I oppose this clause as it undermines the principle of equality before the law. It sets a dangerous precedent by granting selective immunity based on the discretion of authorities, potentially leading to abuses and undermining public trust in our legal system.

I support this amendment as it is a necessary safeguard for those who risk their careers by speaking out against wrongdoing. In my constituency, I have seen firsthand the impact of whistleblowers facing legal repercussions after exposing corrupt practices within local government organisations.

This clause is vital for ensuring that those who help the state do so without fear. It is important to note that since similar laws were enacted in other countries, there has been a 30% increase in whistleblowing cases leading to significant public benefit.

I strongly support this clause. It not only protects individuals but also enhances national security by ensuring that sensitive information is shared safely. Without such provisions, the state risks being uninformed about critical issues.

He criticises the Secretary of State for extinguishing hope among victims who seek justice. He urges careful consideration before proceeding with legislation that undermines their right to justice.

Questions the Secretary of State about support from victims' groups for the Bill and points out delays by British Government around onward disclosure, which prevented cross-party agreement.

Challenges claims that Stormont House had no cross-party support and raises concerns about the Bill's human rights compliance, citing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Supports the Government’s proposal to not give victims a right to veto on immunity grants, arguing that it could disincentivise individuals from coming forward with truthful information.

Expresses support for the Secretary of State’s stance, believing it will provide answers to families and help reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Emphasises that granting immunity might disincentivise people from disclosing information.

Argues that victims should have the final say on whether individuals receive immunity, suggesting it would ensure justice and comfort for those affected by the legacy issues.

Opposes the Government's motion to disagree with Lords amendments, citing concerns about justice for victims and their families. Argues that the Bill does not command confidence in Northern Ireland and will not achieve its purpose of reconciliation.

Believes the Bill is wrong in principle and will not achieve its aims. Will support Lords amendments to salvage appropriate involvement for victims to have their say.

Regrets Government's failure to address significant flaws in the Bill and lack of support from various organisations. Emphasises need for victims' families to have a voice and an opportunity to seek justice.

Critiques the Government's approach, stating that immunity is central to a flawed Bill. Argues against the premise of the legislation due to its lack of support from victims groups and political parties in Northern Ireland. Emphasises that Stormont House agreement was widely supported but abandoned by the government in favour of an alternative policy driven by the Conservative party. Points out contradictions in the Secretary of State's statements, highlighting a lack of legitimacy for the Bill.

Expresses deep anger over the proposed legislation, feeling embarrassed about its passage. Asserts that it fails to address the needs of victims and is an affront to human rights, particularly Article 2. Denies the pretence that the British Government was not involved in the conflict, highlighting their role in delaying justice through policy changes post “New Decade, New Approach”. Warns against legal challenges from the Irish Government for breach of human rights. Criticises the concept of 'effective information recovery process' as a lie, denying victims access to truth and justice. Condemns the notion of immunity as impunity, closing down avenues for victims seeking truth.

Expressed concerns over the lack of process for victims and ongoing investigations. Criticised the absence of evidence on collusion between Garda Síochána and IRA, citing specific cases like Harry Breen's murder. Called for more information from the Republic of Ireland on such matters. Highlighted that Lords amendments were aiming to establish minimum criminal justice standards but regretted Government’s resistance towards them.

[INTERVENTION] Agreed with Jim Shannon, emphasised the internal nature of UK issues and opposed the interference of Irish Republic in Northern Ireland’s affairs.

[INTERVENTION] Raised a case where an individual admitted involvement in IRA activities but was never prosecuted, highlighting gaps in justice delivery.

Acknowledged difficulties faced by victims and explained the Government’s stance on conditional immunity for witnesses. Clarified that ICRIR does not have a fixed five-year lifespan and will continue until all functions are discharged. Suggested that traditional justice delivery is unlikely in this context.