I remind the House that this is a procedural motion about whether the Bill ought to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. While I will allow some leeway on scope, I gently encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of carry-over.

I beg to move,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

This motion will enable the House to progress the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is essential to remedy the failure of the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am grateful for the careful scrutiny of the Bill by both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If dealing with legacy was easy, this aim of the Good Friday agreement would have been resolved a long time ago. It is not easy; it is very difficult, not least because there are many different and opposing views. We have a responsibility to do this for those affected by the troubles, including the many people who lost loved ones and are still searching for answers. I believe there is recognition across the House that we need to address the legacy of the troubles, because, after so many attempts, this is our last chance.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with such distinction, and I will come directly to addressing the two questions she has just asked.

I would simply say that I think the whole House acknowledges the brave service of our veterans in many, many difficult circumstances, and that is one reason that this carry-over motion is necessary.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me.

Whatever its intentions, the legacy Act did not work. Its central provision—immunity—had no backing in Northern Ireland, has been found by our domestic courts to be incompatible with our international legal obligations and was never commenced by the previous Government. Immunity has been rejected by victims and families. Immunity is not supported by the three veterans commissioners, who have said that they do not call for immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

I hope that our armed forces personnel will listen to what I am about to say and see both the protections that are currently in the Bill and the commitment the Government have made to bring forward further such protections. Indeed, the Bill will put in place a means of dealing with legacy that is legally compliant and will hopefully, in time, command broad public support in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. It will also result in the unprecedented sharing of records by the Irish authorities with the new Legacy Commission as a result of the framework agreement reached with the Irish Government.

Since its introduction in October 2025, the troubles Bill has been welcomed by a significant number of victims’ families and representative groups. Many recognise that while it cannot be the perfect Bill for them, it balances many of the different interests and provides a basis on which families’ cases can be taken forward sensitively and lawfully.

The protections that are contained in the Bill currently will apply to RUC personnel and others who served the state, and the hon. Gentleman will see the further amendments that we will bring forward.

I would point out that every Member of the House has just received a letter from Joe McVey, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, urging us to vote for this motion tonight and making the argument that

“beyond every Clause and every Amendment there are people whose lives have been shaped by loss”.

One important part of the Bill is the consideration it gives to those who served the state so bravely in the form of protections for veterans and police officers to ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect. In recent months, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week, my ministerial colleagues and I have been consulting widely on the legislation. We have been very grateful for the time that veterans groups have spent with us, explaining how they think our legacy processes need to be improved. That is why we are putting in place new protections: no repeated investigations; an end to cold calling; requiring consideration to be given to the age and welfare of veterans; and enabling any veteran asked to give evidence to do so remotely and anonymously.

In Committee, I will be bringing forward a substantial package of amendments to further strengthen those safeguards, including clearly differentiating between the lawful actions of soldiers and police and the unlawful actions of paramilitary terrorists, and to put in place arrangements to oversee how those protections operate in practice. Without the Bill, all those new protections—which were not in the legacy Act—would not be there for veterans while the commission continues its work, including investigations. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities to families and veterans, who would face continuing uncertainty. Is that really what those who have expressed concerns about the Bill want to see happen?

The best way to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House see the amendments is to pass the carry-over motion tonight.

That is self-evidently the case, because the protections that I just read out, which the Government have put in this legislation, would not exist. That is a powerful argument why the Bill should carry over.

rose—

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; many Members want to speak.

I will turn briefly to some of the arguments that will be made against carrying over the Bill, because I think it is important that we conduct this debate on a shared understanding of the facts.

First, on prosecutions, in the last 28 years just one soldier of the 250,000 who served in Operation Banner has been convicted of a troubles-related offence. During all that time there have continued to be inquests and cases investigated. The truth is that the chances of prosecutions are rapidly diminishing. Secondly, I remind the House that the basis on which any decision about a prosecution is made rests, as it always has done, with independent prosecutors. No one who has done their duty lawfully has anything to fear. Thirdly, on the claim that paramilitaries—in particular the IRA—were given amnesty by the on-the-run letters, they were not. At the moment, there are eight troubles cases in which suspected paramilitaries have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including of soldiers and members of the RUC.

Let us not forget that, when in government, the Conservative party wanted to give immunity to terrorists. That is what the legislation said. Members and colleagues will be aware that there are many unsolved killings of British service personnel, whose families deserve answers, including of those in a number of the most deadly IRA attacks, such as Guildford, Warrenpoint and the M62 coach bombing. The Opposition’s argument against the motion rests on their wish to return to immunity, which never existed and is wrong in principle.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

I will conclude my remarks, because many Members want to contribute.

I am acutely aware of the stress that many have described in going through legacy processes, which is precisely why we will put the strongest possible safeguards in the Bill. If this motion is carried, the Bill will be brought back to the House early in the new Session for a Committee of the Whole House, where I will welcome the scrutiny of all Members to ensure that we get this right. This Bill is about creating a legacy process in which all involved can have confidence. I hope that we can work together constructively and with the care that the families of all those who were killed or seriously injured deserve, to ensure that this legislation and the further amendments that we will make are given careful consideration in Committee.

I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

At the outset, I pay tribute to the veterans who came to Parliament Square today, the veterans who have sent messages of support and are watching at home, and the veterans who are with us in the Gallery. I also pay tribute to the Shadow Defence team, who have done so much to hold this Government to account for the mistake that they are making.

No.

We are now entering the season finale of the tragedy that is this Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It has been a long season. Despite taking office in July 2024, with a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, they have taken 15 months to bring this Bill to the House. Despite a Second Reading in November, nearly six months ago, the legislation has gone nowhere. Despite bringing forward their remedial order to strike down parts of the legacy Act in January, the Government have since failed to bring it before the Lords, because they know that the Lords do not support it. The troubles Bill is stuck in a legislative purgatory,

“Doomed for a certain term to walk the night” till its “foul crimes” are “burnt…away.” The reason for that is an open secret in Westminster. The truth is that the Bill is trapped between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and No.10, with the Prime Minister and his team unable and unwilling to make a decision about what the outcome will be. We have read this script before.

For its part, the Northern Ireland Office is simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister when he came to power—the instruction in the Labour manifesto—and the orders of Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, about whom, it must be said, some extremely serious allegations have been made in recent days: not least that he may have drafted or approved documents alleging serious crimes by soldiers without reasonably credible evidence, and that he continued pushing settlements after being told that his clients were lying.

The Ministry of Defence is all too aware of the open hostility held towards this legislation by members of the armed forces, present and past. It is all too aware of the dangers the Bill presents to morale, retention and perhaps even recruitment, but its Ministers are not always prepared to say what needs to be said in order to get their way.

rose—

I will give way now.

Order. I gently remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to take time to read the Armed Forces Bill Amendment paper. The two gentlemen sitting either side of me, my right hon. Friend Mr Francois and my hon. Friend James Cartlidge, have tabled very many amendments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go out this evening and to try to find one veterans organisation that supports what his party is trying to do with this Bill.

I have read that letter. I have great respect for the WAVE trust; I did some work with it when I first came to the House. I respectfully disagree with what is in that letter, for reasons that I will set out in due course.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there will be ample opportunity for them to do so tonight.

Tonight the Government and Labour Back Benchers have a choice, and the choice is simple: to reject this controversial and unloved legislation, which promises much but would do no good.

rose—

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

We will get to immunity in a moment, but the Labour party needs to look down within its soul and its history before it says such things.

The Bill will reopen the door to vexatious litigation. It will drag old soldiers through the courts and subject split-second decisions taken under high stress decades ago to the post hoc algorithm of a legal framework that did not exist at that time. Mr Bailey said that military forces were not given adequate protection at the time—what has happened subsequently is that the legal framework has changed beneath their feet and held them accountable in a way that could never have been intended at that time.

I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.

I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in Opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.

The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.

The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.

I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this.

When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill.

Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.

My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point.

The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion.

All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that.

In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation.

Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that.

I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.

I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.

I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and Colum Eastwood have made.

Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented Intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how

“a peacetime human rights framework” now wields

“an effective veto over efforts to close the past.”

Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that

“those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”.

This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them.

I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow.

The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Order. The House will be aware that Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver in this case to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historic troubles-related deaths. I remind Members that references to those cases should be limited to the context and the events that led to those cases, but should not refer to the details of the cases or to the names of those involved in them.

I will start by imposing a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, as I will be calling the Secretary of State no later than 9.46 pm.

This debate is deeply personal for me, because, in addition to being the Member for Southend East and Rochford, I am a proud former paratrooper.

For me and countless others with military backgrounds like my own, the legacy of the troubles is not a distant memory but something that our community continues to carry the weight of. Back in November, I brought members of the Parachute Regimental Association, together with officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence. I had one simple aim: to ensure that veterans had a voice and their concerns about the Bill were heard clearly and directly. I thank those officials for their attendance and engagement.

Let me be clear: the legislation passed by the Conservative Government must be updated. This is not myth or fallacy; indeed, even some Conservative Members have acknowledged that the current legislation is inadequate. It troubles me when colleagues from this House head over to Parliament Square, as they did this afternoon, not to engage with former colleagues or members of their local military associations, but to “virtue signal”, as my teenage daughter would put it. Our duty as parliamentarians is to lead, make difficult decisions and speak with honesty and sincerity. It is not to spew negative and dangerous rhetoric, as some across this Chamber seem intent on doing. They parade around with lapel badges larger than some solar panels and bearing the slogan, “Proud of my country, ashamed of this government.” That does not help or resolve this issue, and it is certainly not why the public voted us into this special place. It is dangerous and unproductive noise.

However, I must be equally clear that, as it stands, the Bill leaves many questions unanswered and needs additional work. We cannot afford to rush it. Although justice must be delivered, we must also take the time to ensure that the legislation delivers the protections that our veterans need and deserve. Those who served in Northern Ireland followed orders and put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they cannot be an afterthought in this process. So I say to the Government that we should take the time to get this right, to continue our engagement, to listen to those who serve and the families who lost loved ones, and to ensure that before the Bill moves to its next stage veterans can have full confidence that it will deliver what is intended without creating serious unintended consequences that cannot be later undone.

In conclusion, I say that, to every member of our armed forces community who has served and those who continue to serve, we owe a debt that cannot be repaid. And to those watching from the Gallery today, I say thank you: thank you for standing up for the memory of those we have lost and for standing together to protect those who are yet to serve.

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring all those who served to uphold the rule of law during Operation Banner are treated with dignity and afforded proper legal protection. As a Member of a parliamentary party whose percentage of veterans is well into double figures, I assure the House that their experience informs my party’s approach and strengthens our determination to assist the Secretary of State in getting this right.

Before I address the substance of this motion, however, I would like briefly to correct something I said to Stuart Anderson when we last debated this hugely consequential matter. In response to his Intervention during the debate on the Government’s remedial order, I said that the percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party is greater than in his. During my research for today’s speech, however, I discovered that, while we are close, that is not the case. In my defence, what with the ever-dwindling number of Conservative MPs it is hard to keep track of the denominator in that equation, but I none the less apologise to the hon. Member and this House for my error.

This debate provides an opportunity to judge whether the troubles Bill is fit for purpose, commands confidence and does justice to those it seeks to serve. On all three counts it gives me no pleasure to conclude it currently falls far short.

As I hope the Secretary of State recognises, the Liberal Democrats have engaged with the troubles Bill constructively from the outset. Although we voted with the Conservatives on their reasoned Amendment to kill the Bill, we broke with them to abstain on Second Reading to signify that, while we are deeply unsatisfied with many of the provisions, protections and omissions in the troubles Bill, we remain opposed to the blanket immunity confirmed by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, somewhat delphically described as “conditional” immunity by the Conservatives even though the only condition is the admission of guilt.

As a party that believes in the rule of law and fulfilling our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, we also supported the Government’s subsequent remedial order, which simply removed two provisions where the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal issued declarations of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, one of which has never even been brought into force. Sadly, the Conservative party sought to weaponise that vote by creating a false dichotomy between veterans and victims, cynically pitching one against the other, seemingly oblivious to the fact that those two categories are far from mutually exclusive.

Cases like that of Private Tony Harrison, murdered by the IRA in 1991, bring this into sharp focus. His family has spent years seeking truth and accountability, only for legislation granting blanket immunity to terrorists to strip away hope that those responsible would ever be properly investigated, charged or convicted. Or there is Patsy Gillespie, who worked in an Army base and in 1990 was strapped into a van by the IRA while his wife and children were held at gunpoint—a hero whose last act was to shout a warning that saved the lives of many before he and five members of the King’s Regiment died as the bomb went off.

The Conservatives, who claim to have always had our veterans’ backs, had little to say when their own legislation barred investigations into the maiming and murder of hundreds of state actors such as these. There is a stark irony here: a party that claims to stand by veterans introduced a system that precluded justice for the families of those very veterans, which is why every veterans organisation with which I am working is opposed to these callous attempts to use the very real plight of our veterans in a nakedly political assault on the Human Rights Act.

The Liberal Democrats remain adamant that supporting the remedial order was the right thing to do. It was a narrow technical measure to remove two unlawful provisions granting blanket immunity to paramilitaries and veterans alike. We consistently opposed these measures in the last Parliament as contrary to the rule of law and drawing an inappropriate moral equivalence between terrorists and servants of the state. More importantly, all the veterans’ organisations with whom I am working oppose those provisions, as do every political party and community in Northern Ireland.

However, voting in favour of the remedial order does not require us to do likewise regarding the Bill before us, because despite many months of patient negotiation between the NIO, veterans’ groups and commissioners, Opposition parties and the MOD, the Bill remains deeply flawed. The central issue is the lack of sufficient protections for veterans and failing to address the very real danger that the process becomes the punishment.

The Secretary of State heralds his six safeguards, but even he has now acknowledged that they do not go far enough. As currently drafted, there is no clear statutory threshold for repeat investigations without genuinely new evidence, no firm presumption in favour of remote participation, and limited clarity around how welfare, proportionality and the cumulative impact of past investigations will be applied in practice. Under the current Bill, veterans will continue to face uncertainty around repeat investigations, the threshold for reopening cases and the circumstances in which they may be required to engage again with investigatory processes.

I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to bring forward amendments, but we currently have no idea how extensive those will be. There is still no confirmed date for the Committee stage, which has been repeatedly delayed and is still planned to be a Committee of the Whole House, therefore precluding the detailed line-by-line scrutiny that could usefully take place outside the Chamber. In that context, it is difficult to justify carrying the Bill over without greater clarity.

Our position is not about opposing progress, but about ensuring that the legislation we pass is robust and capable of delivering a process that people, in particular veterans and victims, can trust. The carry-over motion risks extending uncertainty without resolving the underlying problem. It is important that my party makes clear that the current Bill is far from adequate. For these reasons, we will oppose the motion.

The first thing to say is that there was an alternative. There has been a lot of debate recently about whether or not there was an alternative to murder and mayhem: there was an alternative and that is represented by the party of which I am a member. The only honest way to deal with this particular issue is to make it clear that no matter whether the culprit or perpetrator was wearing a uniform or not, the murder of anybody was wrong. That violence brought us no closer to the aims that I hold very dear; it took democratic struggle to get us to the point of peace and opportunity for real change.

I was at an event on Friday in my Constituency for the 45th anniversary of the death of a boy called Paul Whitters, who was 15 years old when he was shot in the head by a police officer and died. It was a very moving event. His family were there and his mother had come home from Glasgow—she had had to leave, of course, after all that heartache and pain. There were 186 children killed in our troubles: 80 of them were killed by republicans, 50 by loyalists and 49 by the British Army or the RUC. When we talk about this issue, I want people to think about those children. All I ever hear from certain quarters of this House is about veterans and organisations that are lobbying, and about votes and Back Benchers and all that stuff, but I want people to think about those children.

Julie Livingstone was 14 years old when she was shot in the head and killed in Lenadoon, a month after Paul. Stephen McConomy, whose family I know very well—they are decent, hard-working people—was 11 years old when he was shot and killed by a soldier in 1982. The people who went to try and comfort Stephen and see if he was okay were told that they would be shot as well. The soldier who carried out that murder—and that is what it was—was interviewed for one hour by the RUC. Six months after that, the RUC and the British Army came to Stephen McConomy’s house, and Bishop Daly said at the time that they were in the house longer than the time they took to interview the soldier who killed Stephen. Again, he was 11 years old.

Alan Jack was five months old and in his pram when the IRA set off a bomb in Strabane that killed him. I just want people to think about this. This is not some political game. Those of us who live there do not always agree, as Members might know, but we take this very seriously. This is about trying to give the people who have been left out of this process some truth and some justice if possible. We all know how difficult justice will be, but why are they not entitled to the same access to justice as any of us would expect today? If Members are against trying to sort out this problem, they should ask themselves, “Why not?”

Do not tell me to draw a line under the past. The people who want to move on the most are the victims who have been left behind in our society. They cannot just draw a line under the past when the truth is not out there about what happened to their loved one and the justice that they deserve has not been achieved. The bottom line is that if we are serious about bringing our communities together and reconciling them, whatever our constitutional views, we have to do it on the basis of truth and honesty. We should stop using our victims as political footballs.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom.

This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans. Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims.

We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an Oath of Allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No. Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words.

The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.

Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The Amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans.

I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, Tonia Antoniazzi, who is no longer in her place. She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that

“there are no such plans”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025;
Vol. 767, c. 1011.]

yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!

I will not.

When we talk of amnesty, I think of Martin Quinn, the brother of Glenn Quinn, and of Mrs Quinn, his mother —an 82-year-old woman who lost her son in January 2020. He was beaten to death by a loyalist paramilitary; he was terminally ill, and he was killed in his own home. An 82-year-old mother is sitting at home today with death threats from loyalists because of Colin Simms and the murder he committed in Carrickfergus. He does not have the support of his community or his comrades. If the Secretary of State can achieve anything tonight, it should be to inform Mrs Quinn that neither Colin Simms nor anyone like him will receive any sort of immunity or early release, for the sake of justice that is yet to be delivered.

For my community, the home of the British Army, this debate goes to the heart of our history and who we are. In Aldershot, we remember 22 February 1972, when the IRA detonated a bomb targeting the headquarters of the British Army’s 16th Parachute Brigade. It was one of the first attacks by the IRA on mainland Britain, and took the lives of seven innocent victims: Father Gerard Weston, Thelma Bosley, Margaret Grant, Joan Lunn, Jill Mansfield, Sheri Munton and John Hasler. We remember them every year at the memorial that stands in their honour. We also honour the members of our armed forces who served in Operation Banner to keep the peace over many decades; I pay tribute to them for their service, including those watching over our debate tonight from the Gallery. I thank the Aldershot Parachute Regimental Association, the Royal British Legion, and the many individual veterans who I have been engaging with over many months.

I want the voices of our veterans to be heard in this debate. Too many families, including hundreds of armed forces families, lost loved ones in the troubles and are still looking for answers. Too many of our veterans have been left completely without legal protections because of the previous Government’s legislation, which was rejected by the courts. Ultimately, we are here today because of the previous Government’s decision to grant conditional immunity to terrorists like those who murdered British soldiers and civilians in my community. I believe that that decision was wrong, and that these issues need to be addressed. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that Parliament could debate how we fix these problems, and I am grateful to both the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Ministers for the discussions they have had with me ever since the legislation was introduced.

However, I want to be clear with my Government that the veterans I have been speaking to over many months still need to be convinced by this legislation. They need further reassurances, and until we see the full package of amendments, I am reserving judgment. We must get this right. No veteran who served with honour, following orders in the most difficult, fast-moving circumstances, should be left fearing repeat investigations, and there should be no equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were only focused on taking lives. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January asking for more to be done on those points, and I am encouraged that the Government are now committed to strengthening protections for our veterans. Right now, our veterans have been left with no protections whatsoever—that needs to change. They need to be protected by law. I hope that much more can be done in the next Session before we reach Third Reading, so that we can give every veteran clarity and confidence.

Let me conclude with a reflection about what we owe our veterans who served in Northern Ireland and beyond. Last year, I travelled 8,000 miles to pay my respects to those from my community who fought in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are British and remain British thanks to their service. The islanders told me that they owe a debt of gratitude to my community that can never be repaid. We owe a debt to all those who serve our country, now and forever, and I will always have their back.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Order. I call David Davis, after whom there will be a three-minute time limit.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago.

This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice.

The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend Dr Murrison. The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill.

We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend Alex Burghart, read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating:

“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”.

He went on to say:

“I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.

No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer.

I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government front bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow.

This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.

I call Andy McDonald, who has a three-minute speaking time limit.

The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation. Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust.

We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence. Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces.

So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.

The motion may be dressed up as a matter of procedural convenience, but it is no such thing. It goes to the very heart of how this Parliament chooses to deal with the legacy of conflict, with the rights of victims and survivors, and with our fidelity to both our own constitutional traditions and our binding international obligations. The Bill, in its present form, fails the test. It does not command the confidence of victims. It does not command the confidence of the wider community in Northern Ireland, or indeed of our own brave veterans. To agree to its carry-over would therefore be more than a tidying-up exercise. It would be a conscious, deliberate decision by the House to prolong the life of a measure that is at best deeply contested, and at worst fundamentally misconceived.

We should be honest with ourselves: the Bill as drafted is not the solution that victims deserve, and it is not the solution that veterans deserve either. The Secretary of State has mentioned that amendments will be tabled to give better protection for veterans, but we do not even know what they are, so how can we pass tonight’s motion?

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and I totally agree. There will not be a lot of support for this Bill among the armed forces.

These are not abstract or academic concerns; they go to the essence of what it means to live under the rule of law. The Bill fails to grapple in any credible way with the status of the so-called on-the-run letters of comfort, and with the plain injustice that flows from the position in which those who fled justice were handed such letters while veterans of Operation Banner have been handed only letters of continued investigation and the threat of prosecution. That is morally wrong, and this Bill does nothing to rectify it. In that context, the carry-over motion assumes genuine constitutional significance.

Carry-over is an exceptional procedure; it is not a routine device to be used to spare a struggling Bill from the consequences of its lack of support. The Government are not merely asking us to keep an administrative option open; they are asking us to confer an extended lease of life on a legislative scheme that has failed to win the confidence of those whose confidence is indispensable. The proposals must include real safeguards for veterans—men and women who are entitled to see concrete protections on the face of the statute, rather than being fobbed off with warm words and vague assurances of future safeguards. Those proposals must ensure that the oversight mechanisms, and any victim and survivor panels, are constituted in a way that does not invite those who murdered and maimed to sit in judgment or presume to adjudicate the human rights of the innocent. That would be an affront to natural justice and basic decency. The proposals must also exclude political parties that support terrorism—past, present or future.

To vote for a carry-over tonight is not to remain neutral or to keep all options open; it is to keep on political life support a scheme that many veterans, victims and survivors feel is being imposed on them. Many veterans regard the scheme with deep and understandable scepticism, and many people across Northern Ireland do not support it. Accordingly, I am unable to support the motion for carry-over, and I urge this House to do the right thing and reject it.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I thank the Secretary of State for appearing in front of our Committee on two occasions—he has truly embraced scrutiny. The JCHR is currently carrying out legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and the remarks I offer tonight are informed by the evidence that we have received, although we are still working through that process.

As we all recognise, there is no more complex and sensitive a legacy than that of the troubles, which is why it is so tragic that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed so greatly. It failed because it could not command cross-community support, because it was rejected as unlawful by the British courts and, of course, because it introduced immunity, including for terrorists—a point made most strongly tonight by the Shadow Secretary of State, Alex Burghart. We owe it to the victims of the troubles to do better, and as my hon. Friend Alex Baker pointed out, that includes the families of service personnel and the police.

On veterans and those who served, I note that genuine concerns have been raised. As the MP for Sandhurst, I know how important this issue is for all those who put on a uniform and bravely put themselves forward to defend our country. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to those concerns and for committing to bring forth amendments. Although all Members of this House will scrutinise those amendments closely when they are brought forward, I am grateful for that commitment. It is important that we carry over the Bill, so that all Members can scrutinise it.

This Bill is our opportunity to finally begin to address the legacy of the troubles. I feel very strongly that all of us must take that duty seriously and carry it out with all due seriousness.

In the limited time I have, I say to the Secretary of State that this Bill was bad, and it is now a mess. He comes in front of the House to ask for a carry-over when he knows that carry-over motions are only ever to be used for Bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of time to progress. Such motions are not for highly contentious legislation that is about to be changed, possibly beyond recognition from what has gone before. He is now apparently addressing many of the issues, but we are not allowed to know, because they are a secret until next time, when we will come back to carry on with a massively changed Bill. It is bad procedure, and it is bad government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time—he knows that—that this is just a bad route to take.

The problem that the Government have had from the beginning is that they have been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Féin and the hand of Ireland. I worry desperately about the arrangements. As Gavin Robinson said, where are the promises on delivery from Ireland? For all these years, there has been all the stuff that they know about who did what, when they did it and how it was done. All that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and the Irish Government could have dealt with it earlier. Instead, there are people who do not want this to be open and we are now singing to their tune. That is what really bothers me.

We are now being asked to take a pitch in the dark. Having denied all the way through the Bill’s passage that veterans would be pursued vexatiously through the courts and having said that there were controls in place, the Government have apparently finally realised that that was not the case. All of a sudden, the position has changed.

It is astonishing. My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I served early on in Northern Ireland, and I lost a very good friend—I apologise for repeating his name—in Robert Nairac. We have never got to the bottom of what happened to him.

I thought that the speech from Colum Eastwood was incredibly interesting. It is very difficult to pursue truth, which is why I supported the previous legislation. That was not because I thought it was a great Bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out. I do not think the vexatious pursuit of veterans will ever produce the truth that he rightly seeks. There is a better way, and it is not this Bill.

I will, but briefly, because I do not get any extra time.

We will not altogether agree about this issue. We can debate what actually happened, but we will never know, because the Government refused to pursue this matter through the courts. South Africa was a good example of how it could be done. I went out to advise in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that the truth and reconciliation committee got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some mending of fences. We will no doubt debate that issue further. I have high respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his position.

In conclusion, we are being asked to vote blind on a Bill that we knew was damaged before. All our protestations about the vexatious pursuit of veterans were denied, as were all the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has raised throughout the whole of this debate. The legislation was rather arrogantly pushed through, and the Government said, “No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The legislation is perfectly okay.” At the last moment, when they have failed to get the Bill through, they have produced this idea that somehow there are amazing new amendments that will protect veterans going forward. Why should veterans, who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason, other than because they were veterans who served in Northern Ireland, now say, “Oh, that’s okay; it’d be a good idea to see what comes next time around, because they were so honest this time around.”? The Government have failed to be honest about this from start to finish.

The Armed Forces Minister is not here for a reason—because he knows very well that he does not want to be sitting on the front bench when the Bill gets voted through to the future. [Interruption.] I say to all colleagues, it is time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.

A teacher in my Constituency wrote to me today with concerns about the Bill, pointing out that some MPs will be voting tonight who were born after the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We need to let that settle for just a moment. The Secretary of State is right to say that this is our last opportunity to get legacy issues right.

The fundamental reality is that life during the troubles exposed ordinary people to fear and danger that few outside Northern Ireland could ever comprehend. Those who lived and worked through that period—in particular those charged with protecting the young people in our communities—lived under constant threat and uncertainty. That burden deserves recognition and respect. I think we all agree about that in this House. Those years placed extraordinary pressures on everybody involved. It would be profoundly wrong of this House to disregard the risks faced by members of the armed forces, the police, the emergency services and civilians during that time, including the teacher who wrote to me today to say how difficult the situation was.

I was reminded at my St George’s day parish quiz on Saturday night at church that the RUC is one of only three organisations that collectively received the George Cross. May I take this opportunity to commend Councillor Tommy Judge, who has been the member for Sharston in my constituency for 25 years? He was on the 1974 M62 bus. He sat in a different seat that day, when 12 of his colleagues died and 38 were injured—there but for the grace of God. I thank him for his service in our armed forces, and I thank him for his municipal service in Manchester for the past quarter of a century.

This is our last chance for those who remember. The purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is not to deny the experience of those who served the state in good faith. On the contrary, it reflects a recognition that for decades the legacy of the past has not been addressed properly or lawfully. Families from all communities have been left without answers, and confidence in existing processes has gone. The Shadow Secretary of State said “post hoc”. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is how the phrase continues—correlation does not equate to causation.

I am acutely conscious of the human dimension of this, having grown up as a Mancunian Irish Catholic and seen the bombs through the ’70, ’80s and ’90s, and, because we had the wrong accents, having seen how our family was treated. But there was no equivalence with those suffered in Northern Ireland. That is why this legislation matters and why Parliament must approach it with seriousness and respect for all those lives shaped by the troubles.

The Bill is a betrayal of our veterans. It is a betrayal of the men who put on a British uniform and served their country, risking their lives to protect people of all communities in Northern Ireland during the period of the troubles—men like David Griffin, who I had the privilege to meet: an 84-year-old Royal Marine veteran who lives out his life at Royal Hospital Chelsea. He is a man who, half a lifetime ago in 1972, in a split-second decision when he was ambushed by terrorists, made a call. That call should not haunt him in the last years of his life. He should not have to wake up every morning worried that a letter will drop through his letterbox telling him that he is going to be prosecuted.

Old men like David Griffin have been hounded for far too long. That is the reason why—belated, yes, but belatedly it did happen—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 provided a degree of immunity to those brave men. This Bill rips that up. It will be open season for men like David Griffin. Men like David Griffin deserve better than this Bill.

Men who are serving this country now do so as well, because this is not just about the past—it is about the present and future, too. What signal does the Bill send to those who sign up to serve our country? That half a lifetime from now, new Laws may come in, and they will be hounded through the courts, living out the last days of their lives worried about a knock on the door or a letter through the post? No. That is wrong. That is not the country that I want to live in.

When I hold this Bill up to the light, I see all over it the fingerprints of Lord Hermer—a man who frankly hates this country. Let us be honest with ourselves. I never thought I would see the day that Gerry Adams’s lawyer was sitting around the Cabinet table of the United Kingdom, in the very room that the IRA tried to blow up when I was a child.

The men who serve our country deserve better than this Bill, better than Lord Hermer and better than this Government. I will be voting against the Bill. I hope it dies tonight.

I will do my best to respond to as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as possible. I listened very carefully to the speech from Alex Burghart, but I am sorry to say that he did not address the central problem, which is that the previous Government’s legislation failed and needs to be replaced. He also appeared to suggest that he knows that victims and survivors will find out nothing from the very process that that legislation put in place, which I am keeping in the form of the legacy commission—[Interruption.] Well, that is what he said. Was the hon. Gentleman arguing that judicial review should be removed from legacy cases? Is that his argument? If that is his argument, it would not have been available to challenge the Clonoe inquest—a challenge that the Government are supporting.

Mr Kohler shares the Government’s Opposition to immunity. I must confess that I was disappointed by his party’s stance on the Bill, because if there is no Bill, we cannot get it right.

My hon. Friend Mr Alaba—himself a distinguished veteran—made a powerful appeal for reason in order to try to get this right.

Colum Eastwood was listened to in absolute silence, rightly, as he described a number of the children who were killed during the troubles. That silence was in marked contrast to some of what we heard earlier.

Notwithstanding what Gavin Robinson said in most of his speech, I welcome the fact that at the end he made it clear that he is opposed to giving terrorists immunity, and that his party, which he leads, has always been clear that it did not support the immunity provisions in the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is indeed this Government’s policy.

It is a matter of public record that there has been no early release of any prisoners at all, and there have been no negotiations. I have said it in the House before, and I will say it again: there have been no negotiations with dissident terrorists at all. I did not say that no letters of comfort were issued; what I said to the House was that the letters of comfort did not grant immunity from prosecution. [Interruption.] Mr Francois refers from a seated position to Mr Downey. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is a matter of public record that he is currently facing prosecution for the murder of two individuals.

My hon. Friend Alex Baker gave us a moving reminder of those whose lives have been lost. My hon. Friend Mike Kane called for seriousness and respect in this debate. I say to Robert Jenrick that he is wrong. This Bill does not rip up immunity.

indicated dissent.

It is no good him shaking his head. The provision was never commenced by the last Government, and it has been found to be incompatible with our legal obligations. In conclusion, we need to deal with this, and I have heard lots of arguments as to why—

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(b)).

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 176.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Hilary Benn.)