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
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things he said to me last week was that he would be very grateful if I said in this debate that there is no moral equivalence, and I have done exactly as he asked. He is right.
I am very reluctant to give way too many times, because I am conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and catch your eye, Ms Ghani.
I have not given way much to Members on this side of the House, so I will take one intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I will also take an intervention from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and then I promise that I will really crack on, Ms Ghani.
I am not sure whether this is a quiz. I do not know the precise answer to that question, but I think my hon. Friend has made his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.
The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no. We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement. I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information. Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. It also requires the commission to consider “whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”, and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness. This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses. If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.
Yes. This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
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?
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.
The hon. Gentleman says that he supports new clause 21. Will he explain how it is right for Mrs Jones, when asking for a review and before turning up at the legacy commission, to somehow have to prove to a Supreme Court judge that there is new and compelling evidence? Is that not another process—another piece of lawfare? Has he checked whether the Supreme Court thinks that is at all possible for a Supreme Court judge?
Let me try again. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that a Supreme Court judge should be making the decision?
To be clear, I do not resist the idea that sexual violence was part of the troubles. Indeed, one problem with previous legacy legislation was that it made it impossible for such things to be investigated anywhere. We are making it possible for such matters to be investigated by the police. All police forces in the United Kingdom have suitable teams that are able to deal with the specifics of those kinds of incidents, and it would be inappropriate for the legacy commission to take on that piece of work without being able to set up a whole new team specifically to look at that. However, the legislation does allow police forces to take forward those crimes, and if there is clear evidence that that was related to a death as well, or to serious injury, it would be able to be investigated.
I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has conducted his campaign. As he knows, he has informed many of the amendments that we have tabled today. I do not want to give the Irish Government a free pass on this issue. We need to be ambitious. Just as there should be a duty of candour for us, so there must be a duty of candour for the Irish Government. Every time that I have raised this matter with my counterparts in Dublin, they have insisted that they intend to stand by their commitments, and I think we must make sure that they do.
I was not twitching; I was trying to intervene. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his case. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the first report produced by ICRIR into the murder of Rory O’Kelly. It was striking to me that, although it did not come up with perfect answers to everything, it was felt as an enormous release to Anne O’Kelly. Although I do not want to oversell what we can achieve, we should not underestimate the significance of this legislation in getting answers for families, including many armed forces families. Mrs Jones is as likely to be somebody whose husband served in the military or in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Could the right hon. Gentleman just clarify what question he is asking? I am not sure whether he is asking about the commissioners or the directors of investigation. While I am on my feet, may I gently suggest to him that his figures about recruitment in the armed forces are wrong? Actually, for the first time in a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving. Recruitment is up by 7% and outflow is down by 7%.
I can absolutely provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. It is really important that we take from ICRIR what is good and build on that, but also that we sort out some of the problems that have existed. He will have seen the Peter May report and some of the problems that there have been in the courts. We will put all of that right, but we are not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member. I hope he understands that I think everybody in the Committee wants to ensure that people are not barred from taking forward these issues through the commission. However, as he has just said, this may need to be dealt with so sensitively that the legacy commission might not be the place where they want it to be addressed—they might want it to be addressed somewhere else. I am not sure that his amendment is necessary to achieve what he is trying to achieve. I am very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I am just not sure that this measure is necessary.
I want to be absolutely clear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of candour. Just as we argued for it in the Hillsborough law—which is still making its way through the House of Lords; it is still in Committee stage down there—so I want us to be as open and transparent as possible. I undertake to work with him and others in this House to ensure that principle is adhered to when we mesh together the two Bills—this Bill and the Hillsborough law—in the House of Lords.
The hon. Member referred to his own private Member’s Bill, which said that a Supreme Court judge should decide whether something was “new and compelling” evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he, indeed, approached the Supreme Court?
I might as well answer that now: yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.
This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate. A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital. In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them. I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury. There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.
I am not going to give way, if the hon. Member does not mind, because I need to make progress. The other point I would make to him is that I am not sure that we have quite got this right yet. I am happy to work with him on ensuring that we do get it right. I do not think his amendment works, simply because clause 27(2) says, “Where conduct forming part of the Troubles caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.” I think that already includes precisely the incidents that he is talking about, but if we have not got that right, and if we have not been able to provide enough assurance, then I am happy to work with him and others—I am quite happy to gather people from all across the House—to ensure that we get that right in the House of Lords. That is a firm undertaking from me and the whole ministerial team. We will get that right when it gets to the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked why the equivalence issue and the operational context do not apply to prosecutors. He will know, because he is a very clever man, that many of the aspects of the clause are already well-established tenets of criminal law, which we are putting beyond doubt for the specific role of the commission and coroners. I think these things are already in existence. My great and hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee, asks on behalf of the Committee, through her amendment 286, about the pressures on the PSNI. I am very aware of them, and my predecessor made commitments about trying to get to the right place, because I do not want to overload the PSNI when it already has a very difficult workload. I will work with her and the team to try to get to the right place. I do not want to completely surrender on this point yet, but I am happy to work with her. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised the timing of the Omagh bombing inquiry. The terms of reference for the Omagh bombing inquiry are very clear. They refer directly to authorities in the Republic of Ireland on two occasions, and make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the bombing. The Irish Government have passed legislation to enable co-operation with the inquiry, and they are co-operating. However, the inquiry clearly expects more and has made that clear, and has explicitly stated that it will push the Irish for more and continued co-operation. I will ensure that that co-operation will be forthcoming.
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.
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because his proposal is completely and utterly incoherent and irresponsible—[Interruption.] I am not giving way to him. Several hon. Members have referred to the issue of candour, which is really important. Candour matters first because it is a fundamental principle that all officers of the state should always show complete candour. More importantly, it matters because we as a House and as a country have to be absolutely honest about our past. Both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have always known that and recognise it fully. They apologised for the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, in Ballymurphy and in Springhill. Indeed, I remember sitting in the House when David Cameron made his apology for Bloody Sunday—it was one of the finest moments that I can remember in this Chamber. As he said then, “we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.] He was absolutely right. I yield to nobody in my respect for those who have served, and have served with honour, in our security forces. More than 300,000 served in Operation Banner and I say to them, “Thank you for your service.” Incidentally, I say that to all those in the House who have informed our debates because they served themselves, not least the former Veterans Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke earlier. Finally, some have said that so many years have passed since the troubles that there is no point to all of this—they say it is completely irrelevant because how could anybody possibly remember what happened all those years ago. I simply do not buy that argument. Nor do I buy the argument that some have made that somehow members of the wider armed forces family do not deserve answers because somehow or other their service was their service. I do not buy either of those arguments. Trauma, especially the trauma of losing a close family member in violent circumstances, has a very long tail. Any psychiatrist, any child psychiatrist or anybody who has worked with families in Northern Ireland will tell people that. Sometimes the anger, the grief and the feelings of revenge or the desire for revenge surface many years after or in new generations. The sins, we might say, of the fathers are often visited on future generations and for many generations to come. I want to turn the argument about so many years having passed that we cannot possibly deal with this completely and utterly on its head. Just as the Hillsborough families had to wait for far, far too long to get their answers, so have thousands of families in Northern Ireland had to wait far, far too long. We can put that right. We can only put it right with a balanced set of amendments and a balanced Bill, but we must put it right. We can do it tonight, which is why I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments that we have tabled and support the Bill when we come to the final vote tomorrow evening. Amendment 143 agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Meaning of “the Troubles” and related expressions Amendment proposed: 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”.—(Gavin Robinson.)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the building is of international importance, when we look at the significance of Charles Rennie Mackintosh in the history of design? He always married function with form, and that is nowhere more clear than in that building.
4. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.
To deter Russia, we need vigilance at home and the support of our allies abroad. I am sure the whole House will agree that Vladimir Putin’s decision to continue to bomb and target civilian and energy infrastructure in Ukraine is proof that he is not interested in a ceasefire, so does my right hon. Friend agree that, at this moment, our allied response should be to give even greater support to Ukraine and President Zelensky and to look at what further sanctions we could place on Russia?
My hon. Friend is aware of the unique case involving my constituent Rachel Gallagher, a former MOD civil servant who was released from her role under civil service nationality rules. While I accept that my constituent was not legally employable, I simply cannot accept that, after a decade of dedicated service, her accrued pension contributions have been declared void. Will the Minister meet me, so that we can ensure that an equitable resolution is found, and my constituent receives the full pension contributions that she earned in service to this country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone who signed the petition and those who had the courage to speak out about their experiences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her clear and eloquent introduction to the debate, and I thank Paris Shears, who created the petition and has been brave in standing up to this crime. I also thank all the victims and their families who have put their trust in me and my team and have come into my office to seek support for cases involving domestic abuse and coercive control. I want to use my time today to talk about two young women who are no longer here. As the Member for Portsmouth North, I have met and supported the families of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. I have listened to their grief and their determination to ensure that what happened to their loved ones leads to change. Their experience brings me to the central question of this debate: is it right that someone who maintains a not guilty plea and changes it at the last minute can still receive a reduction in their sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour? I believe that that is not right, and that it needs to change. I understand why the law rewards an early guilty plea—it can spare victims the ordeal of a trial and can allow cases to conclude sooner—but there is a profound difference between accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity and waiting until the eve of the trial before admitting guilt, because we must ask ourselves who pays the price for that delay. It is the victims and their families. They wait; they worry; they prepare themselves to hear painful evidence and face the prospect of a trial. They live with uncertainty about whether they will get even get answers—and they are still being controlled. Sometimes, at the last moment, a defendant changes their plea. The trial may no longer be necessary, but the months of distress are not erased. The victims, and in Chloe and Skye’s cases their friends and family, cannot simply switch off their fear, their exhaustion or their grief. In a case involving coercive control, we must consider something particularly important: the impact of one person continuing to determine the terms on which others experience the criminal justice process. As we have heard today, coercive control is about power, intimidation and the erosion of another person’s independence. We must be careful not to assume that every late plea is intended to exert control, but we must recognise that the consequence of delay can be victims and bereaved families and friends feeling that control has once again been taken out of their hands. A last-minute guilty plea may save the court time, but it does not give the victim or their family back the time, the peace or the certainty that they have lost. Current sentencing guidance reduces the maximum credit available if a plea comes later in proceedings, but I question whether that is enough in the case of controlling or coercive behaviour. I ask the Minister to consider whether legislation should prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in these cases, particularly when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea before or throughout a trial, for all the reasons that my colleagues have outlined so eloquently today. I will explain why this issue matters by speaking about Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. Chloe was just 23 when she died in 2023. She left behind a young son and a family who must live with her absence every single day. Her former partner pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, but was sentenced to just three and a half years in prison. I have met Chloe’s family and they are living with a loss that no sentence can ever put right, yet they have also had to find strength to speak out, to ask difficult questions, and to fight for Chloe’s experiences to be recognised. Chloe’s case reminds us that coercive control is not one argument or one incident; it is a sustained campaign that undermines confidence, isolates a person and strips away their sense of safety and their identity. I do not suggest that every death by suicide has a single cause, but where there are concerns about the relationship between sustained abuse and a death, those concerns must be examined carefully and the full circumstances properly understood by all involved. Chloe’s family deserve to know that the harm she experienced is not being reduced to a set of isolated incidents or lost behind the mechanics of a criminal process. I have also met and supported the family and friends of Skye Nicholls. Skye was also 23 when she died in June 2023. Her former partner pleaded guilty to two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour. He was sentenced to two years and three months in prison in November 2025, but his sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal. Reports describe him engaging in verbal abuse, making threats of violence and sending deeply distressing messages, including telling Skye to take her own life. Behind all those details are young women who should still be here with their family and friends but are not, and the lives of their family and friends have changed forever. Chloe and Skye’s cases are very different and I do not suggest that each case alone settles the question of late guilty pleas, but I have met both families and heard their concerns, and I have seen their determination to ensure that others do not suffer in the same way. We cannot return Chloe and Skye to their loved ones, but we can refuse to let their families’ concerns go unanswered. The Labour Government have rightly committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and I welcome the ambition and the work to achieve it that has already begun. We have a real opportunity to build on existing protections and to address the shortcomings that remain, including those left very much unresolved after 14 years of a Conservative Government. That means recognising coercive control early, and ensuring that its cumulative harm is understood by professionals, from the police and social services to the Judicial College, the Sentencing Council, education and healthcare professionals, businesses and workplaces. It also means learning properly from all cases—and in the cases I have talked about, learning about the domestic abuse that has preceded the death—and examining whether our sentencing framework reflects the reality of what victims and their families experience. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government review whether late guilty pleas in controlling or coercive behaviour cases should attract any sentence reduction when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea until very shortly before the trial? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the distress caused by prolonged proceedings is properly considered, particularly for bereaved families and victims who are still alive, as they are still being controlled? Thirdly, will the Minister work with families and specialist organisations to ensure that lessons from domestic abuse-related deaths lead to practical changes in the way that abuse is recognised and addressed in our society? There is a principle at stake here. The justice system must be fair. It must recognise that victims and their families are people and not participants in a process to be completed as efficiently as possible. An early guilty plea can spare additional suffering. A late guilty plea cannot undo the suffering that has already been endured. We must not confuse saving court time with delivering justice. Chloe’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Skye’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Every family and victim living with the consequences of coercive control deserves a system that understands the harm, recognises their experience and treats their concerns with the seriousness they warrant. I urge the Government to look carefully at reforming sentence reductions for late guilty pleas, because when someone has already experienced the devastating consequences of coercive control, the criminal justice system must not leave those left behind feeling that they have once again been denied a voice, certainty or control.
I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues. As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order. We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week. We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation. Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented “a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”. However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded: “The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.” As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them. The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made. We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key. To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case. The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs. I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee. As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined. The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members. Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.
I thank the Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill since he was appointed. He has built on the good work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in the Chamber but who gave a powerful speech about why the Bill is so important for victims as well as others who are affected. I think that it should reassure veterans that the process of repeated investigations is coming to an end, and it should give survivors and the families of victims—many of whom are soldiers and police officers themselves—a stronger route to finding answers, and a route to justice for crimes committed during the troubles. I want to speak about the new protections for veterans, and about why I think they address the real concerns of those who were worried about repeated investigations. I also intend to mention concerns that victims groups have raised with me about their privacy and the anonymity of the process. Let me deal first with the additional protections for veterans. I know how difficult it was to serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) spoke powerfully about the difficulties that those veterans faced. I did not serve there myself, but I worked alongside many soldiers and Marines who had, and some of them told me that it was more difficult to serve in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan because of the complexities of the environment in which they were operating. We should accept that, and we should thank the veterans, including those who were in the Gallery earlier, for the service that they gave. I think it right for the new legacy commission to consider that. I strongly welcome new clause 32, which requires the commission or any inquest to take into account the context in which soldiers are operating. It is now made explicit that training, experience and perceived threats, among other factors, must be considered by the commission in any inquests. I also welcome the statement in the new clause that the investigators “must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.” Many people have made that point, and it is important for it to be in the legislation. However, the biggest concern that I have heard about from veterans in Halesowen and veterans groups across the country, as well as many Members, is about repeated investigations. Under the existing legislation, soldiers have been worried about being asked to come back time and again to go over evidence that they have already given. Government amendment 192 directly addresses that by requiring the director of investigations to consider what information can be obtained from public authorities before unnecessarily duplicating work. That adds to the Bill’s existing protections against the duplication of previous investigative work. When I discussed the veterans’ concern explicitly with senior members of ICRIR last week, they told me that many of these cases have been investigated in the past. There have been many inquests and other cases in which veterans have been accused of crimes, that more than enough evidence is already available in public bodies. They did not believe that the case of any veteran under investigation would be taken forward by the legacy commission under this new legislation, and I think that veterans should take reassurance from what has been said by the people who are involved in conducting these investigations. At the same time, there have been improvements in evidence collection—for example, through DNA or technical evidence—since the 1970s and 1980s, when many of these crimes were committed. We know that ICRIR is examining the links between different types of evidence, looking at, for example, the campaign of bombings in England during the 1970s: the M62 bombing, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and the Guildford pub bombings and others. The commission thinks that there are connections that may lead to further investigations that might give answers to some of the victims. We should bear in mind that many of those victims are family members of servicemen who were killed in England. ICRIR felt that, on occasion, veterans who were witnesses to those crimes might be asked to give evidence to the commission to add value to the new evidence that is coming forward. I think veterans would appreciate that, because they would be giving evidence that might give answers to the family members of their colleagues who were killed by terrorists. That is something that the commission is doing correctly. Indeed, it is protecting veterans while at the same time getting answers for victims. There are other welcome amendments and new clauses. Government amendment 162 allows witnesses to give remote evidence, meaning that they would not have to travel to Northern Ireland, while Government new clause 45 and Government amendment 240 ensure that veterans will not be approached by the commission directly, so there will be there are no cold calls. I know that that was a big concern. Although there are many improvements to the protections for veterans, some veterans’ groups have said publicly in the last few days that they still do not feel that the Bill goes far enough in providing those protections. The protections give a lot of support against repeated investigations, but there needs to be a backstop to ensure that they are working properly. That is why I am really pleased that new clause 53 requires, within two years, an independent review of whether the protections will give veterans the safeguards that they need against repeated investigations.
When it comes to improving defence preparedness and resilience, I was really pleased to see the Minister launch Project Safari at the Hebrides range last week, particularly as I am the MP for Farnborough, which is home to the headquarters of QinetiQ. Will the Minister update the House on Project Safari, how it will modernise test and evaluation provision across the UK, and why this is important?
T4. North-east MPs and business leaders are very keen for an update on procurement for Skynet, the Ministry of Defence’s secure satellite communications system. That is because, were Lockheed Martin UK successful, 500 jobs would be created in Sedgefield in my constituency, and it would be a huge boost to the north-east’s growing satellite industry. The Minister cannot comment on the outcome, but can we get an update on when we might expect this important decision?
Drones are changing the way we fight and the structures used to fight. America is creating the robotic uncrewed systems combatant command; Germany is creating an uncrewed regiment; and the Ukrainians have created the Unmanned Systems Force. What projects are we moving forward with, to revolutionise the approach used in the Army, Navy and Air Force?
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I thank the Government for putting forward their amendments. I support the no-equivalence measure, the highest bar for evidence and the double lock on prosecutions. I also thank the veterans who have come here today to observe this debate; all parties, for having a conscientious and solid debate on this issue; the Veterans’ Commissioners; and all those observing this debate from afar. If there is one takeaway from this debate, it is that this issue really should be above politics. It has gone on for so long, with so much pain among so many people, and coming to a solution in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland should be above politics. I have tabled several amendments to highlight the overarching problems that I think exist in the Bill. Although I support many of the amendments brought forward by the Government, I am still deeply concerned that this Bill opens the floodgates for hundreds of lawyers to pursue what can only be described as a strategic effort to rewrite history, to paint the state as the aggressor and to use the process as a punishment to hit back at our brave servicemen and servicewomen who served in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. It was not the most kinetic environment then, but I went through the same training that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen went through before they deployed to Northern Ireland. There was a requirement for split-second decision making and to engage with a population that, in some cases, did not like us or want us to be there. It was a very difficult operating environment. I was a young troop commander at the time, but I went on to serve in Afghanistan and a multitude of other operational theatres, where those skills became very useful. I know what it feels like. I went on to be the Minister for Veterans and People, and I was opened up to another side of the debate that I had not necessarily engaged with when I was a young troop commander in the Marines: speaking to victims. I spoke to victims of all sorts and all creeds, from different sides, who were seeking truth. Many had given up on the chance of justice, but they were seeking truth for loved ones and closure, usually in relation to people who had been lost during the troubles. My new clause 55, which I do not intend to push to a vote, is quite simple: it would move all inquests into the legacy commission, creating one simple body for truth and reconciliation, with an acceptance that the likelihood of justice and “prosecutions” is vanishingly small. There is a question around justice, whether we are ever going to get it, and whether truth and reconciliation should be the priority. Overnight, my new clause would worry a great deal of lawyers in Northern Ireland, as it would cut off what has become an exceptionally lucrative business. With inquests costing hundreds of millions of pounds, not only would my new clause save the taxpayer a fortune, but I believe it would centralise and revitalise, and it would create one central mechanism for troubles-related incidents. Why can that not take place? Because it breaks the framework agreement with the Irish. I am Scottish; I have an affinity with the Irish. But do we in this House—in this great place—expect the Irish to open up their police and military intelligence files and provide us with the wealth of information and intelligence that must exist on cross-border IRA activities over 30 years? Just think about that from a political perspective. We are all politicians here. Would we be keen to open up 30 years of evidence? Think of the political blowback. Think of the legal issues. Importantly, think about how that would potentially pull us or individuals involved back into the system. There are many accounts, from various sources, stating that the Republic of Ireland was used to store capabilities, weapons and explosives, and even used for terrorists to flee security forces south of the border. Are we really going to see, as the framework agreement states, reciprocal evidence gathering and exposure of IRA activities from the Republic of Ireland? To my mind, the answer is that that is highly, highly unlikely. Doing so would result in every sliver of evidence being legally scrutinised, people being held accountable and the reputation of Ireland being called into question, and it would have political consequences. I just do not think that it is going to happen in the way in which we would want it to happen.
I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has approached this Bill. The engagement with all parties has been second to none, and I absolutely support that engagement. I have so many people phoning me and talking to me about the positivity of that engagement, so the Bill is being taken forward through the right mechanisms.
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and for his consistent analysis, scrutiny and support of all things Northern Ireland. As my new clause is not going forward, we will continue —unfortunately, in my mind—with a twin-track approach. We will have the legacy commission on one hand, which in some cases is underfunded, and inquests on the other hand. We will waste a huge amount of money through that process, because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is very unlikely to come about. We will allow the process to drift on, potentially for up to 15 years. Think about what that means to someone who is 80, 75 or 70 years old—15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether they will be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form about an incident 30 or 40 years ago. Sometimes, I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. We will keep our brave veterans, who I think have served valiantly, waiting in limbo. Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors, the first of which is the willingness of Ireland to support us. I completely support the Secretary of State’s move to hold Ireland to account for what it has said it will do, but let us see whether that happens. The second factor is the costs, which are astronomical. At minimum, an inquest costs £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go, and even if they go into the legacy commission, we are still talking about £5 million per inquest. That is significant. Then we have politics to think about. As this process progresses, it will consider Sinn Féin’s activity—either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland—and how that affects both the legislation and the agreements Sinn Féin have made recently. On top of all of that, if new evidence—new biometrics, the smoking gun—is found, people will only go to prison for two years, so what is the point? As for information recovery, there is no new information unless it comes from Ireland.
It is highly unlikely that there will be new evidence. We can say, “This is nonsense”, but the reality is that it is not going to happen. It has not happened for the last 10 years; it is unlikely to happen now, except in one or two cases.
The likelihood of having a huge amount of new evidence that justifies the amount of money spent, and the pain and anguish that all these people are going to be put through, just does not weigh up. There needs to be one single delivery process; instead, we have a twin-track approach that is going to cost a huge amount of money, and the victims sat underneath cannot decide which way to go. It is completely contradictory. I agree that if there is new evidence, by all means bring it forward —of course we should do that. That is in line with the rule of law, but it has to be balanced with the greater aim, which is truth and reconciliation. From my perspective—this is perhaps equally important —we will also allow those in Northern Ireland who were defeated in a military campaign to now engage in a political one—one that uses every operation to rewrite history, paint the state as the aggressor, and convince the good people of Northern Ireland that reunification is the answer to all of their problems. For a 15-year-old in Northern Ireland now, if they have to put up with five, 10 or 15 years of this going through the courts consistently, it will paint the state in a negative light. Morally and ethically, this approach does not support our veterans as it should, and strategically, it deals the best possible hand to our adversaries.
If we step back and have a think about where we are, a terrorist, a solider or an individual who was engaged in the troubles over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, who remembers having engaged in kinetic activity—having killed someone or conducted something of violence—and who wants to seek solace and to give evidence, will be prosecuted if they do give evidence. It is just worth thinking about that when we talk about justice. A lot of people will want to come forward and clear the deck on the past. If they do, they will be dragged into the courts.