debates/debates2025-10-15b conversation_1
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-15)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-15b conversation_1

Gareth Snell:What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. \p Hilary Benn: The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by our domestic courts, as well as by victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, not least because it proposed giving immunity from prosecution for the most appalling terrorist crimes. Any incoming Government would have had to fix this mess, and that is what this Government are seeking to do with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which we published yesterday. \p Luke Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his remarks in yesterday’s statement about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces and veterans, including those who live in my constituency of Basingstoke, in their roles in Northern Ireland, across the UK and abroad. What discussions has he had with veterans, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People on the new provisions and protections in the new legislation? \p Hilary Benn: I have had many such discussions, as I indicated in my statement to the House yesterday, and those have informed the package of veterans protections contained in the Bill, which the Government have set out. \p Gareth Snell: When the unlawful legacy Act shut down 200 investigations into the deaths of British soldiers, people across the country, including in my constituency, will have thought that was desperately unfair, and not just on those individuals but on the families and victims. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that under the new legacy Act there will be opportunities for those victims finally to get the justice they deserve? \p Hilary Benn: There certainly will, because with the commission as it is now and with the commission as it will be reformed by the troubles Bill, any incident relating to the troubles anywhere in the United Kingdom can be referred into the commission. The M62 coach bombing, the Kingsmill massacre and the Warrenpoint massacre are all currently the subject of investigation by the commission. \p Julian Smith: Many families are desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is often not about wanting to take legal action; they just want to know. Under this new Bill, how quickly will that be delivered for those families? How quickly will they get the information that they have waited decades to receive? \p Hilary Benn: I know from my discussions with the commission that it is working hard with the 100 or so cases that it is already dealing with to go through that process and start producing reports for families. We know that many families have decided not to engage with the commission because they objected to the legacy Act and, in particular, to the immunity it was proposing to give. That is why we are removing that. I encourage more families to come forward, because I know that the commission and its staff are determined to try to provide the answers that those families seek. \p David Davis: The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which

“put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”.

That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not. \p Hilary Benn: On the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, for anyone who was serving a sentence for a troubles-related offence, part of the Good Friday agreement was that they were released after two years. The people of Northern Ireland voted for that by about 70%. It was part of the agreement. On his second point, there were specific issues in the case of Mr Downey, because he had been given a letter that said he was not wanted when in fact he was. That is why that prosecution could not proceed. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is undermined by the fact that Mr Downey—this is a matter of public record—is currently facing prosecution for two counts of murder in 1972. It therefore cannot be the case that any letter he received gave him an amnesty. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important? \p Hilary Benn: It certainly does make it more important, because it is a piece of legislation that has not worked and did not command support in Northern Ireland. If legislation is passed in this House that does not command support in Northern Ireland, how on earth can we expect the answers that families are seeking, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) referred to a moment ago, to be provided? We have a responsibility to give more people in Northern Ireland confidence in the new arrangement so that they will come forward to get the answers they have been seeking. \p Jim Allister: The Secretary of State has done much to talk up the alleged special provisions in relation to ex-servicemen, but legally is it not the case that any such provisions would have to apply across the board? If I am wrong about that, will the Secretary of State now tell the House which special provisions apply exclusively and only to servicemen? \p Hilary Benn: The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses. \p Colum Eastwood: Many families have been struggling and campaigning for years for truth and justice, and they are now hopeful that we can get to the truth. We know that MI5 admitted only a few months ago that it had not given all of the files over to Operation Kenova. I am also aware that there are many Northern Ireland Office and MOD files that have not yet gone through the freedom of information process and are therefore not available to the National Archives. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that those files are available to the new legacy commission? \p Hilary Benn: The legacy commission has the right to receive all information that it requires to do its job. We are proposing in the legislation to amend the arrangements for disclosure, to require the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise, which was not in the previous Act, and to require the Secretary of State to give reasons, in line with standards that apply across the UK. In addition, any decision of the Secretary of State is open to be judicially reviewed. Those are important changes that I hope will give people in Northern Ireland greater confidence. \p Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State said yesterday that his new legacy commission will not relitigate previous investigations involving veterans unless there are “compelling reasons” to do so. That is reinforced in clause 30 of the Bill that has now been published. To remove scope from opportunistic lawyers, would he consider defining far more closely than he has done up to this point precisely what he means by “compelling reasons”? \p Hilary Benn: That is no doubt an issue that the House will discuss as the Bill is considered in detail. I think that “compelling” and “essential” is a pretty high bar. It will be for the commission to interpret that, but no doubt we will continue to discuss it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general? \p Hilary Benn: The Government are absolutely committed to the European convention on human rights. I very much regret that the current Opposition have moved away from that historic support, which goes right back to Winston Churchill, as the hon. Member has set out. It is highly irresponsible to suggest picking away at one of the essential foundations of the Good Friday agreement. \p Gavin Robinson: Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”? \p Hilary Benn: The clauses that would implement the protections in relation to veterans and others are clauses 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 56, 69 and 84. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! \p Gavin Robinson: Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage.

To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland.  If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments? \p Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on amendments that I have not yet seen. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I want to work in as collegiate a way as possible in trying to take the legislation through. In respect to the first part of his question, however, I would say that the only reason the protections and clauses I just read out are in the Bill is because of the Government’s determination to treat our veterans fairly.