I join you, Mr Speaker, in your tribute to Liam Laurence Smyth, and I wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a very happy birthday.
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights compliant and independent legacy commission that will carry out investigations and provide family reports on behalf of families who have waited far too long for answers.
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. The dates for Committee stage and for the next stage of the remedial order will be announced in the normal way. Just to correct the record, if he is referring to the protections in the conditional immunity scheme that were set out in the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, that scheme was never enacted and has never had effect, so the arrival of the newly elected Government has not changed the position in that respect at all. As he will be well aware, the Government have brought forward in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill protections for veterans that were not contained in the 2023 legacy Act. We are consulting further with veterans and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will bring forward further proposals when Committee stage happens.
That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?
First, there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution, because for that argument to be advanced, as others have done in the House, one is saying that independent prosecutors bring prosecutions for vexation or politically motivated reasons, and that is not the case. When it comes to civil claims, the previous Government, in their legislation, left 800 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence in place, and it is almost unknown for an individual veteran to be called to give evidence in such cases.
One of the lingering legacies of violence in Northern Ireland is our outrageous and distressing levels of violence against women and girls, in the echo of menace and threat that still exists in Northern Ireland. The murders this month of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty bring to 33 the number of women and girls who have been murdered by men they knew. We grieve with their families, and we commend the family of Natalie McNally, who with decency and dignity finally got justice for her murder. Is the Secretary of State confident in all that he is doing on legacy that all possible levers are being used to tackle the disease of misogyny, including through Northern Ireland’s hate crime legislation?
I join my hon. Friend in what she says about the recent conviction for the brutal murder of Natalie McNally, and the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. It is a source of enormous sadness and—I would hope—shame that Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where it is most dangerous to be a woman, in relation to violence against women and girls. One thing that we are doing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is closing the loophole that was contained in the previous Government’s legislation. There will now be a means of investigating any sexual-related offences that occurred during the period of the troubles. If they meet the threshold for investigation by the legacy commission, the commission will investigate, but otherwise, once the Bill is passed, it will fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to examine the case.
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents that the health and wellbeing of veterans will be taken into account if they are required to give evidence to the commission or coroners?
We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.
In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and
“utterly divorced from the reality”.
Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?
Any citizen of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member is well aware, has a right to bring a judicial review against any decision that has been made. It is for the courts to determine that. Having seen what the original judge said in throwing out the case, and given the fact that the inquest found that the use of force in that case was lawful, perhaps it is not surprising that the judge threw it out as having no merit whatsoever. If the case is continuing, we will have to leave it to the judicial process to decide what happens, but I have confidence in our courts.
Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and the House will have an opportunity in due course to consider the amendments that he has put forward. Most of the victims I have met—I am sure the same is true for the victims and families he has met—are looking for answers. Most of them recognise that, with the passage of time, the prospects for prosecutions of anybody are diminishing rapidly, and part of the focus of the commission is to help those families to find answers. When it comes to how families are then reconciled to the terrible loss that they have suffered, in the end it will be for each family to find their own way of doing that.
The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?
I say very simply that the Government are keen to progress this. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complex piece of legislation, in part because it is having to fix the mess that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left this Government to deal with. I make no apology for taking time to ensure that we get the legislation right, because, as he knows, this is the last best hope we have.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?
The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.