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
Mr. Trump’s disgraceful show of support for Putin has clearly raised the stakes, not only in Ukraine but in the Baltic states and Poland. Given the perfidious nature of the current incumbent of the White House, will the Secretary of State reaffirm our commitment to NATO, and indicate very clearly that an attack on one NATO state is an attack on all of us, and that this country stands by its friends?
I want to speak in favour of the argument for more time that the shadow Secretary of State has put forward. The issue of legacy has been dealt with by the UK Government for more than seven years. It has been going around in circles, and I have been critical of some of the previous Government’s approaches. We are talking about the victims of some of the most horrendous crimes in our country. We are talking about veterans who worked for our country to protect it against some of the worst examples of terrorism. We are talking about relationships with Ireland; there is a great deal of concern about how far it is going to go with what it has committed to. In this process of two days, we are going to consider more than 300 amendments. It is a ridiculous situation. This is people’s lives. This is people who are extremely vulnerable—whether they are a veteran worried about a court case or a victim who has been waiting for decades, their position is one of mental and physical trauma. It is absolutely shocking that we should have got into a situation where the House does not have the ability to take our time, consider the amendments and come to as close an agreed conclusion as we can.
On the Irish legislation, how confident is the Secretary of State that, if there is a Sinn Féin-led Government, that legislation will not be overturned?
I apologise for not intervening earlier, but I want to ask a question about cost and funding. The Secretary of State has outlined the expansion of the commission’s remit, but what assessment has he made of the time other public bodies and the commission will need, and of the Treasury funding required, to deliver for victims on the commitment he is making?
14. What his policy is on the future of the British military base on Diego Garcia.
In his discussions in the United States, did the Defence Secretary explain to our counterparts there that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be deployed or stored anywhere on its territory? If Mauritius takes over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, that means that no nuclear weapons can be stored in the Diego Garcia base. How did the Americans react to that disclosure, if the Defence Secretary saw fit to make it?
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for making the point about there being no moral equivalence. Does he recognise—I hope he does—that there must be legal equivalence between everybody who goes before this process? A particular question arises about the fact that if somebody is found to have been guilty of a murder, no matter how heinous it was and no matter how many people were killed, the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 would still apply. Nobody—whether it is a terrorist or a soldier who committed a murder—will go to jail for more than two years. We have to recognise that when we are talking about the search for justice, there will not really be any justice in terms of the sentence reflecting the gravity of the crime.
For all intents and purposes, Diego Garcia is an American military base, but the Government claim that to protect it, we must basically sell it to Mauritius at vast cost. There is one country in the world that does not acknowledge the International Court of Justice: the United States. Why do we not create a virtuous circle and sell the base to President Trump for £6 billion, and use that £6 billion to start the process of raising our defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030?
May I commend the Government’s decision to stay out of the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—programme? It was going to be horrendously expensive, we would have got less money out than we would have put in, it was going to take the intellectual property of any participating company who offered a programme to it, and it was going to take far too long to build up any capability. Can we concentrate on NATO? Will the Minister advise the Liberal Democrats that defence in the EU is a reserved matter to the member states? Therefore, we are much better off co-operating through NATO, which is also much quicker than trying to do something with some European—
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s last answer, because it is important that the American President and the US Defence Secretary understand that Russia started this war. Did the right hon. Gentleman also point out that the President’s decision to buy diesel from Russia is actually funding Iran, because the Russians are buying it in from Iran, and that it is therefore counterintuitive to what the Americans are trying to achieve with their blockade?
May I take the Secretary of State back to the point he was making about the Irish Government’s legislative progress being in lockstep with that of the UK Government? Will he assure the Committee—this is a pivotal point, as he knows—that the usual channels will timetable the progress of his legislation to ensure that it would not go for Royal Assent until the Irish legislation was in its final stages, to ensure that it is absolutely in lockstep, as he said?
T6. Last month, our oldest allies, the Portuguese, hosted NATO’s REPMUS—robotic experimentation and prototyping with maritime unmanned systems—event, and I had the privilege of attending for a couple of days. Over three weeks, member nations worked together to test the interoperability of autonomous drones, submersibles and surface vessels. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the Portuguese navy for hosting this important event again? Will he commit to exploring why the 2022 defence agreement between our two nations has not yet been finalised?
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. When addressing the Chair, please use our names, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman”. Clause 1 Introduction
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert— “(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), or of any Remedial Order made under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any rights or protections that were, as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, granted by the ICRIR to individuals who had previously served as service personnel or crown servants are to be regarded by any prosecuting authority or court in the United Kingdom as remaining in force.” Clause stand part. Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “31 August 1998”. Amendment 24, page 1, line 18, leave out “10 April 1998” and insert “12 April 2010”. Amendment 9, page 1, line 20, at end insert— “(za) perpetuating or planning an act of terrorism”. Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, at end insert— “(2A) Any actions which were lawfully performed by members of the Armed Forces, or Crown servants, in the course of their duties shall not, as a consequence of this Act, be considered as unlawful acts of terrorism or criminal violence.” Amendment 10, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(7) No provisions of this Act may be read to imply or suggest a moral equivalence between perpetrators of terrorism and the security and police forces of the State.” Amendment 56, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(7) No provisions of this Act are to be understood as suggesting any form of equivalence between terrorist actors and the British Armed Forces, security or police services.” Clause 2 stand part. Amendment 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “(section 7)” insert “, and (f) the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.” Amendment 82, page 3, line 2, at end insert— “(e) to offer to refer parties to relevant conduct to restorative justice processes as an alternative to referral to prosecution where investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under this Act find evidence that offences have been committed (see section [Restorative justice procedures]).” This amendment provides that a principal function of the Legacy Commission will be to offer to refer parties to restorative justice processes as an alternative to prosecution. It is connected to Amendments 83 and 84, and NC19. Government amendment 144. Amendment 7, page 3, line 4, at end insert— “(3A) In performing its functions, the Legacy Commission must ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate.” This amendment will require the Legacy Commission to ensure that its processes are impartial, balanced and proportionate. Amendment 53, page 3, line 7, leave out from “, and” until end of line 8. This amendment would remove the Chief Executive Officer from being a member of the Legacy Commission’s oversight board. Government amendments 145 to 147. Clause 3 stand part. Government amendments 252 to 254. Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 82, line 23, at end insert— “(cc) the person has previously held one or more of the following offices— (i) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly; (ii) a councillor (within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 – see section 126(1) of that Act); (iii) a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, or (iv) a Member of the European Parliament representing any constituency in Northern Ireland,”. This amendment adds anyone who has previously held elected office in Northern Ireland to the list of restrictions on being appointed as a Legacy Commissioner or Director of Investigations. Government amendments 255 to 259. Amendment 42, page 86, leave out part 4. This Amendment decouples the process for appointing Judicial Panel members from the appointment process for other offices involving the Secretary of State and is consequential to Amendments 39, 40 and 41. Schedule 1. Clause 4 stand part. Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out from “investigations” to end of line 2 and insert “in the United Kingdom”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State, so far as practicable, to ensure that one of the persons appointed as Director of Investigations must have experience of conducting criminal investigations elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Clause 5 stand part. Amendment 39, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”. This amendment provides for Judicial Panel members to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Amendment 40, page 4, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission”. This amendment provides for the senior judicial panel member to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and is consequential on Amendment 39. Amendment 41, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5). This amendment removes reference to the appointment process set out in Schedule 1 and is consequential to Amendments 39 and 40. Clauses 6 and 7 stand part. Amendment 116, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, after “victims” insert “, veterans”. This amendment changes the purpose of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group so that it additionally provides advice to the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State in such a way as to uphold the rights and interests of veterans. Amendment 117, page 5, line 11, leave out “so far as practicable”. This amendment removes the “so far as practicable” limitation on the categories of people who must be members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. Amendment 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert— “(iii) the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and”. Amendment 75, page 5, line 17, at end insert— “(iii) one or more persons who is a veteran.” This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, so far as practicable, ensure that the Victims and Survivors Group includes at least one veteran, as defined in Amendment 79. Amendment 21, page 5, line 19, at end insert— “(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has— (a) been convicted of a Troubles-related offence, or (b) been identified, following national security vetting, as having had any former or current associations with any proscribed organisation.” Amendment 52, page 5, line 19, at end insert— “(4A) The Secretary of State must not appoint any person as a member of the Group who has been, or is, a member of a political party that has any links to, or supports, any paramilitary or terrorist organisations past or present.” Amendment 1, page 5, line 21, at end insert “, and (b) do not include any person— (i) who has participated in any terrorist act, or (ii) who has a terrorism-related criminal conviction.” Amendment 2, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(5A) For the purposes of this section, a “victim” is a human individual who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, through no fault of their own, directly by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law. (5B) A person is not to be considered a “victim” if they— (a) are, or were, physically or psychologically injured as a result, or in consequence, of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict related incident; and (b) were either wholly, or in part, responsible for the planning, or implementation, of an unlawful conflict related incident.” This amendment inserts a definition of victim for the purposes of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group which would be established under clause 8. Amendment 22, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(5A) In this section references to victims and survivors refer to innocent victims and does not include those who are precluded from receiving a Victims Pension under Regulation 6 of the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020.” Amendment 118, page 5, line 31, at end insert— “(7A) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer whose function is to— (a) monitor and assess whether the views and interests of each member are being adequately represented within the Group; (b) produce an annual report on the effectiveness of the Group’s representational balance and engagement with the Legacy Commission; and (c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State for improving the Group’s composition or consultative practices where imbalances or deficiencies are identified.” This amendment provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the Group’s representational balance and effectiveness. Clause 8 stand part. Government amendment 149. Clause 9 stand part. Government amendment 150. Amendment 36, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment would remove the national security restriction on the Legacy Commission’s potential activities. Amendment 85, page 6, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”. This amendment would limit the restriction on the Legacy Commission’s actions to those that would damage national security, rather than including those that would risk damaging national security. Clause 10 stand part. Government amendment 151. Amendment 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 5, leave out “human rights should be respected” and insert “human rights standards must be complied with”. Amendment 77, page 7, line 7, at end insert— “(g) the principle that veterans who served the United Kingdom should not face disproportionate legal action through the conduct of the Legacy Commission.” This amendment introduces a specific principle to the duties of the Legacy Commission, ensuring that in exercising its functions, the Commission protects veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who served the UK from disproportionate legal action. Amendment 119, page 7, line 7, at end insert— “(g) the principle that all investigatory and inquisitorial functions should be exercised proportionately, having regard to the public interest in further inquiry and the likely evidential value of what it may yield.” This amendment introduces a principle requiring investigatory and inquisitorial functions to be exercised proportionately by the Legacy Commission, having regard to the public interest and likely evidential value. Government amendment 152. Amendment 81, page 7, line 8, at end insert— “(g) the principle that restorative justice procedures can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by— (i) facilitating honesty, (ii) supporting victims and survivors, and (iii) promoting reconciliation.” This amendment creates a duty on the Legacy Commission to function consistently with the principle that restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles. Clause 11 stand part. Amendment 55, in clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out “constable” and insert “Chief Constable, as provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”. Government amendments 153 and 154. Clause 12 stand part. Schedule 2. Government amendments 155 to 160. Clause 13 stand part Government amendments 161 and 162. Amendment 120, in clause 14, page 9, line 24, leave out from second “person” to end of line 25 and insert “(other than a veteran) to attend at a time and place stated in the notice, and in the case of a veteran may require such attendance only where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means—”. This amendment provides that veterans may only be required to attend in person where compliance cannot reasonably be secured by remote or electronic means. Government amendments 163 and 164. Amendment 80, page 9, line 37, at end insert— “(3A) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) may not be issued to a veteran who has previously provided information under the provisions of this section, unless— (a) materially new evidence has been brought to the attention of the relevant person, (b) as a result of the new evidence, issuing a notice to a veteran to provide further information would, in the opinion of the relevant person, be proportionate and necessary, (c) the relevant person has issued a certificate confirming that the conditions in (a) and (b) have been met.” This amendment would prevent a Director of Investigations or a judicial panel member from requiring a veteran to provide information under this section unless the investigator had certified that it was, in their view, proportionate and necessary to do so. Amendment 138, page 10, line 6, at end insert— “(5A) A notice under this section may not require a person to attend to give oral evidence when the provisions of section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate] apply. (5B) Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of full medical records, except in accordance with section [Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate].” Government amendments 165 to 167. Clause 14 stand part. Government amendments 260 and 261. Schedule 3. Government amendments 168 and 169. Clause 15 stand part. Amendment 86, in clause 16, page 11, line 36, leave out “would risk damaging, or”. This amendment changes the definition of sensitive information to refer to information that, if disclosed, would damage national security, rather than also including information that would risk damaging national security. Amendment 87, page 12, line 5, leave out “person considering whether information is prejudicial information” and insert “Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland”. This amendment would give the decision as to whether the disclosure of information is prejudicial, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Clause 16 stand part. Amendment 286, in schedule 4, page 99, line 14, leave out from “The duty” to the end of paragraph (4). This amendment would remove the requirement for relevant authorities to classify information as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring it to the Legacy Commission, reflecting the conclusions of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26. Schedule 4. Amendment 65, in clause 17, page 12, line 18, leave out from “person” to the end of line 41 and insert “, unless in the view of the Commission the disclosure of such information would lead to a breach of any individual’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.” Amendment 88, page 12, line 21, after “concerned” insert “, unless a judicial panel member finds that it is necessary and proportionate to do so”. This amendment would enable a judicial panel member to determine that a disclosure of information may be made by the Legacy Commission, notwithstanding prohibitions A to E, if they believe such a disclosure is necessary and proportionate. Amendment 89, page 12, line 38, after “proceedings” insert “, if any restriction notice has been approved by a judicial panel member”. This amendment would require a judicial panel member to agree to the issuing of a restriction notice. Government amendment 170. Amendment 54, page 12, line 41, at end insert— “(11) Within six months of this section coming into force, and every six months thereafter, the Legacy Commission must report on any incidences in which the Secretary of State, under the provisions of Prohibition C in subsection (6) and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, has either— (a) prohibited the disclosure of, or (b) ordered the redaction of material that has been identified by the Secretary of State as protected international information. (12) In the case of material falling under subsection 11(b), the report specified in subsection (11) must include any determination made by the Legacy Commission as to whether the redactions resulted in the material being of no use to them in their investigations. (13) Within a month of each report published by the Legacy Commission under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the report’s conclusions.” Clause 17 stand part. Government amendments 262 and 263. Amendment 37, in schedule 5, page 101, line 39, leave out from “permitted” to the end of paragraph (5). This amendment would remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to be notified prior to, and their ability to veto on national security or public interest grounds, the disclosure of sensitive information by the Legacy Commission. Amendment 90, page 102, line 2, after “and” insert “takes their response into account when reaching a decision”. This amendment, along with Amendments 91 to 96, would allow the Legacy Commission to disclose sensitive information once it has notified the Secretary of State, and considered their response, and would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to prohibit disclosure on national security grounds. Amendment 91, page 102, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (b). See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 92, page 102, line 8, leave out “permitted” and insert “approved”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 93, page 102, line 9, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 94, page 102, line 11, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 97, page 102, line 16, leave out “would risk damaging, or”. Amendments 97 and 98 clarify that the power to prohibit proposed disclosures on national security grounds is limited to those areas which would definitively, rather than potentially, impact national security. Amendment 95, page 102, line 23, leave out “prohibited” and insert “opposed”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 96, page 102, line 24, leave out “prohibition” and insert “opposition”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 90. Amendment 104, page 102, line 24, after sub-paragraph (5) insert— “(5A) Where a notification under sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) has been made, the Secretary of State must refer the matter to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. (5B) A referral under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made within a month of the Secretary of State’s notification. (5C) In considering the referral under sub-paragraph (5A), the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament may request further reasons, and information, from the Secretary of State relating to the decision to prohibit the proposed disclosure on national security grounds. (5D) The Secretary of State must respond to any request from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for further reasons or information within two weeks of receiving the request. (5E) After considering a referral under sub-paragraph 5A the Intelligence and Security Committee may within 12 months of the referral lay before both Houses of Parliament a report outlining the Committee’s— (a) assessment of the Secretary of State’s reasons for prohibiting the proposed disclosure of information; and (b) conclusions on why the prohibition is an inappropriate response to national security considerations, and how— (i) the information in its entirety could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed; or (ii) the information, subject to redactions, could, in their opinion, be reasonably disclosed. (5F) Where the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported that a disclosure could, in their opinion, be reasonably made under sub-paragraph (5E)(b) (i) or (ii), the Secretary of State must, within a month of the Committee publishing its report, make a statement before both Houses of Parliament responding to the Committee’s conclusions.” This amendment requires the Secretary of State to refer any decision to block a disclosure on national security grounds to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, enabling the Committee to review the decision, request further information, and, if it concludes that the prohibition is not justified, report to Parliament on how the information could reasonably be disclosed. Amendment 98, page 102, line 26, leave out “risking damage to, or”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 97. Amendment 38, page 103, leave out paragraphs (8) to (13). This amendment is supplementary to Amendment 37. Government amendments 264 to 266. Amendment 101, page 104, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5). See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99. Amendment 99, page 104, line 30, leave out “an” and insert “a merits based”. These amendments (99 to 101) would extend the power of the courts to review the merits of a Secretary of State’s decision not to permit the proposed disclosure of information, beyond those powers provided to courts in judicial review proceedings. Amendment 100, page 104, line 33, leave out “review” and insert “reconsider all evidence relating to”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 99. Schedule 5. Clause 18 stand part. Government amendments 171 to 177. Clause 19 stand part. Amendment 67, in clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2). Government amendments 178 and 179. Clauses 20 and 21 stand part. Government amendments 180 to 182. Clause 22 stand part. Amendment 70, in clause 23, page 17, line 36, after “appropriate” insert— “(k) the number of occasions during that reporting period when an employee of the Commissioner either— (i) declared, or (ii) (ii) was determined, following an internal review, to have a conflict of interest in relation to a case referred to the Commission.” Clause 23 stand part. Government amendment 183. Clause 24 stand part. Government amendments 184 and 185. Clause 25 stand part. Government amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 62, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, at end insert— “(3A) The statement must set out the manner in which the Legacy Commission is to exercise its investigatory function so as to ensure compliance with its human rights obligations, including, but not limited to, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Government amendments 188 and 189. Clause 26 stand part. Amendment 4, in clause 27, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) Where conduct forming part of the Troubles— (a) caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, or (b) caused a person physical or mental harm as the result of being the victim of a sexual offence, the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.” This amendment would enable victims of sexual crimes that were committed as conduct forming part of the Troubles to request an investigation under Part 3 of the Bill. Amendment 68, page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (3). Clause 27 stand part. Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) there is material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, and there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43.” This amendment requires any requests for investigations by public authorities based on new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30 and requires there to be a realistic prospect of information being provided to a prosecutor. Amendment 139, page 23, line 3, at end insert— “(11A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.” Clauses 28 and 29 stand part. Amendment 103, in clause 30, page 23, line 22, at end insert— “(2A) Where the request relates to a matter which has previously been the subject of investigatory or inquisitorial proceedings, no further investigation may be accepted by the Directors unless— (a) materially new evidence has been brought to their attention, and (b) as a result of that new evidence, a re-investigation would, in their opinion, be proportionate, necessary, and in the public interest for maintaining confidence and trust in the justice system. (c) Where (a) and (b) are satisfied, the Directors must issue a certification confirming that those conditions have been met.” This amendment is intended to introduce a rule against reinvestigation of matters related to the conduct of a veteran unless new evidence has been brought to the attention of the Director of Investigations, is proportionate and necessary, and it is in the public interest. Amendment 280, page 23, line 26, leave out “or an active resumed inquest”. Amendment 281, page 23, line 36, leave out “or an active resumed inquest”. Amendment 282, page 24, line 5, leave out “or resumed inquest”. Amendment 123, page 24, line 9, leave out from “unless” to end and insert “material new evidence exists which was not available to previous investigators and the Directors of Investigations acting jointly have issued a written “New Evidence Certificate” which— (i) identifies the specific material relied upon as constituting such material new evidence; (ii) confirms that the material was not reasonably available at the time of any previous investigation or inquest; (iii) explains why any further investigation or duplication is essential and proportionate, having regard in particular to— (A) the passage of time; (B) the age and health of any person likely to be investigated; (C) the likelihood that the new evidence could realistically lead to information capable of being provided to a prosecutor; and is published, subject only to national security and GDPR redactions.” This amendment introduces a requirement that further investigations duplicating earlier proceedings may only be undertaken where material new evidence exists and a “New Evidence Certificate” has been issued. Amendment 25, page 24, line 9, after “essential” insert “, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Amendment 283, page 24, line 11, leave out “or a resumed inquest”. Amendment 284, page 24, line 19, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d). Clause 30 stand part. Amendment 125, in clause 31, page 25, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of that investigation unless— (i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and, (ii) in the Directors’ view, the duplication is essential.” This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before subsequent investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps. Amendment 26, page 25, line 33, after “essential” insert “, if the circumstances surrounding the request involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Clause 31 stand part. Amendment 126, in clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) owing to material new evidence in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, there is a realistic prospect of information obtained through the investigation being provided to a prosecutor under section 43,” This amendment requires investigations initiated by the Directors of Investigations on the basis of new evidence to be supported by a New Evidence Certificate under section 30. Amendment 285, page 26, line 20, leave out from “proceedings” until the end of line 21. Clauses 32 to 34 stand part. Government amendments 190 and 191. Clause 35 stand part. Amendment 130, in clause 36, page 28, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) The Director must decide that the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation only where— (a) material new evidence exists, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and (b) such evidence is capable of demonstrating that the relevant conduct constituted an offence at the time it occurred; and (c) there is a realistic prospect that the relevant prosecutorial authority would decide that it is in the public interest for a person to be prosecuted in respect of that conduct, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.” This amendment raises the threshold for conducting a criminal investigation by requiring material new evidence and a realistic prospect of prosecution. It is connected to Amendment 123. Amendment 131, page 28, line 33, at end insert “, but may only do so where— “(a) material new evidence exists in respect of which a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30, or there is evidence which has not previously been properly considered; and (b) determining those facts is fair and proportionate, having regard in particular to the matters set out in sections 36(10) and 36(10A).” This amendment limits non-criminal fact-finding investigations to cases where material new evidence exists and where such inquiries are fair and proportionate. It is connected to Amendment 123. Amendment 127, page 29, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) must (in particular) ensure that the Legacy Commission does not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless— (i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and, (ii) in the Director’s view, the duplication is essential.” This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before investigations may duplicate previous investigative steps. Amendment 27, page 29, line 9, after “essential” insert “, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Government amendment 192. Amendment 132, page 29, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(a) the conduct to which the investigation relates occurred, including the operational orders, briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time; and”. This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the operational context in which the conduct occurred, including relevant orders, briefings and intelligence. Amendment 133, page 29, line 21, at end insert— “(10A) In carrying out an investigation, the Director must also have regard to— (a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation; (b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and (c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry or questioning remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).” This amendment requires investigators to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out an investigation. Amendment 34, page 29, line 36, at end insert— “(c) “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.” Amendment 63, page 29, line 36, at end insert— “(c) A ‘previous investigation’ refers solely to investigations which complied with the full requirements of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Clause 36 stand part. Government amendment 193. Clause 37 stand part. Government amendment 194. Amendment 121, in clause 38, page 30, line 33, at end insert— “(6A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.” This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made. Clause 38 stand part. Amendment 69, in clause 39, page 31, line 20, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert “an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.” Clauses 39 to 42 stand part. Amendment 83, in clause 43, page 35, line 7, at end insert “and no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure has been made.” This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made. Amendment 12, page 35, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Amendment 13, page 35, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Amendment 14, page 35, line 22, leave out from “considers” to “, the director” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Government amendments 195 and 196. Amendment 15, page 35, line 33, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”. Amendment 44, page 35, line 37, at end insert— “(6A) No referral for prosecution is to be made for a person who served in— (a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces), (b) the Secret Intelligence Services, (c) the Government Communications Headquarters, (d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or (e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, when the conduct under investigation arose as a result of that person acting in accordance with operational decisions.” Amendment 47, page 35, line 37, at end insert— “(6A) Where the referral for prosecution concerns a veteran of— (a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the Special Forces), (b) the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Services or Government Communications Headquarters, (c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or (d) the Police Service of Northern Ireland the written permission of the relevant person as set out in subsection (6B) is required. (6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A), the relevant person is defined as follows— (a) the Director of Service Prosecutions (in the case of paragraph (a)), (b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom (in the case of paragraph (b)), or (c) the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d)). (6C) When determining whether to give the permission required under subsection (6A), the relevant person must consider whether prosecution would have a negative impact on the proposed defendant’s mental or physical health, giving particular attention to— (a) the proposed defendant’s age and health; (b) any trauma that the proposed defendant suffered as a result of their service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles; (c) any medical evidence from the practising doctor; and (d) the number of times that the individual has been previously investigated or given evidence to an investigation.” Amendment 140, page 35, line 37, at end insert— “(6A) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.” Clauses 43 to 48 stand part. Government amendment 197. Clause 49 stand part. Amendment 278, in clause 50, page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) This section applies to a death caused directly by conduct forming part of the Troubles if— (a) the Secretary of State gives a direction to the senior judicial panel member in relation to the death; (b) an inquest relating to that death had been initiated, including where such inquests had not yet been allocated to a coroner, before 1 May 2024, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.” Clause 50 stand part. Government amendments 198 and 199. Amendment 128, in clause 51, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(b) must (in particular) ensure that they do not do anything which duplicates any aspect of any such previous investigation unless— (i) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and, (ii) in their view, the duplication is essential.” This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before inquisitorial proceedings may duplicate previous investigative steps. Amendment 28, page 40, line 17, after “essential” insert “, if the circumstances under investigation involve a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Amendment 279, page 40, line 17, at end insert— “(3) For the purpose of subsection (3), in taking into account previous investigations, the relevant judicial panel member must consider any evidence that was presented before those investigations before requiring a witness to give evidence at inquisitorial proceedings.” Amendment 134, page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) The relevant judicial panel member must ensure that, in the carrying out of the proceedings, regard is had to— (a) the context in which the conduct examined in the course of the proceedings occurred, including— (i) operational orders given to personnel; and (ii) briefings, intelligence assessments and perceived threat conditions prevailing at the time. (b) any earlier criminal investigation of that conduct occurred.” This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the operational context in inquisitorial proceedings. Amendment 35, page 40, line 20, at end insert— “(4A) For the purposes of this section, “context” is to be regarded as including recent incidents, operational orders, instructions of the day, military or policing intelligence briefings and daily briefing materials.” Amendment 135, page 40, line 20, at end insert— “(4A) In carrying out the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member must also have regard to— (a) the time that has elapsed since the events under investigation; (b) the possible deterioration or unavailability of evidence; and (c) the need to ensure that any further inquiry remains fair and proportionate in light of (a) and (b).” This amendment requires judicial panel members to have regard to the passage of time since the events under investigation, the availability and reliability of evidence, and the ability as a result of those factors to ensure questioning can be fair and proportionate, when carrying out judicial proceedings. Government amendments 200 to 202. Clauses 51 to 53 stand part. Amendment 76, in clause 54, page 41, line 32, after “person” insert “who is not a veteran”. This amendment together with Amendment 78 provides that a person who is a veteran, as defined in Amendment 79, will not be required to give evidence in person to an inquisitorial proceeding, unless the Director of Investigations demonstrates it is strictly essential for them to do so. Amendment 29, page 41, line 35, after “given)” insert “, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Amendment 78, page 41, line 37, at end insert— “(2A) Where a veteran is required to give evidence in inquisitorial proceedings, the judicial panel member must give permission for such evidence to be given through a live audio or live video link, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, unless the Director or Directors of Investigations can demonstrate that there is a clear and specific reason, recorded in writing, which makes it strictly essential for the veteran in question to give evidence in person.” See explanatory statement for Amendment 76. Government amendment 203. Clause 54 stand part. Government amendment 204. Clause 55 stand part. Government amendment 205. Amendment 108, in clause 56, page 43, line 8, at end insert “unless such restrictions would lead to the concealment of the involvement of a state agent in rape or other sexual offences.” This amendment would ensure that the restrictions on public access provided in this section may not be imposed if they would result in the concealment of information about state actors who were involved in rape or other sexual offences. Government amendments 206 to 208. Amendment 30, page 43, line 14, at end insert— “(2A) Restrictions under this section may be imposed if the individual subject to, or participating in, inquisitorial proceedings is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Government amendment 209. Clause 56 stand part Government amendments 210 to 221. Clauses 57 and 58 stand part. Government amendment 222. Clause 59 stand part. Government amendment 223. Clause 60 stand part. Amendment 84, in clause 61, page 46, line 37, at end insert “and no referral to a restorative justice procedure has been made.” This amendment provides that this section only applies when no decision to refer to a restorative justice procedure (see NC19) has been made. Amendment 16, page 47, line 1, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Amendment 17, page 47, line 8, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Amendment 18, page 47, line 15, leave out from “considers” to “, they” and insert “there is admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence”. Amendment 19, page 47, line 26, after “appropriate” insert “and reliable”. Amendment 141, page 48, line 10, at end insert— “(10) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.” Clause 61 stand part. Government amendment 224. Amendment 122, in clause 62, page 48, line 23, at end insert— “(4A) Where section [Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld] applies, the final report must state whether a determination under that section was made and, if so, the outcome of that determination.” This amendment is consequential on NC24 and requires the final report to state whether a determination under that section was made. Clause 62 stand part. Amendment 71, in clause 63, page 49, line 16, leave out from “period,” to end of paragraph (b) and insert “an additional and non-renewable period of no more than 60 days may be granted by the Secretary of State and notified to the judicial panel member before the end of the original period of 60 days.” Clauses 63 to 66 stand part. Government amendments 225 and 226. Clauses 67 and 68 stand part. Amendment 136, in clause 69, page 54, line 23, leave out “have regard to the” and insert “not take any decisions which will, or are likely to, unreasonably impact the”. Amendment 31, page 54, line 25, after “proceedings” insert “, if the individual in question is a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”. Amendment 137, page 54, line 25, at end insert— “(3) In determining reasonableness in this section, the relevant Directors of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must have specific regard to— (a) the number of prior investigations or interviews the individual giving evidence or participating in the investigation or proceedings has participated in; (b) the intrusiveness of the step; (c) the availability of less intrusive means by which to obtain the evidence or benefit of the individual’s participation in proceedings; and (d) the importance of the individual’s participation or evidence in the investigation as a whole.” This amendment prohibits investigative steps that would unreasonably impact the health or welfare of a person, and sets out factors relevant to determining reasonableness. Clause 69 stand part. Government amendment 227. Clause 70 stand part. Government amendments 228 to 231. Clause 71 stand part. Government new clause 32—Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces. Government new clause 33—Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. Government new clause 34—Members of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. Government new clause 35—Duty to avoid unnecessary costs. Government new clause 36—Inspections of the Legacy Commission. Government new clause 37—Powers of inspection. Government new clause 38—Reports following inspections. Government new clause 39—Disclosure of sensitive or protected international information by the Inspectorate. Government new clause 40—Assistance agreements. Government new clause 41—Effect, pending determination, of application for restriction order. Government new clause 42—Information for registrar of deaths following inquisitorial proceedings. Government new clause 43—Time limit for applying for judicial review. Government new clause 44—Intercepted communications etc. Government new clause 45—Initial contact with members of armed forces as witnesses. Government new clause 46—Initial contact with police officers. Government new clause 47—Working with prosecutors: policy statement. Government new clause 48—Defamation. New clause 1—Legacy Commission: Transparency of resourcing— “(1) The Secretary of State must, each financial year, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the resources allocated to the Legacy Commission. (2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include— (a) the resources made available to the Commission; and (b) the allocation of resources to investigations relating to— (i) state actors, and (ii) non-state actors. (3) Within two months of the publication of a report made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on the report.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each financial year which sets out the resources made available to the Commission and the allocation of resources to investigations relating to state and to non-state actors. New clause 2—Disqualification from appointment of Persons with Terrorist Associations— “(1) A person (X) is disqualified from being appointed, or from continuing to serve, as— (a) a Commissioner of the Legacy Commission, (b) a Director of Investigations, (c) a member of the judicial panel, (d) an officer of the Legacy Commission, or (e) a member of the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, if subsection (2) applies to that person. (2) This subsection applies where person (X)— (a) is, or has been, convicted of a terrorist offence within the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000; (b) is, or has been, a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of section 3 of that Act; or (c) has publicly advocated for, justified, or glorified the commission of acts of terrorism connected with the Troubles (3) The Secretary of State must, before confirming any appointment under this Act, require candidates to declare any matter that would fall within subsection (2). (4) The Secretary of State must terminate the appointment of any person who becomes disqualified under this section. (5) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section prevents the appointment of a person whose only connection to the Troubles was as an innocent victim or survivor.” New clause 3—Lack of legal effect for “comfort letters” or assurances— “(1) For the avoidance of doubt no “comfort letter” or other assurance of no police investigation or prosecution provided at any time to any person can have any lawful effect. (2) This section is to be treated as always having had effect.” New clause 4—Principles when examining activities of veterans of armed forces or police service— “In evaluating the actions or omissions of any person under investigation while serving in the armed forces or the police there shall be a rebuttable presumption that there was no criminal mens rea involved.” New clause 5—Support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary— “The Secretary of State must ensure, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, that an equivalent package of practical and financial support and assistance is provided to former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, facing investigations or inquisitorial proceedings under the provisions of this Act, as is provided by the Ministry of Defence to former members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.” New clause 6—Requirement to not make remedial orders in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023— “(1) No remedial order may be made by the Secretary of State under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of any part of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. (2) Any remedial order in respect of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that was made prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent is to be regarded as having no legal effect. (3) If a remedial order had been made in relation to the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must, within a month of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament regulations to repeal the remedial order. (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.” New clause 8—Relevant authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: Legacy Commission— “(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) In Section 31, subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(ab) The Legacy Commission.’ (3) In Section 32, subsection (6), after paragraph (n) insert— ‘(o) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’ (4) In Section 33, after subsection (4A) insert— ‘(4AZA) The Legacy Commission shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance except on an application made by the Director(s) of Investigation.’ (5) In Section 33, subsection (5A), after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(ba) The Legacy Commission.’ (6) In Section 34, subsection (4), after paragraph (m) insert— ‘(n) a person is entitled to act for the Legacy Commission if they are the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’ (7) In Section 51, subsection (2), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, the Legacy Commission’. (8) In Section 51, subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(ba) in the case of a direction by the Legacy Commission, except by or with the permission of the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’ (9) In Section 51, subsection (3), after ‘the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert— ‘, the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission’. (10) In Section 55, subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(zba) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’ (11) In Section 56, subsection (1), after paragraph (ha) insert— ‘(hab) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’ (12) In Section 75, subsection (5), after “Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary” insert— ‘, or the Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission.’ (13) In Section 75, subsection (6), after paragraph (ee) insert— ‘(ef) The Director(s) of Investigation of the Legacy Commission;’ (14) In Schedule 1, Part A1 (Relevant Authorities for the Purposes of ss. 28, 29 and 29B), after paragraph (A1A) insert— ‘(A1B) The Legacy Commission.’ (15) In Schedule 2, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission.’ (16) In Schedule 2, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (5), after ‘Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ insert ‘, and the Legacy Commission;’.” This new clause is consequential to Amendment 55 and would bring the powers of the Legacy Commission and the Director(s) of Investigation in line with those afforded to Chief Constables and equivalent investigatory bodies in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. New clause 9—“On the runs”: no immunity from prosecution— “It is recognised that the “on the runs” administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution.” This new clause reaffirms the conclusions of Lady Justice Hallett’s 2014 report into the “On the Run” administrative scheme. New clause 13—Tort, delict and fatal accident actions— “(1) A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force. (2) A relevant Troubles-related civil action may not be brought on or after the day on which this section comes into force. (3) For the purposes of this section an action is a “relevant Troubles-related civil action” if conditions A, B and C are met. (4) Condition A: the action is to determine a claim arising out of conduct forming part of the Troubles. (5) Condition B: the action is founded on— (a) tort or delict, (b) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation, or (c) a cause of action arising under the law of any other jurisdiction that corresponds to— (i) tort or delict, or (ii) a cause of action arising under fatal accidents legislation. (6) Condition C: the time limit for bringing the action was, or would be (in the absence of this section), given in— (a) the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11)), (b) the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/754 (N.I. 5)), (c) the Limitation Act 1980, (d) the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, (e) the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, or (f) section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995; (including where a court has permitted the action to be brought outside such a time limit). (7) Subsection (1) does not stop a relevant Troubles-related civil action from being continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force, if the court of first instance has given a final judgment on, or otherwise finally determined, the matter in dispute before that day (including by a default judgment or a consent order or, in Scotland, by a decree in absence, decree by default or summary decree). (8) Where subsection (1) or (2) stops an action from being continued, or brought, on or after the day on which this section comes into force, that subsection— (a) does not stop costs proceedings from being continued or begun on or after that day; but (b) otherwise stops the proceedings in the action, and any other related proceedings, from being continued or begun on or after that day. (9) In this section— “costs proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings to determine or recover costs (in Northern Ireland or England and Wales) or expenses (in Scotland) of the action; “fatal accidents legislation” means— (a) the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)), (b) the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or (c) section 4 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 7); “matter in dispute” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means the claim (referred to in subsection (4)) which arises out of conduct forming part of the Troubles and which the action is to determine; “other jurisdiction” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means a jurisdiction (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) other than the jurisdiction in which that action is, or would be, brought; “other related proceedings” , in relation to a relevant Troubles-related civil action, means proceedings which relate to, or arise out of the action (including any enforcement action and any appeal), except for costs proceedings; “2008 Mediation Directive” means Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.” New clause 14—Investigations: ability to accept referrals for conduct after 10 April 1998— “(1) The Legacy Commission may accept any request for an investigation into conduct which would be considered conduct “forming part of the Troubles” had it occurred between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998 where that conduct caused— (a) a person’s death, or (b) a person to suffer serious mental or physical harm, and where an investigation had previously occurred but was subsequently found to not be compliant with Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (2) The Legacy Commission may accept such a request notwithstanding the conduct in question occurring after the time period specified in Section 2 of this Act, provided that the Commission is satisfied that the conduct in question was related to the Troubles.” New clause 15—Inquisitorial Proceedings: ability to make a finding of state collusion— “(1) This section applies where inquisitorial proceedings have been carried out. (2) In producing a final report on the findings of the proceedings, the relevant judicial panel member may, if satisfied that they have received clear evidence that “state actors” were involved in the breach of an individual’s rights under Articles 2 or 3 (or both) of the European Convention of Human Rights, make a finding of collusion between the UK Government and paramilitary organisations. (3) For the purpose of subsection (2), “state actors” includes members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, security or police services.” New clause 16—Independent reviewer of the safeguards for veterans under this Act— “(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Reviewer to monitor the application of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act. (2) Within a year of their appointment, and every year thereafter, the Independent Reviewer must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the safeguards for veterans contained in this Act. (3) In producing the reports specified in subsection (2), the Independent Reviewer may make any such recommendations for the reform of the safeguards as they deem appropriate. (4) The Independent Reviewer established under subsection (2) shall be appointed for a five-year term, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State. (5) In this section, "armed forces" has the meaning given by section 94.” This new clause would create an Independent Reviewer of safeguards for veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, in the Act. New clause 17—Protections for veterans involved in investigations or inquisitorial proceedings— “(1) Where inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 involve a person who is a veteran, a restriction notice or restriction order made under section 56 must prohibit the identification of that person in any proceedings or publications, whether directly or indirectly, unless the Secretary of State determines that disclosure is necessary in the public interest. (2) The Legacy Commission must not contact a veteran directly regarding an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and contact relating to such matters must be made through the relevant official channel. (3) The “relevant official channel” for the purposes of subsection (2) is either the Ministry of Defence or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or such other body as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify. (4) If any contact is made with a veteran under subsection (2), the veteran must be provided with appropriate welfare and support in connection with that contact from the relevant official channel. (5) In applying section 69 (Duty to have regard to welfare of witnesses etc.), the relevant Director of Investigations or relevant judicial panel member must— (a) not take any investigative step that would unreasonably impact the physical or mental health of a veteran, and (b) have regard for the cumulative and longitudinal impact of any previous investigations or questioning of that veteran.” This new clause provides that veterans, as defined in Amendment 79, who are subject to inquisitorial proceedings will not be identified until that disclosure is necessary in the public interest, that any contact with veterans is made through an official channel with appropriate welfare support provided, and that the welfare of veterans is considered before investigative steps are taken. New clause 18—The work of the Legacy Commission: Principles of restorative justice— “(1) Within six months of commencement of this Act, the Legacy Commission must report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work. (2) The report produced under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following— (a) ways in which the Legacy Commission could facilitate or offer restorative justice processes as part of its work; (b) ways in which restorative justice can play a meaningful and appropriate role in addressing the legacy of the Troubles by— (i) facilitating truth-telling; (ii) supporting victims and survivors who wish to engage in non-adversarial processes; and (iii) promoting acknowledgement, reconciliation, and understanding without displacing formal accountability mechanisms; (c) any steps that it recommends the Government take to support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work. (3) The report produced under subsection (1) must be made public. (4) Within three months of the publication of the Legacy Commission’s report, the Government must lay a report of its response before Parliament. (5) The Government response must include— (a) any steps it will take to enable and support the Legacy Commission in incorporating the principles of restorative justice in its work; and (b) where it rejects the recommendations of the Legacy Commission, its reasons for doing so.” This new clause requires the Legacy Commission to publish a report on how it will incorporate the principles of restorative justice into its work, and requires the government to respond to that report. New clause 19—Referral to restorative justice procedures— “(1) Where an investigation under Part 3 has been carried out and the relevant Director of Investigations considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual, whose identity is known to that Director, constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Director may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process. (2) Where an inquisitorial proceeding under Part 4 has been carried out and the relevant judicial panel member considers that there is evidence that relevant conduct by an individual whose identity is known to the judicial panel member constitutes an offence, the judicial panel member may offer to refer the parties to the conduct to a restorative justice process. (3) No referral to a restorative justice process can be made without the consent of every party to the conduct who would be entitled to be a participant in the activity. (4) For the purposes of this Act, “a restorative justice process” means an activity— (a) where the participants consist of the individuals referred under subsection (1) or (2) and at least one victim or survivor of the relevant conduct; (b) which aims to maximise awareness of the impact of the relevant conduct on the victims; and (c) which gives an opportunity to victims and survivors to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the conduct and its impact. (5) A person running an activity for the purposes of a restorative justice referral must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with such an activity. (6) In this Act, “parties to the relevant conduct” means the offender and one or more of the victims or survivors of the relevant conduct. (7) In this section, “relevant conduct” has the same meaning as given in section 43(7).” This new clause provides a definition of restorative justice and requires that any referral to restorative justice requires the consent of every person who would be a participant in that activity. New clause 20—Comfort letters: lack of validity— “The “comfort letters” issued by the UK Government under the “on the run” administrative scheme do not have, nor have ever had, any lawful effect and do not provide immunity from prosecution, nor may they impede any future prosecution.” New clause 21—Protection for conduct carried out in accordance with contemporaneous Rules of Engagement in respect of Troubles-related conduct— “(1) No criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries shall be commenced in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland by— (a) His Majesty’s Armed Forces (including the United Kingdom Special Forces), (b) the Secret Intelligence Services, (c) the Government Communications Headquarters, (d) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or (e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, unless the condition in subsection (2) has been met. (2) The condition is that— (a) there is new and compelling evidence, that was not available at the time of the conduct in question; and (b) the evidence has been certified as “new and compelling” by a Supreme Court Judge. (3) In any legal proceedings, it is to be presumed that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness of the Rules of Engagement and orders they received, unless— (a) the condition in subsection (2) has been met; and (b) the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful. (4) No civil action against any party identified in subsection (1) shall be commenced, unless in a prior criminal case related to the conduct in question— (a) the condition in subsection (2) was met; and (b) a criminal conviction against that specific party in relation to conduct in question was obtained. (5) Where it can be shown that the operational directives or Rules of Engagement given to a party listed in subsection (1) were unlawful under the domestic law that was in force at the time of the conduct in question, criminal or disciplinary investigations, or proceedings, may only be commenced, or continued, against those individuals who authorised, or approved, the Rules of Engagement or directives, and not against individual service members who acted in good faith in following those directives.” New clause 23—Provision of legal advice and support for veterans and former police officers— (1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that any person who— (a) is a former member of the armed forces, or (b) is a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is subject to an investigation, review, inquest or legal proceedings relating to conduct forming part of the Troubles, has access to appropriate legal advice and support, and that such advice or support should be provided at no cost to the person in question. (2) Provision under subsection (1) must include— (a) access to independent legal representation, (b) support in connection with inquests, investigations and any related proceedings, and (c) such further assistance as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” This new clause would require the provision of free legal advice and support to veterans and former police officers who are subject to investigations, inquests or legal proceedings relating to the Troubles. New clause 24—Continuance of investigations and proceedings where information is withheld— “(1) Where information relevant to an investigation under Part 3 or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 is not disclosed by virtue of— (a) section 17(2); (b) a restriction notice or restriction order under section 56; or (c) any other enactment or rule of law, the relevant decision-maker must determine whether, in the absence of that information, the investigation or proceedings can properly and fairly continue with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (2) In making a determination under subsection (1), the relevant decision-maker must consider— (a) the need to ensure that any investigation or proceedings are conducted consistently with the principles set out in section 11; (b) the need to secure public confidence in the work of the Legacy Commission; and (c) whether the evidence available is sufficient to justify continuation. (3) If the relevant decision-maker determines that the investigation or proceedings cannot properly and fairly continue, they must not take further steps in relation to the investigation or proceedings. (4) In this section “relevant decision-maker” means— (a) the relevant Director of Investigations; or (b) the relevant judicial panel member.” This new clause requires a determination of whether investigations or proceedings can fairly continue where relevant information is withheld, having regard to Article 6 ECHR. New clause 25—Cold-calling protocol— (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a protocol (“the cold-calling protocol”) to ensure that any contact with a veteran, in connection with any matter arising under or by virtue of this Act, is made only through channels supported by the Ministry of Defence. (2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must— (a) prohibit direct or unsolicited approaches to a veteran by or on behalf of the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, or any other body exercising functions under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with the cold-calling protocol; (b) provide that any permitted contact with a veteran is to be made only— (i) with the knowledge and support of the Ministry of Defence, and (ii) through a representative authorised for that purpose by the Ministry of Defence; (c) secure that, from the first point of contact, the veteran is afforded access to advice and assistance arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence; and (d) make provision for the recording and oversight of contacts made in accordance with the protocol. (3) Regulations made under this section (1) are subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a cold-calling protocol governing contact with veterans, including provision for contact to be made only through Ministry of Defence-supported channels. New clause 26—Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards— “(1) The Secretary of State must also appoint a person (“the Independent Reviewer of Veteran Safeguards”) to monitor the operation and effectiveness of— (a) the cold-calling protocol made under section [Cold Calling Protocol], and (b) any other arrangements made under or by virtue of this Act for the protection of veterans. (2) The Independent Reviewer must, in particular— (a) keep under review the implementation of the cold-calling protocol by the Legacy Commission, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, and any other body exercising functions under this Act; (b) assess the adequacy of the steps taken by those bodies, and by the Ministry of Defence, to ensure compliance with that protocol; and (c) make recommendations to the Secretary of State about any remedial or preventive action that appears to the Reviewer to be necessary or desirable. (3) The Independent Reviewer must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of the Reviewer’s functions during that year. (4) The Secretary of State must— (a) lay a copy of each report given under subsection (3) before Parliament, and (b) publish each report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (5) The Secretary of State may make payments to, or in respect of, the Independent Reviewer in connection with the performance of the Reviewer’s functions.” This new clause provides for the appointment of an Independent Reviewer to monitor the operation and effectiveness of safeguards for veterans under the Act. New clause 27—Presumption against prosecuting veterans— “In determining whether to institute, or continue, criminal proceedings in respect of conduct forming part of the Troubles, the relevant prosecutorial authority must have regard to the principle that it is to be exceptional for such proceedings to be brought or continued against a veteran, unless the evidential threshold is satisfied by material new evidence and it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the passage of time and to the nature and quality of the evidence.” New clause 28—Duty to have regard to age and health of witnesses— “(1) This section applies where an investigation under Part 3 of this Act, or inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act, are being carried out. (2) The Directors of Investigations and judicial panel members must, in exercising their functions in relation to investigations or inquisitorial proceedings, have specific regard to— (a) the age and operational experience of any person at the time of the events being examined; and (b) their current age, health and wellbeing when determining whether to compel participation or evidence.” New clause 29—Presumption of anonymity for veterans— “(1) A Veteran is entitled to anonymity in relation to— (a) any investigation under Part 3, (b) any inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4, and (c) any publication, report or disclosure made under, or by virtue of, this Act, unless the Secretary of State determines that the disclosure of the veteran’s name or identity is necessary in the public interest. (2) In determining whether disclosure is necessary in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to— (a) the significance of disclosing the information to public understanding of the conduct or event to which it relates; (b) the extent to which non-disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice; and (c) the degree of risk to the veteran’s safety, welfare or private life that disclosure would be likely to cause.” New clause 55—Transfer of Troubles-related Coroners inquests to the Legacy Commission— “Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Presiding Coroner for Northern Ireland must— (a) identify, and notify the Legacy Commission of, all inquests which had been initiated, including where a coroner had not yet been allocated, but had been closed under the provisions of section 16A of the Coroners Act (Northern (Ireland) 1959; (b) transfer to the Legacy Commission all relevant records relating to the inquests specified in subsection (a); and (c) notify families and affected participants of the transfer of these cases from the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland to the Legacy Commission.” New clause 56—Inquisitorial proceedings: duty of candour and assistance— “(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that any duty of candour and assistance which is contained in any Act of Parliament which results from the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026-27, applies to inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4 of this Act. (2) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” Amendment 79, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert— “‘veteran’ is a person who— (a) has served for at least one day in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, whether as a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces, (b) has served as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, (c) has served as a prison officer, including service in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, or (d) has served in a police support, reserve, or auxiliary role connected with the maintenance of security during the Troubles, as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State, but has not at any time been a member of, or acted in support of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000, or knowingly taken part in, assisted, or enabled the carrying out of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.” This amendment provides a definition of “veteran” for the purposes of the Act. Amendment 276, in clause 94, page 78, line 19, at end insert— “‘veteran’ means a former member of— (a) the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown; or (b) the police services who by reason of service was present, deployed, or acting in connection with Troubles-related operations, this excludes any person who— (i) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or (ii) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles; ‘victim’ means a person who has suffered physical or psychological injury, loss or harm directly caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles, whether such harm arose from an act of violence, threat, intimidation, or other conflict-related event, this excludes any person who— (a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or (b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles; ‘survivor’ means a person who has experienced or continues to experience psychological injury, trauma, or other lasting harm arising directly or indirectly from conduct forming part of the Troubles, this excludes any person who— (a) was at any time a member of, or acted on behalf of, a terrorist or proscribed organisation (within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000); or (b) knowingly participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act connected with the Troubles.” This amendment inserts definitions of “veteran”, “victim” and “survivor” for the purposes of the Act.
Order. I note that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) expressed disappointment about his amendments not being selected for a separate decision. May I remind him that selection decisions are a matter for the Chair and should not be questioned on the Floor of the House? I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Part of the growing threat from Russia—and it is growing —includes increased maritime activity, both in the English channel and in the surveillance of critically important undersea cables, including by specialist Russian submarines. Part of our response should surely be to increase our own submarine patrols around our shores. However, for many months, not a single one of our Astute class attack submarines has been on patrol. I know that it is not the Government’s policy to comment on submarine movements, but I am asking about the absence of submarine movements. Why, on Labour’s watch, have our attack submarines been embarrassingly tied up alongside for months at a time, while the Russians are roving in the North sea and the Atlantic?
I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place. We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as “a direct threat to national security.” General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.
I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.
Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first. This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—
Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.
No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause. Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement: “We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.” Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with. Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top. New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now. The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.
If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will. The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said: “Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”. As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.
I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year: “There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?” That is a very realistic point. With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words: “Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.” On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement: “The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.” Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion: “The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.” It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.
The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.
Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?
When this issue came up in the Defence Committee last week, the Secretary of State said that the national conversation should leave the public “alert but not alarmed.” I personally think the public need to be a bit more alarmed, so I was reassured when the excellent General Sir Roly Walker said last week that “very soon, the political leaders of this country will start to have a frank conversation with the citizens of this country about just what is going on, and where the risk lies,”. When the Secretary of State starts that conversation, will he make it as cross-party as possible? It is important that this House sends a strong message to the country about the threats we face.
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked a very specific question about the Loughgall inquest and whether any of this paperwork and legislation will stop it from going ahead. Last Tuesday, in the Defence Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence that question and he gave me a pretty definitive answer, so I am intrigued to hear the answer of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I must start by declaring an interest: this legislation would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland, serving in the Scots Guards. The first was in Belfast in 1992. We lost Guardsman Damian Shackleton—murdered by the IRA. We lost Guardsman Andrew Wason—murdered by the IRA. We also had two guardsmen who were subsequently convicted in a Diplock court for murder and given life sentences for a judgmental shooting situation in north Belfast. On that tour, as a platoon commander, I remember being at a pig point just outside the Divis flats—basically, a vehicle control point, stopping ingress to and egress from the city centre. My road man, who was the guy who stopped the people at the checkpoint, called over to me. He had his hand on the driver’s shoulder. He said, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” This guy looked me in the eye and said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this vehicle.” Now, fortunately, I knew that he was lying, but the drill at the time was that you grabbed a hold of this witness, took him out of the car and did not let go until the bomb disposal people turned up, because they needed to question them to find out what the situation was and how long the vehicle had been taken away to get the bomb in the back of it. The IRA’s tactics at the time were all designed not only to kill and maim, but to put the British forces and the police on the horns of a series of dilemmas to make their job incredibly difficult. On my second tour, I was an operations officer in east Tyrone, on a tour that spanned the ceasefire. Right up until midnight on the day the ceasefire kicked in, the IRA was trying to mortar, bomb and murder our people in RUC Pomeroy. I was then a company commander, accompanied by my wife and children, and we were based out of Ballykinler. We would go away for five weeks at a time, predominantly to south Armagh and Portadown, particularly Drumcree. My last job was for two years as a policy officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Through that progression, the challenges I faced and the insights I gleaned were very different. By the time I got to the top—John Reid was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time—we were doing the demilitarisation of south Armagh and the Golf towers. There was the Downing Street declaration. I asked my boss, who was a brilliant civil servant, “Who won?” He did actually answer that question, but the answer he gave me is probably not something that would help our debate today. Suffice it to say that the Good Friday agreement left that out there as a question—who won? That was necessary; it was a peace agreement. It was very important not to rub people’s noses in it—that one side had very clearly won and another side had very clearly lost. Because of that grey area, people subsequently have sought to use various ways of answering that question not just to relitigate the case, but to rewrite history. I particularly remember an instance when Stormont had to be recalled to debate the colour of flowers. It was Easter recess, and someone had put some flowers in the lobby at Stormont. Everyone had to be recalled to debate the colour of the flowers. That sounds absurd but, of course, the colour of those flowers was an answer to the question, “Who won?” The trouble is that our considerations today are not as apparently innocuous as the colour of flowers. Our debate is about the way in which those four guardsmen I mentioned went to Northern Ireland, received orders and had rifles strapped around their necks. They were given very few powers additional to those of a private citizen. They were told to go out into the streets of the United Kingdom and protect the police while people tried to kill them. It is in that context that I see the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled. What we are witnessing is an extension of the troubles by other means. The Secretary of State, I think in good faith, has been attempting to bring various parties together and ensure that this legislation has—I think this was the phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—the confidence of all parties. The trouble is that it does not. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), various veterans’ organisations have said that they do not have confidence in this legislation or the amendments to it. The former Secretary of State said that “if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this.” Well, I do not want perfect, but I do want something that protects our veterans from the rinse and repeat. This is not it, as the Secretary of State well knows. I introduced a private Member’s Bill that said there should be no new investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless there was new compelling evidence in the eyes of a Supreme Court judge. The Government successfully talked that out, so our Front Benchers have brought forward new clause 21, which essentially re-presents it. I wish that the Government had taken me up on the offer, and simply had it as one of their amendments. This is the crucial amendment that has the support of all the veterans organisations—because they wrote it. That is how I know they support new clause 21. The word “essential”, which has been substituted for “new and compelling”, does not do it for me, because I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning, saying, “‘Essential’ to my mind means completely new evidence or a new forensic procedure,” but that is the Secretary of State’s interpretation of it. Who is to say how this non-legalese word “essential” will be interpreted in the future? There are just far too many cracks in the pavement into which our service personnel could again fall and be rinsed and repeated. The fact is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has admitted that the Bill does nothing to stop the Loughgall inquest going ahead. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that when he came in front of the Defence Committee last week. I asked him whether anything in the amendments trumped the requirement under the framework for Loughgall to go ahead, or whether the inquests would automatically be restarted. I asked, “will the interpretation of ‘essential’ be, ‘Well yes, because we have committed to it in the framework’?” The Secretary of State for Defence said, “In terms of those particular inquests, there is just not a way of circumventing that particular issue that is consistent with our treaty obligations. With the amendments we have laid, we have got to a place where it deals with some of the fundamental concerns that I as a Member of Parliament, let alone colleagues, had.” So both Secretaries of State admit that these amendments will not stop that inquest going ahead. The combination of veterans’ groups not supporting the Bill and the fact that, by their own admission, the Government cannot get round what they have already given away in terms of those inquests means that I cannot support the Bill, and I will be supporting new clause 21.
Funnily enough, I have not actually approached the Supreme Court, but that is the sort of thing the Secretary of State should have been doing, because that is what the veterans told him would be a sufficiently high bar for them to have confidence in this legislation. Hon. Members across the Committee are being asked to vote tonight. I was going to ask the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether, when he was considering all the people affected by this legislation, he thought that the 1,572 veterans in his constituency just do not matter. All hon. Members have veterans who live in their—
I do not think it is a poor point, because we all have to make judgments in this place and to vote with our conscience.
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogeneous group, but the closest we can approximate to that is the veterans’ organisations that have come together and spoken with one voice, saying that they do not think there are sufficient protections in the Bill for them not to suffer the rinse and repeat. For that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The Opposition support both sets of regulations. These schemes provide financial support to people facing serious illness and to families who have lost someone. Many of those affected worked in some of the toughest industries. Others were exposed to asbestos through a family member’s work or in the environment around them. The central change is welcome. Both sets of regulations bring the rates paid to dependants into line with those paid to those suffering themselves. Putting them on the same footing is an obvious and fair change. A family’s need for support does not disappear because their loved one died before being able to make a claim. These changes recognise that, and we support them. I will turn first to the regulations on the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—or, using the Minister’s helpful language, the 1979 Act scheme. I welcome the practical changes. References to medical boards that no longer exist are being replaced by a reference to an appointed medical practitioner. The regulations also clarify which date is used to determine a person’s age and the payment rate that applies. That should make the rules clearer for claimants and their families. The second set of regulations, on the 2008 Act scheme, concern mesothelioma, a devastating cancer that is linked to asbestos exposure. For those affected and the people caring for them, financial support needs to be accessible and timely. Bringing payments for bereaved dependants into line with those for people living with the disease is an important improvement. Both instruments also clarify what happens when someone makes a claim but dies before payment is made. They provide for payment to the person’s personal representatives—the people responsible for dealing with their estate—once the required legal evidence has been supplied. That clarity is welcome. However, it needs to work in practice for people who are already dealing with bereavement. There are four matters on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. First, the explanatory memorandum says that dependants will benefit from the higher basic awards when the existing top-ups are removed. However, the workers’ compensation regulations also remove a tuberculosis-related top-up paid to sufferers themselves. Can the Minister confirm whether anyone in that group could receive less under the new arrangements—and, if so, what protection has been considered? Secondly, what steps will the Department take to avoid delays where payment must be made through someone’s estate? The regulations will require evidence of probate, or the equivalent legal authority. What practical support will be available, and how quickly will payments be processed once that evidence is received? Bereaved families should have clear information about what they need to provide and what happens next. Thirdly, how will these changes be communicated? The explanatory memorandum for the workers’ compensation regulations says that “no bespoke guidance is being produced”, although internal instructions for staff will be updated. Will the Department work with specialist nurses, clinicians and support organisations so that eligible people understand what they can claim and how to apply? The organisations closest to patients and their families are often best placed to help them access support. Fourthly, I would like to ask about the transition. Under the workers’ compensation regulations, the changes apply where the person first meets the conditions of entitlement on or after 31 October 2026; under the regulations on the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependant rates apply where the person suffering dies on or after that date. What consideration has been given to people who fall just before those cut-offs, but whose claims are still outstanding? They may remain entitled under the existing rules but will miss out on the improvements. Can the Minister explain the approach taken and whether any transitional protection was considered? As I said, we support these changes. We want to see them delivered clearly and promptly so that people facing serious illness and families dealing with loss receive the support they are entitled to.
A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government would set out a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence, but he forgot to say by which year that would happen. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that this is 3% defence spending by 2030?
As it is the first time we have debated, may I begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position? On 26 July, he appeared on the Camilla Tominey show on GB News and was asked, “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stump up enough defence spending, will he resign?” The Secretary of State replied, “Absolutely.” Is that still the case?
The Chancellor resigned then to go to 3% on defence. Bearing that in mind, on the same day, the Secretary of State also appeared on Times Radio and was asked by Adam Boulton if a failure to deliver on defence spending would be a resignation issue for him, as it had been for the now Chancellor. The Secretary of State replied: “It is. It is absolutely, for me, a matter of principle.” It begs a simple question. If the Budget does not deliver 3% for defence by 2030, will he resign?
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Stringer, and to serve on this Committee. I thank Minister for his explanation of the Government’s intentions in relation to the order. As the Minister outlined, the order builds on the changes made by the previous Government in the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Incidentally, they were brought in by a particularly impressive Treasury Minister—I cannot remember his name—while the official Opposition spokesman at the time left a lot to be desired, I have to say. I am pleased to see amendments that aim to simplify the system. As the Minister said, for those who are travelling to Great Britain and for the businesses that sell to them, the order makes a frankly welcome change to some of the regulations I have been responding to since 2024, which have a very different impact on British consumers and businesses. The Opposition will not oppose the measures today, but I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how many people will be impacted by the measure? Secondly, which ports in particular are likely to be affected? Thirdly, the measure is pegged to cost around £500,000, but no explanation has been provided on where that money will be spent, so where will it be spent?
I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister. The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations. As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities. Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side? Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more. Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement. For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins. As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater. It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I join everyone who has spoken so far in paying particular tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery. She started the petition, which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures. In my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I have had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning they do. It forces people to relive their experiences and to talk about them in a way that can be deeply traumatic. I am deeply grateful to everybody who does that, Paris included. In telling us her story, in which her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute, she described how she felt “silenced again”. She said that “it meant he controlled the narrative again”. It took more than 530 days for Paris’s case to reach trial. That is 530 days of sitting, waiting, reliving, expecting and worrying, just to find at the very last minute that he takes back control by changing his plea and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence. It is worth highlighting, as others have done, how the system works. A defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long-standing, and the reason often given is one of cost and logistics, but the other reason, which is particularly important to me, is that it potentially spares victims and witnesses having to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have met victims who have found that process very distressing. The detail of exactly how the reduction process works is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and the courts are required to follow its guidelines, under which the maximum reduction is a third. Unusually for me, I congratulate the Government on at least ignoring the plea in the Leveson review to increase the discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice. After the initial reduction of a third, the discount is a quarter, falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth for a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally be reduced even further, and can even be zero. The court also has to explain whether it has applied a reduction and by how much. It is fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea causes additional distress, and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. As I read it, Paris’s law, for which the petition asks, would mean that someone charged with controlling or coercive behaviour who pleads not guilty and then changes their plea receives no reduction in any circumstances. I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons why I wanted to become an MP was that I felt that our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for all sorts of offences. Morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever. However, the Government’s response to the petition makes the important point that even when an offender pleads guilty very late, that can still spare a victim from having to give potentially traumatic evidence. If a is victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that should be worth something. As Paris’s campaign has pointed out, there is a real risk, in these particular types of case, of creating an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of ultimately pleading guilty to drag the process out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, and as others have said, that can also happen as part of an attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence. Both those reasons should cause us to pause when considering discounts. I gave this matter a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it is a question of how we weigh up two potential public goods, and something done in the interest of victims. Ultimately, how do we decide on the level of distress, discomfort and worse for people who have to wait and then see a discount with a last-minute plea, versus another group of victims who will perhaps benefit from the fact that they have not had to endure a trial? It is not easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. It has certainly given us all a lot to think about, in relation not just to the specific cause the petitioner has brought to our attention but to the general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls. As other Members have mentioned, we know that every week women are killed—murdered by men—and we still have an epidemic of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. It is helpful to consider how the position has changed over time. The previous Government made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act 2015. They also passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which wrote coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, new guidance was brought forward to protect people who do not live with their abuser from threats and intimidation. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 then introduced the powers that this Government have now used so that offenders who are convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are used to monitor someone’s risk to other people when they are not in prison. I welcome the Government’s use of those powers, but there is clearly more to do. There are several issues that it is important to consider, even if we do not all agree that the proposal in the petition is quite ready to be supported universally. What are the Government seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas through other mechanisms? I have frequently heard that allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice, whereby someone can make it clear to them face to face that their chances of getting away with an offence are pretty slim, can encourage earlier guilty pleas. The Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings; I visited Liverpool Crown court, which instituted further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements in respect of early guilty pleas. I am sure I am right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris’s case had got the full sentence, Paris, like many victims, would still not have been satisfied that it was anywhere near long enough, given the impact of these crimes on women. That is what I have drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board, which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to the Government’s reduction in jail time for a sweeping range of offenders. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will now serve just a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. It was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that a whole range of rapists, paedophiles and terrible abusers of women and girls will not be released after a third of their sentence instead of two fifths. Is the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour excluded alongside the exclusions that we managed to secure from the Government for rape and other offences? One of the reasons the Gauke review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is that it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see or whether they think sentences are sufficiently just. My former Justice Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), talked about concurrent sentences; they are the norm in our judicial system, yet I do not think I have ever met a victim who thinks they makes sense in the vast majority of circumstances. Some people are convicted for hundreds of offences, but even though sentences are ramped up when someone has that many convictions, they are still nothing like what they should be if they were not served concurrently. We are committed to recognising that we did not do enough in government to ensure sufficient prison capacity so that we can actually engage with these issues. We want to undo all the damaging shortening of sentences we have seen under this Government and go further. On discounts, there might be better acceptance of them if victims at least felt that the ultimate sentences, even with a discount, were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience they do not at the moment. Even if we are not quite there on this issue, as Paris says on her website, “Paris’s Law was never about one petition, one debate or one event. It’s about creating lasting change.” There are many ways in which we can do that across the board when it comes to the abuse of women in all its forms.