← Back to House of Commons Debates
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
04 July 2022
Lead MP
Nigel Evans
Crewe and Nantwich
Con
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Northern Ireland
Other Contributors: 52
At a Glance
Nigel Evans raised concerns about northern ireland troubles (legacy and reconciliation) bill in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Nigel Evans
Con
Crewe and Nantwich
Members may wish to note that a manuscript Government new clause and manuscript Government amendments to improve the drafting of amendments agreed in Committee on day one have been tabled for consideration on Report. They are now available in the Vote Office.
Nigel Evans
Con
Chichester
Mr Nigel Evans introduced several amendments, including those that prevent individuals from profiting from their criminal activities for which they received immunity. He also proposed new clauses to address issues such as glorifying terrorism and opening closed files to ensure truth and reconciliation.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon raises concerns about collusion involving Garda Síochána in relation to murders of police officers on the border and asks for accountability in the process.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Colum Eastwood criticises the Government's move away from the Stormont House agreement, arguing that it stops people from getting access to truth and justice.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Gavin Robinson questions whether cases with the Public Prosecution Service will proceed under this law, expressing concern about families engaged in Operation Kenova and seeking justice.
Johnny Mercer supports the need to draw a line on prosecutorial decisions that have taken years, acknowledging it is painful but necessary for finality.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Sammy Wilson argues moving to information recovery does not provide justice as it was hoped by those engaged in the Kenova process seeking prosecutions.
Stephen Farry questions the fairness and rationale behind closing off some inquests while others continue, suggesting a hollow process if institutions are not seen as legitimate.
Strangford
Expressed sympathy for the Minister's position but highlighted that 90% of deaths in Northern Ireland were due to paramilitary terrorist organisations who refuse to disclose information, calling for balance and honesty from all sides.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Emphasised the need for truth, accountability, and justice but criticised the UK Government's lack of transparency in disclosing information. He argued that the Government has infiltrated paramilitary organisations to high levels, yet they have not released the corresponding files.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Cited concerns about victims' rights being overlooked in the legislation and highlighted a victim’s campaigner's statement that immunity granted in exchange for information could embolden terrorists to disclose more harmful details.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Argued that the Bill is inherently unbalanced as state records are more accessible than those of terrorist organisations, leading to a biased narrative in memorialisation processes.
Noted the challenge in representing victims who wish to move forward without reopening past wounds. He expressed concern that the process could be used to rewrite history favouring a republican agenda.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Challenged the Minister on not addressing issues related to low fines for non-engagement, lack of consequences for lying during engagement, and reduced sentencing for convicted terrorists.
Asked whether a terrorist who does not disclose information but is later found guilty through judicial investigation would face the same two-year jail term as those who do not come forward under the Bill's terms.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
Amendment 114 would prevent individuals given immunity from profiting from their crimes. Amendment 116 aims to remove provisions closing existing troubles-related inquests, which are vital for victim information and reconciliation.
Johnny Mercer
INTERVENTION
Asked Peter Kyle to clarify the balance between glorification of terrorism offences under Home Office legislation and what should be added to the Bill to prevent such glorification.
Dan Jarvis
Lab
Barnsley North
Expressed concern that future commissions may not investigate as thoroughly as past inquiries, denying families their right to truth and justice.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Devonport
Pays tribute to both Front Benchers and acknowledges that families involved in Kenova may not be interested in criminal investigations but rather information. Disagrees with hon. Member for Barnsley Central regarding military concerns about proposals, arguing they welcome them as bringing conclusion. Urges engagement in debate aware of diverse views among groups affected by conflict. Tackles the narrative around collusion, stating that while collusive behaviors have been highlighted, collusion has never been proved in court. Argues for a balanced perspective and against letting the collusion narrative run away to the detriment of service members who served to restore peace.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Intervenes, agreeing with Johnny Mercer on the issue of homogeneous views but emphasises that unless proper investigations are conducted under pressure, truth will not be revealed. Argues for the necessity of removing investigation and criminal proceedings to get at truth in cases like Kenova.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Intervenes, agreeing with Johnny Mercer that there must be a mechanism to prevent the history of the troubles from being rewritten and to ensure those who stood against terrorism are not made equivalent to terrorists. Highlights imbalance due to state institutions being instructed about information provision without an equivalent on the terrorist side.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Bristol East
Mr Mercer argues for the need to balance justice with practicality in legacy inquiries, citing negative experiences of veterans going through courts. He emphasises that this is a last chance opportunity and highlights the risks of not engaging properly with the process as seen previously with the Historical Enquiries Team.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Mr Robinson interjects to clarify that prosecutions under previous investigations were problematic and highlights his party's position on ensuring proper investigation processes are in place. He questions the former Government’s reluctance to engage with these issues.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
Ms Lockhart interjects to ask for support on amendments regarding glorification of terrorism, indicating that her party supports certain aspects of the legacy inquiry process.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Dunfermline and West Fife
Mr Thomson supports several amendments including preventing people from profiting from granted immunity, maintaining open inquests, revoking immunity if found to have been achieved through bad faith, and ensuring a duty of openness on Government records. He also highlights concerns about compliance with article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Mr Eastwood interjects to support judicial reviews as a means for victims to gain better results than from Governments, citing an example of Michelle O’Neill's intervention on victims' pension access.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Opposes the clause as it allows terrorists to escape justice, civil actions are barred for victims, and those who lie during investigations face no consequences. Proposes an amendment to ensure penalties for lying and prevent glorification of terrorism by immune individuals.
Agrees that individuals in the justice system may have biases affecting their decisions, highlighting a systemic challenge. Supports the need for amendments to address these issues.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Reiterates concerns about glorification of terrorism by former IRA members, emphasising the ongoing pain and injustice felt by victims' families. Supports amendments to address these issues.
Agrees that the Bill’s narrative may unfairly absolve those involved in terrorism, despite their crimes. Stresses the need for caution and further improvements to address historical injustices.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Argues that the Bill is a corruption of justice and needs significant amendments. Proposes new clause 3 for sentencing issues, amendment 107 to address court immunity, amendment 120 to prevent glorification in memorialisation projects, and other measures such as revoking immunity if found lying during the process.
Supports Gavin Robinson's call for amendments to stop glorification of terrorism. Urges the Government to accept such amendments.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Plymouth, Moor View
Raises concerns about how arguments are presented and suggests that one-sided views may hinder progress in achieving consensus. Questions the impact of individual cases on broader reconciliation efforts.
Stephen Farry
Alliance
South Down
Expresses concerns about the use of 'reconciliation' in the Bill, arguing that it should be an organic process rather than a top-down directive. Criticises the potential for the Bill to legitimize immunity or amnesty and raises legal concerns regarding its legitimacy under international law. Highlights issues with arbitrary cut-off dates for civil cases and inquests, emphasising grievances among families affected by these measures. Discusses resource limitations and lack of full Government cooperation. Concludes by supporting amendments proposed by Labour and DUP.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
The amendment aims to prevent terrorists from escaping accountability for post-1998 crimes. It emphasises that immunity should not shield individuals who commit further offences or glorify terrorism, causing immense distress to victims. The bill lacks provisions for revoking immunity based on emerging evidence of falsehoods in initial claims.
Supports the amendment by highlighting that a constituency office funded by Parliament is named after IRA members who committed large-scale murders, causing trauma to victims' families and undermining societal peace.
Argues against any potential scenario where those responsible for serious crimes such as the Massereene barracks attack could walk free due to immunity granted by the bill, emphasising the importance of justice and accountability.
Tony Lloyd
Lab
Manchester Central
Critiques the Bill for its inadequate and dangerous approach to dealing with Northern Ireland's past. He argues that the legislation fails to address the issue of state collusion, exemplifying the case of Operation Kenova and Ormeau Road bombing. He also raises concerns about the proposed independent commission not having prosecutorial powers, potentially leading to impunity. Lloyd supports the amendment by Hove but is critical of the Bill's structure.
Lagan Valley
Intervenes to point out that the sense of injustice within the nationalist community extends beyond state collusion, including victims of paramilitary terrorist organisations.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Questions the effectiveness of discussing collusion without proving it in court, advocating for concrete evidence over speculative concerns.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
References John Hume's statement about the scale of killings by Irish Republicans to put into perspective the seriousness and proportionality of addressing past crimes.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Acknowledges concerns raised by Council of Europe commissioner for human rights regarding the Bill's compliance with ECHR standards and potential implications for impunity.
Mary Foy
Lab
City of Durham
Mary Foy opposes clause 18 and supporting amendments, arguing it provides unconditional immunity for perpetrators of serious troubles-related crimes, undermining justice and reconciliation. She cites evidence from victims’ groups indicating a desire for truth and closure, which the bill fails to deliver. Mary highlights successes in current investigation processes such as the Ballymurphy inquest and emphasises that funding improvements could make existing systems more effective. She expresses concern over clauses ending investigations and their impact on families like Patrick McVeigh’s, calling for amendment 114 to prevent perpetrators from profiting from crimes. Lastly, she criticises clause 38 for retrospectively banning civil actions.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Shannon expressed his frustration with the lack of justice for victims and the perceived impunity of perpetrators, especially those who fled to the Republic of Ireland. He emphasised the need to address collusion by Irish authorities in protecting criminals and mentioned specific cases where families were unable to obtain justice due to cross-border issues. Shannon also criticised attempts to glorify IRA violence and the misuse of legal aid systems to rewrite history. He advocated for further work on the Bill to ensure it addresses these concerns adequately.
Conor Burns
Cons
Bournemouth West
Explained the Government's stance on new clause 6 and amendments 108, 109. Highlighted that the Bill already requires state bodies to release material necessary for investigations. Emphasised willingness to consider incentives like financial compensation or leniency in sentencing to encourage cooperation but stressed the need to examine potential legal implications.
Tony Lloyd
Lab
Rochdale
Interjected, showing sympathy for Gavin Robinson's amendment and questioning whether perjury laws could be applied to ICRIR if someone lies during testimony.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Interjected to clarify that the focus is on consequences for lying, rather than assessing truthfulness.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
The Labour MP highlighted that the Bill still lacks support from any Northern Ireland party or victims group, questioning how Ministers can bring forward a Bill with such comprehensive failure among stakeholders. He argued against granting amnesty to those who committed crimes during the troubles and pointed out that the Bill gives more rights to perpetrators than it does to their victims.
The MP expressed concern about the potential for justice being denied by this Bill, which lacks support across Northern Ireland. He believed the Bill would fail to live up to its intention of providing truth and reconciliation.
Strangford
The DUP MP stated that their responsibility extends beyond veterans to the entire Northern Irish community affected by violence during the troubles. He argued that the Bill, which sets aside justice for reconciliation, may make achieving healing and peace more difficult.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
The MP described voting on this bill as utterly shameful, likening it to a whitewash granting impunity for actions during the troubles. He expressed deep disappointment at the lack of justice and truth being provided by the Bill.
Stephen Farry
Alliance
South Down
Mr. Farry argues against the Bill, stating it lacks support from the entire community in Northern Ireland and victims' groups. He cites independent experts who claim the Bill is inconsistent with human rights commitments, particularly article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Farry fears that the Bill will be an expensive white elephant unused by either victims or perpetrators, hindering reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland. He also criticises the flawed process behind the Bill and claims it is unworkable and counterproductive.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.