conversations with veterans groups. Supporting victims and protecting veterans are not competing objectives—there needs to be a careful balance, and a credible legacy framework must do both. It was never going to be easy, but the Bill achieves that balance. The Secretary of State has reiterated in this debate that there can be no moral equivalence between those who served lawfully in our armed forces and police service, and those who carried out acts of terrorism. The IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Irish National Liberation Army were responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths during the troubles. Nobody involved in such acts should receive immunity from accountability. I therefore welcome the removal of the previous Act’s immunity provisions and the restoration of routes to accountability under the rule of law. I also welcome the greater consistency and oversight sought through new clauses 49 and 50. However, on new clause 50, which would require the Attorney General’s consent for serious troubles-related prosecutions, victims and survivors have raised with me concerns about independence and how the safeguard will be perceived. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the new clause will not create the impression that there is a special hurdle for Crown-related cases, and that prosecutorial—that is a hard word; I must practise it more—decisions will continue to be taken independently, and will be applied equally to all those under investigation? This is about being equal under the law.
I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful clarification, which will be welcomed by many of the victims and survivors I have spoken to. More than 25 years after the Good Friday agreement and 12 years after the Stormont agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed, as I saw time and again, and as I see now. Growth is much higher than in the rest of the UK and unemployment is lower; there is much to build on. However, too many families still carry the burden of unanswered questions, and that holds Northern Ireland back in many ways. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the passage of time does not become the final barrier to truth. I also welcome part 4 of the legacy Act. It has been mentioned only one other time in the debate, but it is a really important part of the legislation. I support the Government’s approach, because it offers the best chance in a generation to deliver what victims and families have sought for far too long: answers.
The north-east has the highest rate of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and remains the region with the lowest level of Government defence investment. As the defence youth participation and employment pledge is signed by primes, and the north-east defence industry is largely based on small and medium-sized enterprises, can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will see some tangible support from that pledge for our region?
Many United States servicemen from RAF Lakenheath live off base in my constituency. As we all know, lately the United States’ bombers were removed from RAF Fairford. What more can every citizen do to increase national resilience, so as to protect and support the brave United States servicemen and servicewomen who are in our country at a time of increased threat from Russia?
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). She made a powerful speech. I commend her for her honesty, and for sharing her personal experiences. I also commend the many other Members who have done so in this important debate. The Bill is about one thing: how do we deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland? In my view, we cannot deal with that legacy unless we focus on three things: truth, justice and, ultimately, reconciliation. Everyone affected by the troubles deserves truth and justice—that seems to be the core of what the legacy commission is about—but if we are honest, the difficulty achieving an adequate balance between the two fundamentals of truth and justice is why this Bill and the last Government’s legacy Act 2023 have been so contested. It is why, at times, there has been more heat than light in debates. It is why victims and veterans have so often been rhetorically pitted against each other in these debates. As we have seen today, that is a false dichotomy. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made a good point: so often, veterans are victims of the troubles. We have to ask: why is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill necessary at all, 28 years after the Good Friday agreement? The answer is that all parties to the conflict have failed to take the steps necessary to deal with its legacy, so here we are, literally re-litigating the troubles. First, truth is important, and the legacy commission will enable important work to establish the truth, including for hundreds—arguably thousands—of veterans and their families. Regardless of what has happened in their life, many victims and survivors of the troubles need the closure of knowing who did what, when, to their loved ones. Both the reformed legacy commission and the independent commission on information retrieval, which will be discussed tomorrow, create the possibility of our learning those truths. Furthermore, in the legacy framework, there is a seminal commitment by the Irish Government to introducing new legislation that ensures the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities on legacy issues, including through a new Garda unit. That opens up new opportunities to uncover the full truth and is truly historic. The commitments made by our partners in the Irish Government must be followed through with. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to confirm that the entirety of the framework, including our pledge to reopen a limited number of paused inquests, is contingent on the Irish Government putting their commitments under the framework into Irish law at the same time as this Bill becomes law. The second key foundational element is justice. As we have heard, justice is so necessary, but the people of Northern Ireland really need to determine what form of justice will satisfy them. We heard from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), about the South African truth and reconciliation commission. The Good Friday agreement avoided any extensive public or social quasi-judicial process, so we have been left with not just the legacy of the troubles but the legacy of the last 28 years of smouldering, pent-up frustration about the lack of justice for, and at times even acknowledgment of, the events of the preceding 30 years. In part 5 of the Bill, the legacy commission allows for the uncovering of truth in a quasi-judicial setting through an “inquisitorial proceedings” approach. Suspected crimes that are uncovered in that way can be referred to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that the criminal justice route remains possible for troubles-related crimes. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is not in his place, talked about giving false hope to Mrs Jones, but at times, it is the absence of a process, as much as anything else, that brings people fear, disappointment and frustration. Even if they cannot get full justice—whatever that may be, and however we define it—the opportunity to look into how their loved one was affected, killed or maimed is itself part of justice. It is important that any attempts to wage lawfare against veterans are confounded. I therefore welcome new clause 50, under which the Attorney General would have to give consent to all serious troubles-related prosecutions. I also welcome new clause 32, on the explicit requirement on coroners or the commission to recognise the operational circumstances in which veterans served—the fact that they had to make split-second decisions, and so on—and amendment 192, which requires the commission to consider whether there is compelling new evidence before contacting witnesses. But the question must be asked: at what point will we all realise that we cannot litigate or prosecute our way out of the legacy of the troubles? I come to my last point, on reconciliation. The missing piece in Northern Ireland—the whole reason why we are in the Chamber—is the failure to pursue and deliver what we might call positive peace. In many ways, the Good Friday agreement has been a huge success; it stopped a large majority of the violence we saw in the troubles, and there is no question but that Northern Ireland is a better place today than it was in 1998—I saw that improvement with my own eyes, as I lived there between 2002 and 2007—but the mere absence of violence is not enough to enable us to deal with the legacy of the past, let alone build the future that Northern Ireland deserves. That is the reason why, despite the much more peaceful society that we see today, Northern Ireland still feels frozen to some degree at a moment in time—in 1998, to be precise. How else can we explain the visceral response we witnessed so recently on Garvaghy Road? Some may say that Governments cannot make people or communities reconcile. That is correct, but that cannot mean that Governments, and politicians like us, cease to have a role in fostering reconciliation. Clause 11 outlines that the first principle of the legacy commission is that reconciliation must be promoted. However, there is scant, if any, detail thereafter on how that will be achieved, even if part 4 of the legacy Act is taken forward. That is why I put my name to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and grouped for consideration tomorrow, which would commit the Government to engaging seriously with efforts to foster reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the troubles. Some people want to see justice done; others want to see truth uncovered. Those are legitimate desires, and the Bill seeks to help them come to fruition, but when it comes to the legacy of the troubles, there is clearly a great social and corporate need for acknowledgment, and even contrition, on all sides. A generation after Trimble and Hume won the Nobel peace prize, our ambitions for reconciliation have fallen silent. We politicians need to lead by example. This is not familiar territory for any Government; truth and justice are easier to deal with than the fragilities of confession, forgiveness and, ultimately, love. When President Mandela spoke in Cape Town cathedral at the commissioning service for the South African truth and reconciliation commission, he led by example, acknowledging: “The whole South African nation has been a victim, and it is in that context that we should address the restoration of dignity and the issue of reparation. The healing process is meant for the individual, the family and the community. However, above all the healing process involves the nation, because it is the nation itself that needs to redeem and reconstruct itself.” I ask us: what could it mean if the people of these islands—Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland—could convene moments in which we could acknowledge, repent and heal? What could it achieve if the UK, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments convened, resourced and facilitated memorialisation of the troubles and symbols of forgiveness and reconciliation? As we have seen throughout the world, it is only Governments who have the scale and authority to create such spaces and moments.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Like so many other Members, I have personal connections to the Mack. My best friend went there. I went to the University of Glasgow and he went to the Mack—he is now a successful photographer. My hon. Friend mentions the Prime Minister. Does he agree that one of the aims of everything we do should be culture in every postcode? Whether we are from North Northumberland or South West Devon, that should be our aim.
T2. I am proud that my constituency is home to one of the largest numbers of military family housing in the country, and that last year, this Labour Government improved 100 of those homes. Does the Minister agree that we must go further and give all our military heroes the good homes that they deserve, and when I have the findings of my military housing survey, will he meet me to hear what they would like to improve?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for tabling this debate and I pay tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery, and everybody who supported the petition, whether they live in Crewe and Nantwich or not. Controlling and coercive behaviour is one of the most difficult forms of abuse to identify, investigate and prosecute. It often leaves no visible injuries, yet its impact on victims can be utterly devastating. It systematically strips away an individual’s confidence, independence and freedom until they feel trapped in a situation that can appear invisible to those around them. I regularly see the devastating effects of coercive control in the cases that come through my office. Victims speak of lives overshadowed by intimidation, harassment, financial abuse and in some cases physical violence. What strikes me about those cases is that the abuse itself is often only part of the story. Many of the cases we deal with concern the aftermath. We help constituents who need emergency housing because they fled an abusive relationship. We help people struggling with financial independence because their finances were controlled by an abusive partner. We help those dealing with debt, mental health challenges and family breakdown after years of manipulation and psychological abuse. The effects do not end when the relationship ends. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns raised through the petition. Victims of coercive control often spend months and sometimes years living under the domination of another person. When a defendant initially pleads not guilty, requiring a victim to prepare for trial and relive deeply traumatic experiences, only to change their plea at the last moment, it is understandable that many victims feel the justice system has become another tool by which their abuser continues to exert control over their lives. That prompts the question that lies at the heart of the debate: is the criminal justice system fully recognising the unique nature of coercive control? By its very definition, coercive control is about power and domination, creating fear, uncertainty and dependence. We therefore need to listen carefully when victims tell us that prolonged court proceedings, uncertainty over pleas and delays in securing justice can feel like an extension of the abuse that they have already experienced. In my career before entering this place, I worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I am acutely aware of the work that it has done thematically on violence against women and girls, and specifically around coercive and controlling behaviour. It has repeatedly highlighted the need for agencies across the justice system to understand the dynamics of coercive control and violence against women and girls. That understanding must inform not just policing, but prosecution decisions, victim support and sentencing policy. I welcome the progress made in recent years. Awareness of coercive control has increased significantly. The inclusion of certain offenders in multi-agency public protection arrangements and the Government’s commitment to update guidance are positive developments, but the experiences that constituents continue to bring to our surgeries show that there is still work to do. Whatever view Members take on the specific proposal in the petition, I hope we can all agree on one principle: victims of coercive control deserve a justice system that understands the particular harm that they have suffered, and places their experiences at the heart of decision making. I therefore welcome today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I thank the Minister for that answer. Musselburgh Sea Cadets and Royal Marines Cadets have been giving young people in Musselburgh a head start for more than 70 years, and celebrated the first ever National Cadets Week last month with an open day. I will be joining them on parade on Thursday to pay tribute to the huge contribution that they make to the honest toun. Will the Minister join me in thanking the cadets and volunteers in Musselburgh and across my constituency, and tell me what the UK Government are doing to support cadets?
19. What steps he is taking to improve skills in the defence workforce.
Stirling was home to Army headquarters Scotland until 2021; like communities across the UK, we retain skills and defence heritage but our direct connection has been weakened by the distance from defence jobs. A student from Bannockburn should have the same opportunities as one from Rosyth but will have additional costs and challenges in accessing them. Will the Secretary of State ensure that our ambition for growth in every postcode translates into practical action from the Ministry of Defence and its suppliers to build outreach and clear routes into defence careers in communities beyond their existing defence centres? Will he visit my constituency to explore our defence links, including at Queen Victoria school in Dunblane—a military boarding school owned and operated by his Department?
I beg to move amendment 143, page 1, line 8, leave out “including Schedules 1 to 8 to that Act,”. This is a drafting change.
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. Today, we will debate parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will speak to the amendments in my name and deal with some of those tabled by others that I shall be resisting, including those that amount to a motion that a clause should not stand part of the Bill. First, I want to say how important it is that we achieve a balanced piece of legislation today and tomorrow. That is important because we need to get this right for the thousands of families who are still waiting for answers. It is important that the Bill is properly balanced so that anyone can seek answers, whatever their background and whoever the probable perpetrator. It is important, too, that it is balanced because all must be treated equally and all must have an equal chance of justice. That is the rule of law that we all adhere to in this country. The package of amendments I have tabled seeks to achieve that balance. Some are, of course, technical, including Government amendment 143—the first amendment we are considering—which removes redundant words, but others are more substantive and in many cases respond directly to matters raised in previous debates or amendments tabled by other hon. Members. In the interests of time, I shall primarily deal with those more substantive matters under three main headings.
I have not even got to my headings yet, but, as the right hon. Member knows, I am fond of him.
I have not shared a single amendment. I have talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some members of the Irish Government, but I have not shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish Government. I think the first they ever saw of the amendments was when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else. On occasion, as part of the consultation with various special forces groups and others, we have, of course, talked about some of the broad issues. I have wanted to consult as widely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, the Special Forces Association and to some of the generals and others, but we certainly have not done that with any other Governments. The first of my three headings is improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the commission. The second is ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. The third is addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence. First, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learned in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The legacy commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the commission’s investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases, and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group. It is why the Bill repeals the immunity scheme—which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow—and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements with the Irish authorities.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is similar to a point he made last week in the carry-over debate. I agree with him. Of course, the Irish Government have to provide all the information that could possibly lead to further families being able to get the answers they need. Of course, there are instances where the answers will not lie in any of the paperwork the UK Government have, but might lie somewhere in the archives and records of the Irish Government. One of the most significant achievements that was secured by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), was the co-operation with the Irish Government. In the previous debates, people were worried that we were going to introduce our legislation and the Irish Government would then introduce theirs, but they have already put together and published their heads of terms—the equivalent of a draft Bill—and they have committed, both privately to me and publicly, that they will work in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day. That is an important part of guaranteeing that people will get the answers they need.
That is the subject of an amendment that has been tabled by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I am going to resist that amendment. Whatever date we choose would be, in one sense, an arbitrary one. I think the best date, which worked for the previous legislation and would also work in relation to this legislation, is the date of the Good Friday agreement, and that is what we are sticking to. I understand the point that is being made about Omagh. A public inquiry is ongoing, and it is important that the Irish Government can co-operate fully with that process. Indeed, I raised some of these matters directly with my counterpart, Jim O’Callaghan, the other day.
I think the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was making was just that he wanted to extend the date to accommodate the amendment that has been tabled, but I understand—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is talking while I am talking, which makes it difficult for me to hear, but she has made her point.
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and then come back to the leader of the DUP.
It will be legislation of the Government. Of course, whatever the Government at the time, they cannot bind their successors, but I am very confident that this legislation will stand the test of time in the Republic of Ireland.
I think that is a slightly ungenerous interpretation. I am happy to listen to the debate, and will respond to it at the end of the day. I am trying to proceed as much as I can on a cross-party basis. I was asked about an amendment and I am simply expressing a view, which is that most legislators in this country have tended use the date of the Good Friday agreement as the cut-off date.
I will give way first to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).
That is one part of what we might do, but it might be more convenient for everybody concerned if we simply said that certain clauses would not be commenced until such time as both parties had agreed. In addition, I have tabled an amendment, which is remarkably similar to one tabled by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in relation to issuing a written ministerial statement to clarify how consistent the Irish Government have been with their obligations. I hope that, between all those different elements, we will manage to land on working in lockstep. I think that all hon. Members would expect me, while first of all congratulating the Irish Government when they have provided important material, and wanting to co-operate with them entirely and fully, to be robust in pushing them where we feel that that has sometimes fallen short. For instance, one issue that was raised with me last week was the evidence that has been given to the Omagh inquiry. Some questions have already been asked by the leading counsel, and I have put those to Jim O’Callaghan, who I expect will be responding to me. Then there is the issue of gelignite. I am also conscious that, only a few weeks ago, I stood in a field where people were digging to see whether they could find the body of a man who was murdered some 30 years ago. Some of the answers to those issues will also lie with the Irish Government, rather than in our paperwork.
I will give way, but I need to make a bit of progress.
I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.
Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him. Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation. As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation. Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it. A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests. I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.
I note the point that the hon. Member makes, but if he looks at clause 8(4)(b), he will see that it states that the Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that it is “balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.” The whole group has to meet not only that requirement, but the requirement of supporting victims. I hear what he says, but I am afraid that his amendment would not be proportionate, although I am happy to listen to his contribution later.
No, I do not think that was the intention at all. One of the complaints about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, the body established by the legacy Act in 2023, was that there were potential conflicts of interest. That is why the idea of having two directors was introduced—that is the important part of the change to the legacy commission. The idea was that one would definitely have experience of Northern Ireland and one would have experience of elsewhere. It was not specifically that this should be in relation to Ireland. I would have thought it more likely that somebody would have experience of other parts of the United Kingdom. Full disclosure by public authorities to the commission is vital to enable families to get answers about what happened to their loved ones, which is why it is required that the commission sees everything. To build on that, Government amendments 155 to 160 will allow directors of investigations and judicial panel members of the legacy commission to impose a timescale on state authorities when requesting disclosure—that is another key ask of the families. The amendments tabled by hon. Members relate primarily to the onward disclosure from the commission to the public—in other words, after the commission has reviewed the disclosure and is preparing its report. I must be clear: the primary responsibility of any Government is national security, and I am accountable to Parliament on matters of national security as they pertain to Northern Ireland. Some information, even if it is historical, has present-day implications for the life and safety of individuals, for national security or for international relations. That is why schedule 5— [Interruption.] Sorry, I did not hear what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was saying.
Just for the record, Ms Ghani, he was chuntering and he admits it. That is why schedule 5 provides essential safeguards, allowing the Secretary of State to prohibit the onward sharing of sensitive information by the commission only where the disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Bill already changes the legacy Act’s onward disclosure regime in a number of important ways. Material will no longer be designated as “sensitive” based on the organisation that owns it, and the Secretary of State will be required to conduct a balancing exercise when considering disclosure of sensitive information, and give reasons for decisions not to disclose. I cannot, however, accept amendments that would change that balance, which is designed to ensure the maximum possible disclosure of information to families while ensuring that we do not compromise national security. I now turn to the question of how we ensure that those who served the state are treated with dignity and respect during any legacy process.
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I pay tribute to his previous work on this subject. It is important that we do not over-promise in the Bill. I recently saw the first ICRIR report into the death of Rory O’Kelly. I spoke to his daughter, Anne O’Kelly, and she was very moved and felt a great sense of liberation by its publication, but it does not come to perfect answers. I am guessing that many of the families will not get perfect answers, although they may get a degree of closure and healing because of being able to go through the process. I am very keen to ensure that the commission’s remit does not increase dramatically and make it more difficult for it to meet its obligations, and I am of course in discussions with the Treasury to ensure that finances are available to do the job properly.
My hon. Friend is right about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its request for us to look at this issue. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Hillsborough law has not completed its progress through the House of Lords, where it is still in Committee, and we want to ensure that we can mesh the two pieces of legislation together when it comes to that issue. The Hillsborough law’s commitment to truth and information recovery is mirrored in this legislation, which is why I am proud to say that we would want to able to, wherever possible, ensure that it applies. New inquests that proceed under the Bill will automatically be in scope of the duty of candour included in the Hillsborough law, and the processes of the legacy commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime. We agree that the duty of candour needs to apply to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission, and I note the Committee’s recommendation. I am confident that when it comes to the House of Lords’ processes, we will be able to mesh these two pieces of legislation together.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think and hope that all hon. Members agree that there is no moral equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and the barbaric acts of terrorism for which paramilitaries were responsible, as Members including the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have set out through their amendments. Government new clause 32 makes it clear that the lawful actions of soldiers in the course of duty cannot be treated by the legacy commission as equivalent to the actions of terrorists.
The term “vexatious claim” could in itself be argued to be vexatious. A phrase that I have used a couple of times is “rinse and repeat”. I will come to that a little later. I am keen to ensure that nobody is subjected to being brought back time and again to face the same kind of process.
Much as I am fond of the right hon. Gentleman, I need to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim first.
I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.
I will finish this point and then I will come to the right hon. Members for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, the intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of those soldiers.
I am conscious of judicial review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judiciously reviewed. [Interruption.] I meant to say judicially reviewed—whether it is judicious is a matter for the courts to decide, not me; I am not challenging their authority. We have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It is about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual. That is a really important distinction to make.
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, then I must make some progress.