The Government understands concerns raised by the coroner's findings but believes that civil cases and inquests should not be closed off. They acknowledge the impact on families seeking answers about loved ones during the troubles.

The Government committed to bringing forward proposals to repeal and replace the legacy Act but did not provide a specific timeline. They do not agree with previous legislation providing immunity from prosecution for both soldiers and terrorists.

The Minister did not provide a direct response but acknowledged the complexity of addressing historical issues related to the troubles.

As soon as parliamentary time allows, I will introduce the necessary legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act.

I do not support a rewriting of history, but I acknowledge the importance of supporting armed service veterans and standing by their side. The coroner’s findings should be respected.

The legacy Act would have given immunity to both terrorists and soldiers, but societies take their own paths forward. The release of prisoners was bitter but necessary for peace.

The findings of the coroner stand independently. The Ministry of Defence is giving serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.

Decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors based on evidence, and courts decide whether to convict or not.

The Government upholds the European convention on human rights, which protects every citizen's rights. Leaving the ECHR is not a position we agree with.

Independent prosecutors take decisions based on evidence, and courts decide whether to convict or not. The British Army upholds the rule of law.

The response aims to uphold the rule of law and stand by veterans. The system needs careful consideration before changes are made.

I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today.

There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence.

In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me.

I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened.