Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Hard-working traders at Stockton’s historic Shambles shopping centre were shocked to receive letters from Stockton’s Labour council telling them that they were to be evicted and inviting them to a meeting with less than 24 hours’ notice. I have been along to meet them and they are devastated, fearful for their futures and for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that councils should be backing small independent businesses, not making them homeless without alternatives?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In reply to an earlier question, the Planning Minister said that he wanted to increase the number of people who engage in the preparation of local plans. He will know that even if that number was doubled, it would still be a small proportion of the local community. When applications are being considered, local communities want them to be decided and determined by local authorities with minimal central input. Will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will continue to have that power?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. Will he put on record whether he thinks that any of the 500 veterans who he has met are naive?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the 170,000 people who signed the petition, particularly those from my Spelthorne constituency. I served four tours in Northern Ireland and dedicated three and a half years of my life to trying to bring peace to that place. My first tour was in Belfast in 1992. It was a guinea a minute—a young Captain Jopp and a young Lieutenant Ben Wallace were on the same tour. The IRA at the time was fully aware of our rules of engagement —the so-called yellow card that has been referred to today. In fact, the IRA designed a whole weapons system around it. It was called the coffee jar bomb. It was a coffee jar, funnily enough—usually Nescafé, although other coffees are available. The IRA would take a small piece of scaffolding and put it in the coffee jar alongside a detonator, a small amount of Semtex and what was affectionately known as “shipyard confetti”. The coffee jar also held a switch from a fridge so that when the jar was thrown and broke on the ground, the bomb went off and the bits went everywhere. We knew that these bombs were incredibly lethal because, a year before, one had been thrown at a dog handler called Darren, who had been feeding his dog. He had watched as his left leg flew 20 metres away, his other leg a smouldering wreck. We knew they were very dangerous. When we were training to deal with these bombs, we went to a cine range. We would be there with a sub-cal, looking at a movie screen that showed a street scene. The film would stop and we would see a threat. We were trained, when we went to Northern Ireland, to identify the presence of the abnormal or the absence of the normal in order to set the context. We would see a perceived threat, the threat would build up and we would be invited to fire the round. A little yellow dot would go on to the screen, and our instructor would say, “Congratulations—you have successfully carried out the rules of engagement”. However, the coffee jar bomb presented a massive dilemma. Could we shoot someone simply for having a coffee jar in their hand or being in the process of throwing one? It was purely designed to put soldiers, like me and the 24,000 others who served there, under incredible pressure. I remember one moment with a real dilemma in the cine film. I said, “Can I fire now?” The instructor said, “This is a very tough moment, but it is a moment to remind yourself, Sir, that it is sometimes better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six.” Pretty chilling—particularly when two of our guardsmen on that tour subsequently had to make a judgment in a shooting situation. One of them believed they had seen a coffee jar in a plastic bag. It turns out that they did not get tried by 12 men; they were tried by one. They were convicted and given life imprisonment. That is the point: all the cases that we have come here to talk about went through a rigorous judicial process at the time. It is horrific double jeopardy, and in some cases treble jeopardy, to put our veterans through that process again. The Veterans Minister knows this well, but there are three components to fighting power: the moral, the physical and the conceptual. It is a very well-known model; Napoleon said, “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” We undermine the moral component of fighting power at our peril. I was recently appalled to see a GIF that a veteran sent me on my phone. It was a picture of the Prime Minister very recently addressing a number of troops. The subtitle underneath said: “We want you to go to Ukraine to do things which we are going to prosecute you for in 30 years’ time.” We undermine the moral component at our peril. To understand the context in which these mendacious and vexatious prosecutions will be pursued, I remind the Secretary of State of the moment when Stormont was recalled because someone had put a vase of flowers in the lobby, and the whole Assembly had to be recalled to debate the colour of the flowers. Why? Because after the Good Friday agreement, everything becomes a proxy answer to the question: who won? The Good Friday agreement was, by necessity, a compromise—it was a peace agreement. However, ever since, everyone has been trying to relitigate the question of who won. It is essential that we do not allow our veterans and their prosecution to become pawns in that proxy game. I will leave it at that. I think the Veterans Minister and the Secretary of State are having a lively debate behind the scenes, but I invite the Secretary of State to listen very carefully to the Veterans Minister, who has the ear of veterans. I think I know where the Veterans Minister is coming from, and I expect the Government to do the right thing.
- Hansard source
Draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
rose—
- Hansard source
Draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
rose—
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T10. Will the Minister outline what new planning powers could be provided to local councils to ensure that my local communities in Broxbourne can say no to houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—where they are not wanted?
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I have been a bit taken aback by the lack of humility shown by the Home Secretary in the face of what has been a catastrophic first 12 months in terms of crossing numbers. It might have been better for her to acknowledge that “smash the gangs”, which she was always told was going to be a complete failure, has indeed been so. I suppose we should be grateful that she has finally reached for the briefing notes left in the Home Office and No. 10—not about a returns agreement but about a swaps agreement. I suppose I offer her congratulations on getting that deal over the line with the French. However, I disagree with her about it not being a silver bullet; I think this has always been the only solution. But she will know that it will be effective only if we can get to a very high percentage of returns to France. I have two questions. First, what further incentive could she offer to the French to go beyond this relatively small pilot? Given that we are offering swaps and the theory is that no one will then cross, would she be willing to go for a two-for-one swap? Secondly, as she pointed out, the gangs will react, so does she plan to cut a similar deal with the Belgians?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert— “(2BA) But a judge may determine that an order does not continue to have effect for a person “P” during the appeal period if, on granting leave to appeal at any stage, they are satisfied that— (a) “P” faces a real and substantial threat of serious harm as a result of the order, (b) continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal, or (c) the duration of the appeal process has been excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.”
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I am pleased to be opening this debate, although, given the turnout in the Chamber, it seems to be a minority interest among Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation affects some of our most basic freedoms and rights. Before I address amendment 1, I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I briefly indulge in a preamble. There are a couple of issues that I want to impress on the Minister in the hope that he will respond favourably and, if not accept my amendment, agree to consider the principles it raises in the other place. Given the number of senior lawyers there, this legislation will be examined by some pretty stringent legal eyes. First, Madam Chair, I hope you will agree that we established on Second Reading that this Bill is highly discriminatory. One of the truisms we always utter in this House is that we all stand equal before the law, but I am afraid that where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true. The Minister would be unable to wield against me the powers he is seeking to bring in under this Bill; it would not be countenanced because I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are Members of this House against whom the Minister could wield that power. Although he could not wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children, although not against the other one—I have three. He could wield it against the children of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); against the children of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt); and against the children of the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I am trying to illustrate to the Minister that this legislation is highly discriminatory, and unusually so. He is tampering with some of the basic tenets of British justice through this Bill—a principle has been established in the Supreme Court that he is attempting to reverse—and I want him to have in mind that he is trying to embed that discrimination in law. I hope and believe that that is not his primary motivation, but he must comprehend that before he takes this step. Secondly, I say to the Minister, who has a distinguished record of service in the defence of this country and now serves as Security Minister, that much of the Bill is, let us face it, focused on those accused of committing terrorism here or overseas. Terrorists win in two ways: first, by the physical injury that they inflict and the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs, killing people and all the horrors we have seen in our lifetimes over the past 30 or 40 years, if not longer; and secondly, by a long, slow undermining of our way of life and by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around the freedoms that make us different, which they despise, and slowly to erode our standard of living and the atmosphere in which we live, and we have seen that before in this country. The Minister is old enough to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where hearings were held without juries. We dispensed with the basic freedom of the right to a jury trial in Northern Ireland for a while, largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the Six Counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means, so the IRA saw that move as a triumph. What terrorists want in the long term is a twisting of our natural freedoms. They want us to make compromises in our legislation that undermine our sense of belonging in our nation and create a division not just between the governed and the Government, but within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that. On Second Reading I pointed out, as I have possibly already done today—I hate to be repetitive—that this legislation and this power create two classes of citizenship in the UK. There are those who can have the order removed and those who never can have it removed. As use of the power has accelerated over the past two decades, and we are using it now more than we ever did, it creates a feeling of unease among those whose citizenship is conditional. I will explain to the Minister why I tabled amendment 1. As I said on Second Reading, my view is that he is undermining some of the basic tenets of British justice with what he is attempting to do with this legislation. With this amendment, I am attempting to swing the pendulum back a little in the cause of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases, and courts will decide whether to allow their appeal. Broadly, there are three areas on which they can appeal: the first is whether the decision was proportional; the second is whether it was procedurally fair; and the third is whether the Minister or the Home Secretary has made a mistake over whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere and so may in fact be rendered stateless. As he knows, that is not allowed under the legislation. If I have had my citizenship deprived essentially at the stroke of a pen by the Home Secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems unfair, given that I have won that appeal on the basis of fact, that the Government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent, and he won on principle at Second Reading, and that is fine. I am therefore appealing to his sense of good old British fair play to say, “This individual has won their first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we will not appeal, in which case they get their citizenship back.” On the basis of the fundamental British value of “innocent until proven guilty”, that person should get their citizenship back, particularly if a judge decides that the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
By all means. I know he is a busy man, and I do not mean to be critical.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
The Minister is a fair man and a fair-minded man. He is quite right, and I am willing to countenance his appeal and give him the benefit of the doubt, and that is exactly what I am asking for the individuals subject to this legislation. He will know that we have certain inalienable constitutional rights as British citizens, which this legislation contravenes. The first is that we have a right to a fair hearing and that any action the Government take must be exercised fairly. That right has been established in the common law again and again, and most recently in 1994, in the case of ex parte Doody, when the court decided that Ministers must exercise their powers fairly. The second inalienable right, which has been decided in the Supreme Court, is that we all have a right to access to the courts, and that cannot be unfairly restricted. As that has been decided by the Supreme Court, the Government cannot put up artificial barriers to our access, such as raising fees or making sure that we cannot physically get to the court. Indeed, as the Minister will know, I have an absolute right to defend myself in person at every stage of legal action, whether that is at first hearing or at subsequent appeal. All those powers or rights that I have as a citizen are affected by the legislation he is attempting to put through. My amendment essentially says three things. If the Government failed to win an appeal, but wished to continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal, they must, when seeking leave to appeal from the judge, also ask the judge for leave to continue the deprivation of citizenship. The judge basically could say no in three circumstances. First, the judge could say no if there is a real and substantial threat of serious harm to that individual if they were denied access to the United Kingdom. Some of these people will be living or operating from extremely dangerous places. If that person is likely to be killed pending further appeal on the denial of their citizenship, it would seem grossly unfair, their having already won an appeal, to deny them access to the country. The second ground would be if their exclusion from the UK and the continuing of denial of citizenship would be deeply prejudicial to the conduct of their defence in an appeal that the Government subsequently decided to bring. In such a case, it would be impossible for me to defend myself at appeal in person, which should be my inalienable right as a British citizen. It would be impossible for me to do that remotely in some God-forsaken part of the world where I cannot Zoom in or I do not have the ability to communicate. It would be the same if I am unable to communicate with my legal team. I am sure the Minister can see that it would be unfair to interfere with someone’s ability to mount a proper defence—we should not forget that that person has already won an appeal—through the continuing denial of citizenship. The third ground, which we covered on Second Reading, is the Government’s taking their time, achieving their objective merely by dragging their heels and playing for time, hoping that something, perhaps something untoward, will turn up. A judge should then make a judgment—the clue is in the name—on whether they are being efficient in their use of the legal system, rather than, as I am afraid happens from time to time, gaming it to their own advantage.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I would have more faith, or confidence, in his view if it applied to me as well, which it does not. What we are saying is that we can have two British citizens who commit the same heinous acts but receive two different kinds of treatment. One can have his or her citizenship removed and be expelled from the country, but another—say I were to do that—cannot. My view is that this is highly discriminatory, and tramples over some of the inalienable rights that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We currently have plenty of British citizens in high-security prisons who have committed acts as heinous as those committed by people whom we have deprived of British citizenship, but we have decided to deprive them of British citizenship purely because of their heritage and background—purely because they may be second-generation immigrants. As I pointed out on Second Reading, this legislation applies to every single Jewish member of the United Kingdom citizenry. They all have an inalienable right to Israeli citizenship, and as a result, in my view, they all have second-class citizenship. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that it is fair. I think that it drives a wedge into our society, and sows a seed of doubt at the back of everyone’s mind. This is the point that I was trying to make at the start. Those who perpetrate such heinous acts overseas absolutely should be punished. As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years I have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that as many criminals as possible end up behind bars, whatever the criminality might be, but the fact is that there is a principle in British law—we are all supposed to be equal—and the Bill breaches that principle very significantly. Moreover, what the Government are attempting to do not only reinforces that breach, but aims to twist and skew fundamental tenets of British justice that have been our right for centuries.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The test of mental capacity in the judicial system applies to everyone equally. If I were being prosecuted for an offence, I would be assessed for mental capacity, just as my hon. Friend would. The court would accept that there might be mitigations for his actions, or a requirement for a different disposal if he lacks mental capacity, but that is an external influence on him. It may come about owing to mental illness or some other kind of disability—who knows? The point is that this comes about through no reason other than birth. My citizenship, or my lack of citizenship, is conferred on me by reason of my birth—my parentage, or my heritage. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot be treated for it, as I can be for mental illness. This is purely because my parents may have come from another country, my skin may be of a different colour, or the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship. It is something arbitrary, about which I can do nothing. We might as well have a piece of legislation that says that people with red hair receive different treatment under the law, because there is nothing they can do about that.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
The hon. Lady has made a very good point. My problem with this legislation is that it places a question mark over certain citizens. I am not suggesting that the legislation is on everyone’s lips every day, but when it is used with increasing frequency, it does place a question mark over people’s status as citizens of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, should be a matter of concern.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I understand what the Minister is saying, and, as I said to him on Second Reading, I am not concerned about this power falling into his hands, but we do not know who will be in his position in the future, and we are never quite sure how the power might develop. As I have said, over the years we have seen an acceleration and an increase in what is a very draconian power that we should be taking extremely seriously. To deprive people of their citizenship is a profoundly serious thing to do, which may well—indeed, will—affect them for the rest of their lives. No doubt it will be done in the face of extremely serious offences on the Minister’s watch, but I am not sure that that will necessarily always be the case. Given that under the power that is being created people can be expelled on the basis that their presence is not conducive to the public good, we could see its being used in combination with other powers that have been expanded recently. Just last week, in controversial terms, the Minister proscribed a particular organisation operating in this country. I am sure he will be able to explain, but in my experience—I think he referred to this at the time—proscription has been reserved for terrorist organisations. As the Minister has indicated, this power is reserved for those who are terrorists. Could it be used against individuals who are convicted of crimes under that proscription? That is the danger that I am trying to illustrate to him, and this is an area of law where I urge him to tread carefully and to think about the compromises that he is creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain, at the same time—I do not dispute his motivation—as protecting the United Kingdom in the best way he possibly can. I am just worried that he is taking a step too far.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
To refer back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), would the hon. Lady be interested to comment on this point? My understanding is that, under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland has a right to claim Irish citizenship. This Bill in effect means that every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland can be deprived of their citizenship—have it removed by the Home Secretary—if that is conducive to the public good. That is another example of a whole group of people who would have a second class of citizenship.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I am very grateful to the Minister. I have just a couple of points to make, if I may. He is quite right that timetables are agreed and there can be case management reviews, but there is nothing the court can do to restore someone’s citizenship even if the Government do drag their heels. If he could explain to us, perhaps in a little more detail, what recourse I would have were I somebody who had won an appeal, was awaiting a further appeal by the Government against me and mounting a defence but the Government were dragging their heels and basically ignoring the case management reviews. I do not think it is the case that the judge would just dismiss the appeal out of hand. The Government could effectively take their time. I have a second question, if I may. Can the Minister tell the House whether, in his view, given that it is a subjective judgment by the Home Secretary, membership of a proscribed organisation would be prima facie grounds for the deprivation of citizenship?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The chair of the working group on anti-Muslin hatred/Islamophobia, Dominic Grieve, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, has previously stated a preference for a definition of Islamophobia that would shut down talk of religion in cases like the grooming gangs scandal. All other members of that committee—again, appointed by the Secretary of State—are adherents of the Muslim faith. Does the Secretary of State not share our concerns that their report and recommendations will be seen as predetermined and biased?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Incendiary language? I was merely stating the facts; that is the reality. The right hon. Lady is right in one regard: freedom of speech is on the line. The current position is that the report will be for Government eyes only, and that the decision on a definition will be taken in private. Will she at least commit to making the full report publicly available so that it can be scrutinised in the House and elsewhere before a decision is taken?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I thank all Members for their contributions, Members who tabled amendments, and the Minister for his work and approach. As has been set out, the Bill represents an important step towards tightening the existing rules on the deprivation of citizenship, as we discussed on Second Reading. This is a crucial tool that Home Secretaries must be able to exercise as part of their broader efforts to keep our country safe. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. We cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, but where we can, we should. Put simply, the intent of this Bill is to make sure that the Home Secretary’s use of deprivation powers is effective. More broadly, it also intends to make it clear that, when considering the use of the deprivation powers, politically accountable Ministers must ultimately be responsible for the final decision. The amendments must be viewed in that light.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I start by thanking the Minister for his work on the Bill. It is always a pleasure to work across from him in defence of our great country and its people. Keeping our country safe sometimes requires taking difficult decisions, including the decision to deprive a person of their British citizenship. Working flagrantly against our country’s interests as, say, a terrorist does clearly demonstrates a disregard for the responsibilities of citizenship. Such people should not be able to hide behind a passport, and it is therefore right that the Home Secretary retains the power to deprive them of citizenship where it is possible to do so. It is also right that this power remains effective. We believe that the Bill is an important step towards ensuring that efficacy and clarifying Parliament’s intention on how those powers can be used. Given that we are in agreement on the substance of the Bill itself, I would like to briefly make a broader point about what the legislation represents in terms of our constitution and Parliament’s role within it. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the main role of the judiciary in our system is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will; it is not the highest arbiter of our constitution. In most cases, with the exception of some prerogative powers, its only role in reviewing ministerial powers is to ensure that they are exercised according to the guidelines set out by Parliament. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, Parliament is therefore perfectly entitled to overturn that decision and to clarify its will. This is a living and breathing institution, which should be at the centre of our political system, because Parliament is ultimately answerable to the British people themselves. The Bill before us represents one such clarification. At a time when it can seem that many on the Government Benches are happy to defer to the judiciary as a matter of course, it is heartening to see the Minister take a different approach—one that recognises the fact that Parliament is the cornerstone of our system—and I thank him for that. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it, but it must do so. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
- Hansard source
High Streets
14. What steps she is taking to support high streets.
- Hansard source
High Streets
I hear what the Minister is saying, but our high streets are under enormous pressure because of Labour’s jobs tax and cuts to business rates relief. As good tax-paying shops shut down, they are being replaced by dodgy front businesses. To fight that in my constituency, Havering trading standards last week seized £17,000-worth of illicit goods from one shop in Upminster through a collaboration between the council, the public, the police and me as the MP. This vital work is at risk because the Government are planning to shift council grant money away from the capital and up to places in the north of England. Can the Minister assure me that Labour is not, in the Mayor of London’s words, planning to “level down” the capital by threatening resources for councils here?
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I fear it is another week, another fig leaf from this Government on small boat crossings, which are up 40% under Labour. I hope this French deal works, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) says, the numbers of returns need to be very substantial, not just a modest pilot. We are also now waiting to hear from the EU about whether it will approve this very modest UK-French migration deal. We know from experience that the EU tends not to give such approval without extracting a heavy price, so can the Home Secretary guarantee that the UK will not sign up to any element of the EU pact on migration and asylum, when it launches next year, that could see us accepting much larger asylum transfers from the continent?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 725716 relating to the prosecution of Northern Ireland veterans. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I am pleased to fulfil my duty in opening today’s debate and presenting this petition, which has been signed by more than 170,000 people. I thank the petition’s creator, Ian Liles, who joins us in the Public Gallery today. Ian spent 36 years in the Army, including 13 years in Northern Ireland. I know that Members will thank him, and all the veterans in the Gallery and those watching across the country, for their service. The petition states: “We think that the Government should not make any changes to legislation that would allow Northern Ireland Veterans to be prosecuted for doing their duty in combating terrorism as part of ‘Operation Banner’.” The role that British soldiers play in keeping our country safe cannot be overstated. They put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they put themselves in harm’s way to do so. But there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces today—a political and legal attack that is targeting veterans of Northern Ireland who served under Operation Banner. In recent weeks, I have had the privilege of speaking to organisations and campaigners across communities in Northern Ireland. I have also heard from many of my constituents in the Scottish Borders who feel passionately about the need to protect our veterans from prosecution. I thank hon. and right hon. Members across this House for their advice and guidance in preparing for today’s debate. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions last week, as well as the Minister for Veterans in the last Government, Johnny Mercer, for his work to protect and defend Northern Ireland veterans during his time around the Cabinet table. This Labour Government have taken the decision to repeal the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I believe that decision will shame our country for decades to come. Operation Banner took place between 1969 and 2007. It was a name given to the operations by British forces in Northern Ireland to stop IRA attacks, spanning Labour and Conservative Governments and seven Prime Ministers. The previous Conservative Government introduced the legacy Act, which was designed to end the shameful spectacle of British veterans being dragged through the courts for actions taken decades ago, when they were simply following the orders of the Government of the day.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will consider more fully later. In 1998, as the then Prime Minister Tony Blair approached the end of his negotiations on the Good Friday agreement, one final demand was made. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness said that they could not go ahead with the deal—they were fearful of community pushback and wanted to give terrorists amnesty from prosecution. So a deal was done. On-the-run letters were given to suspected IRA terrorists, telling them that they were no longer wanted. The letters gave protection to terrorists, but nothing was offered to the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. The years that followed saw historical cases, which were investigated at the time, being re-examined. Veterans were dragged to court on politically motivated charges—a witch hunt—and that is why we needed the legacy Act. The Secretary of State and this Labour Government now want to repeal the protection afforded to soldiers as a result of that legislation. We are told that will be achieved by removing parts of the legacy Act via a remedial order, and that the Government will later introduce new primary legislation. The Prime Minister’s Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said that this immoral “two-tier justice” will lead to “vexatious lawfare” against former soldiers. It sets a dangerous historical precedent. Are we now saying that if the Government send our troops into conflict, soldiers could be held to account in years to come for following the instructions given to them by this Government? If that is the case, why would anybody choose to serve our country? That is the reality facing many of our Northern Ireland veterans today. During my preparations for this debate, I spoke to one group who said that, should the legacy Act be revoked, the number of veterans prosecuted would be only in the low single figures, but that is still too many. It fails to recognise the worry and anxiety that it will cause our veterans, many of whom are in old age, and their families. Let me be clear: if soldiers went out with murderous intent, they should be held to account. The rule of law should apply to those soldiers as it applies to the rest of us. However, the petition creator told me that he knows of no soldier who went out deliberately to murder. It is also important to remember that, when someone was killed during the troubles, it was investigated—sometimes three times, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police and the coroner’s court.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is no equivalence between a terrorist—somebody who sets out in the morning with murderous intent—and a soldier who is defending democracy and our country. Sadly, we seem to be creating some sort of equivalence, which should not be allowed to happen. Dennis Hutchings was a former member of the Life Guards Regiment. He was a terminally ill, 80-year-old veteran who was dragged to Northern Ireland during the pandemic in 2021. He died of covid just three days into his court case. Dennis was hounded for several years—told he was cleared, and then not—and then forced to fly to Belfast to stand trial. There was no new compelling evidence, and it was simply not in the public interest. It was a barbaric way to treat an elderly man who had served our country. His lawyer said that the case contributed to his death, and that it was likely that he would not have died at that point if he had not been forced to go to Northern Ireland to stand trial for an incident that occurred in 1974. It is all too easy for us to sit here, look at the evidence and try to justify why a trial is in the public interest, but doing so fails to recognise the instant, life-or-death decisions that these soldiers in Northern Ireland had to take every single day. It is a rewriting of history. Decades on, people sit and judge events in retrospect, with little new evidence, and come to conclusions entirely at odds with the legal investigations at the time. The Government cannot and must not lose sight of their moral responsibility and commitment to our veterans, and to the armed forces covenant.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
The hon. Member makes an important point about the supposed unlawful nature of the Act. I do not accept that it is unlawful. Yes, the court said that, but it is up to this Government to appeal. The question is why they dropped that appeal. There is a winnable case to be made, on behalf of the British nation, to uphold the legacy Act and defend our veterans. By not doing so, the Government are letting down our veterans. The Government must not lose sight of their moral responsibility and commitment to our veterans, and to the armed forces covenant. That responsibility is just as important for veterans who served decades ago in Northern Ireland as it is for former and current service personnel who served in more recent conflicts.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he highlights the grave concerns that many of us have about how human rights legislation is being applied in ways that were not intended, and that undermine and attack the sovereignty of this place.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
The rule of law absolutely needs to be applied equally, which is why I said earlier that those soldiers who are found to have set out with the wrong intention should be held to account, but there is no equivalence between the actions of a terrorist and the actions of British soldiers acting to defend democracy and all the communities in Northern Ireland. I will now talk about what soldiers serving in Northern Ireland did to ensure that they were doing everything required. Soldiers serving in Northern Ireland followed the yellow card—the rules of engagement for when they could open fire—which was approved at Cabinet level. They were given orders by the Government of the day, and they followed those orders. The Government have said that they want to repeal sections of the Northern Ireland legacy Act, and that decision will have two major ramifications. First, it will remove key parts of the legacy Act designed to protect Operation Banner veterans from endless pursuit in the courts. That raises deep concern and anger for those who signed the petition, for many across the House and for organisations such as the Royal British Legion, which has expressed its concern about the impact on veterans. Secondly, it will permit Gerry Adams and former terrorists to sue the Government, and effectively British taxpayers, for potentially hundreds of millions of pounds. Should the remedial order be endorsed by Parliament, it could result in a six-figure payout to Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was considered not by the Secretary of State but by a junior Minister. That is simply outrageous. We have seen many examples of two-tier justice since the Labour Government came to power, but that may be the worst of all. Are the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag Northern Ireland veterans through the courts, while potentially paying millions to terrorists? How do those on the Government Benches expect to go back to their constituencies and explain why they have just voted for the prosecution of veterans while allowing terrorists to sue the taxpayer? They know that is not right. We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent: to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not: they put themselves in harm’s way to keep people safe and to protect our nation. The difference is the intent. Soldiers serving our country are not lawyers sat behind a desk, able to gather a team and spend days deciding whether to act or not. They do their job in high-pressure, dangerous environments, and must take instant decisions to protect themselves. It is what we train them to do. The legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. Doing so is not sustainable legally or morally. The alternative is constant legal battles, civil claims that go on indefinitely and the erosion of public trust in both justice and Government. Veterans who served in Northern Ireland have been through thorough, intense and extensive scrutiny already. What the Government plan to do to the legacy Act undermines the peace process that our veterans fought so hard to achieve.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
I accept that in Northern Ireland the political reaction to the legacy Act is mixed, but it was the decision of this Parliament to enact the Act. The reaction of veterans groups, many of whom are in the room with us today, has been almost universal in its condemnation of the Government’s decision to try to repeal key parts of that Act. I am in no doubt whose side I am on: I am standing with the veterans who fought so hard to achieve peace and defend our country. Today’s debate is hugely important. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here to listen to the concerns of the petitioner, and those of myself and I am sure many other colleagues. But we need answers from the Secretary of State, not least on when the remedial order will be debated and voted on. What other primary legislation do the Government intend to bring forward, and what is the timescale for doing so? Lastly, will the Government commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the new legislation? There are nearly 2 million veterans across our country. The sad truth is that many feel that their service is no longer respected. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have spoken about the need to support our armed forces. If that is the case, it is a completely hypocritical decision to allow prosecutions even to be contemplated.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right that we should be with our veterans 100%, which is what I am hopefully doing during this speech. Veterans are only demanding protection for following orders from high command and from vexatious, politically charged lawsuits. The Government’s position is destroying morale in the armed forces and is deeply unjust to veterans. The Government of the day, whatever Government that may be, must have the backs of our soldiers. They are extraordinary men and women who keep us safe and who go on difficult missions in dangerous and challenging places. They must be backed from cradle to grave. They protected our society, our freedom and justice in Northern Ireland. Surely, we owe them their own freedom in return.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. Home ownership feels increasingly out of reach for many first-time buyers, particularly for young families who want to remain in the beautiful Scottish Borders. What can the Government do to ensure that house builders deliver more affordable family-sized homes in all parts of the United Kingdom so that local people have the chance to own their home in the communities where they were brought up?
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I always try to avoid rhetoric in this matter, and I fully concede—this bit is agreed—that my party lost a significant number of MPs because of our failure to deliver on a number of issues prior to the election. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about stronger partnerships, stronger law enforcement action and groundbreaking returns agreement, but does she not recognise that the scale of the problem, as evidenced by the numbers since the general election, and the scale of public concern require a much bigger solution than what is proposed? Without a significant deterrent on a much bigger scale much sooner, she is not going to fix this problem to public satisfaction.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
Will the hon. Lady give way?