YouSaid · the spoken record
Chris Bryant
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2025–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Chris Bryant. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which finished its remaining stages in this House yesterday, will deliver a reformed independent legacy commission with stronger disclosure powers that will be critical for families and victims seeking answers and access to justice. It will also repeal the immunity scheme and lift the bar on civil claims, which the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 wrongly introduced.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, I would say that the legal profession is a noble profession and that— [ Interruption. ] I am not sure I have carried the Conservative Front Bench with that line. If we are to uphold the rule of law, we have to make sure that lawyers are protected in their ability to defend people in the criminal justice system. The idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to our system. That is why I think it behoves all of us to be careful about our language.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me be absolutely clear: there will be no political interference in any of these decisions. We think that it is appropriate—as was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of Members from both our two Houses—that the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales both come to their conclusions. We will draw up guidelines on how to deal with troubles-related issues that may follow on from the legacy commission. But in the end, the final prosecutorial decision is a very simple non-political one: whether it is in the public interest and whether there is more than a 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction. I am glad that yesterday evening the Committee of the whole House agreed that without a Division.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Speaker, I know that you would not want me to intrude on an ongoing judicial review. The judge reserved his judgement yesterday, so I will not do that, I am afraid.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note that the cast list for the Chamber today is very similar to yesterday’s and the day before, and that some of these issues were adumbrated in the discussions we had. There is obviously a difference in the coronial system in Northern Ireland. I have heard people make suggestions about how we might want to reform it. One of the reforms we have put in the Bill, which I think is important, is that inquests will no longer be allowed to repeat processes undergone elsewhere, just as the legacy commission will not be able to do so.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to talk again about proceedings in the High Court in Northern Ireland, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Secretary of State is asking me to comment on documents produced in the judicial review into my decision on Drumcree. I am not going to do that, because I think it would conflict with the judicial review process and I do not want to be held in contempt of court.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I heard the interview this morning on the radio, and I warmly welcome the fact that the Taoiseach will make that apology. It is entirely right and proper. This relates to some of the discussions that we had yesterday and the day before about how the Irish Government deal with the issues of the past. This was a prison guard from the United Kingdom who was killed in Dublin. I also heard the point that his son Austin made, when he said that the apology “means an awful lot to us”. It is incumbent on all of us to make fulsome, and not mealy-mouthed, apologies. [ Official Report , 22 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 12WC.] (Correction)”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He is right that we need to have political and financial accountability, and if that means changing the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to achieve that, I am up for that.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about political accountability. The rule of law is something that we all pledge to uphold when we become Members of Parliament. That is also true of Members of the Legislative Assembly and, for that matter, members of the Executive. I also think that we need to have political accountability for the finances in Northern Ireland. It is really important that we make sure that at some point or other, the Northern Ireland Executive get round to settling a budget. We have set aside more than £1.5 billion for the next three years. I look forward to conversations with the right hon. Gentleman and others tomorrow, and I very much hope that we might be able to settle that.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to say, not only after we have we completed our processes here but now that the Bill will go to the House of Lords, that I am happy, as I said to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), to work with all the different associations, including veterans in the hon. Lady’s constituency if she has people who want to meet me, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that really works. I urge her and all hon. Members to say to veterans in their constituencies: first, there will be answers for veterans’ families because many lost loved ones; and secondly, no veteran will be cold called, no veteran will be approached unless there is compelling new evidence and no process will be repeated unless it is essential. Those are guarantees for all, but in particular for our veterans.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am really grateful to my hon. Friend, because she is absolutely right. Although sometimes I think our debates have felt as though the Bill was an armed forces Bill, it is actually a Bill that is primarily about families, including the families of veterans, of course. Joe McVey, who brought several members of his group here earlier this week, has very much informed the debate that we have had, but in the end, the most important thing is getting answers for families, and my hon. Friend’s Committee has led the way on that.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said yesterday, it would be false to make a direct equation between special forces recruitment and our Bill. As I pointed out, recruitment to the armed forces is 7% up at the moment, for the first time. It is true, of course, that we want to ensure that confidence and morale in the armed forces are upheld, and I think our Bill will help to achieve that. I would just push back on one point. The hon. Gentleman says that everybody is united, but actually there are many different views on the Bill in the veterans community. I am very happy to work with all the different associations to make sure that we get to the right answers at the end of the process.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are committed to supporting all our veterans, including those who served under Operation Banner, and to ensuring that they receive fair treatment and consistent support. That is why we are expanding the armed forces covenant to remove disadvantages and recognise sacrifices. The Ministry of Defence recently announced that the Brooke House health and wellbeing centre, which does brilliant work to support veterans, has been awarded £1 million to develop a Valour-recognised centre in Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Actually, I disagree with the hon. Member. I have had many conversations with a lot of veterans associations, and all of them have recognised many of the changes that we brought into the Bill. These include introducing the concept of compelling new evidence before anybody can be called as a witness; ensuring that the concept of “essential” is a high bar, not a low bar, for people; and ensuring that nobody can be cold called. I am very happy to work with all hon. Members to make sure that the Bill, in its final version, is one that everybody can support.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that the legacy commission takes on the good work that has been done by ICRIR, even as we are improving it, so that it can get more answers for people. I also want to push back against the idea that there are veterans on one side and families on the other. Actually, a very large number of the people who are seeking answers—and will do through the legacy commission—are the families of veterans.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the reasons we had a manifesto commitment and said this before the last general election was that we believe the legacy Act 2023 was morally and legally deficient—legally deficient as it was struck down in the courts, and morally deficient because it made an equivalence between the lawful action of our armed forces seeking to preserve the peace and the deliberate acts of terrorists. We think that was morally wrong and offensive.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the things that I have campaigned on for many years is acquired brain injury. One of my anxieties about what has happened to veterans in this country over the years is that it has felt as though we have sort of left them to one side. It is shocking that we still have so many veterans who are homeless. I am proud that one of the first things our Prime Minister said was that he wants to end homelessness. We need to do that in Northern Ireland, just as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We also need to ensure that our veterans get the real support they need to be able to live fruitful lives and work after their service.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the key asks of all the veterans organisations was that we should introduce a change to the Bill to state that there was no equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and those of terrorists, and recognise the operational context in which people were functioning, including their training, their command structure and so on. That is precisely what we have done in the legislation, and I commend my hon. Friend for the way he has raised many of these issues with me directly on behalf of the veterans in his constituency.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member makes a really good point about former members of the RUC. I was very struck when I visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, where we can see, decade after decade, the number of RUC officers who were killed in action. As we get closer to the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s and the ’90s, those numbers go from three, four or five to dozens. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and I say to them, as I say to everybody who served under Operation Banner: thank you for your service.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is absolutely essential that the Irish Government fully co-operate with the process. I am very confident that they will do so. I have spoken directly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, the two Ministers responsible for these issues in the Irish Government. But they are partners of ours; we need to work with them to be able to get answers for the many thousands of people who lost loved ones during the troubles era.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I did not catch all of that—I am not sure whether you did, Mr Speaker—but I think I heard “PTSD”. As I said earlier, one of the things I have campaigned on is acquired brain injury. I suspect that many people in the armed forces were told that they had PTSD but actually had an acquired brain injury that had never been properly diagnosed. It is one of the pieces of work that we need to do far more effectively. I want to look at how we properly look after those who are serving now in Northern Ireland into the future to ensure that they can have the most fruitful lives possible.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Leeds South—and the public, co-operation from the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the commission’s ability to find answers for families. That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework, and it is why we are committed to implementing it. Let us be clear about what that means. Records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers about how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. However, we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information that is vital to this process.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I believe that this will provide a clear end to troubles-related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and for his gratitude when I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests—full stop, punto final. As several Members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work, as was demonstrated by the legacy Act. As Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has repeatedly made clear to me, my predecessor—my right hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me repeat: these also apply to inquests, not just to the legacy commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential. Let me turn to the matter of when this process comes to an end, which is something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) tabled amendment 50, which sought to remove clause 85. I agree with him, so I have added my name to the amendment—it is now a Government amendment. This means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the commission comes to an end. In practice, it means that we will simply vote for clause 85 not to stand part of the Bill, when we get to that moment.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they would be best handled by the legacy commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the commission for cases involving sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the commission to take such material into account in producing reports. This is covered directly in clause 84. There are understandable concerns about how we ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure that they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence, and to ensure that the operational context in which they served is fully recognised.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The truth is that many families have received answers through inquests, and only through inquests. I rather agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) when he said yesterday that he had been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death. That is why the Bill strikes a balance on how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off midway on 1 May 2024. We believe that those families deserve to have that process continue, as we have said from the outset.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also covers the provisions regarding interim custody orders. I will turn first to inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests. However, when the legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on 1 May 2024, we committed in opposition to restoring some of them, as we knew the hurt and anxiety it caused many families in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As we said at that time, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims, who felt that 1 May marked a door being shut in their faces, in particular for those who had been involved in inquests.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One day more, Ms Ghani. Today we are debating parts 6 to 9 of the Bill. Part 6 sets up on a pilot basis the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The commission will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means to retrieve information about troubles-related deaths. Part 7 covers the restoration of a limited number of troubles-related inquests. Part 8 covers further provisions, including the lifting of the prohibition set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 on investigations by the police of other troubles-related offences, including sexual offences, ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. By the time we finish considering the Bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with its inter-state case at all. I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in the Dillon judgment, but the legislation that we are advancing today is fully human rights-compliant, and that there is therefore no argument for them maintaining their inter-state case.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, to the first part. As I have just said, I have said this very robustly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee on several occasions. They have kept their own counsel for the moment, but it seems to me inconceivable that, by the time the Bill gets to the House of Lords, there could be an argument for them maintaining the inter-state case, and I therefore hope that they will withdraw it. I am being as clear as I can with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it is good to have power sharing in Northern Ireland and that I should not be running Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for South West Wiltshire that with my understanding of the terms of reference of the Omagh inquiry, we slightly disagree on this matter. I think it will be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. More importantly, however, as I said yesterday, it is really important that the fullest possible co-operation is shown, and, where the chief counsel has already said that they are not happy with that co-operation, it is incumbent on the Irish Government to step up to the plate.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. The question then is simply how one addresses that and ensures that one gets the future co-operation that has been promised and committed to by the Irish Government. I am more hopeful than he is, I guess—he may say that is because he has more scars on his back than I have in this regard. I think that between the two of us, with his scepticism and my hope, we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes. On the Omagh bombing, it is inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the same conversations today as we had yesterday, as Members understandably referred then to issues that we are voting on today. However, I would just say to the right hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously. However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep. I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date. Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those are the issues that we really do need to progress, because if we are going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, the clue will be not just in what happened in Northern Ireland but in what happened across the piece. That is why it is so important. Because I am a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I therefore think that co-operation is the best way to proceed. [ Interruption. ] I think that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is on manoeuvres.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done in this field. It is really important that people understand how significant the potential of close co-operation in this field is in getting answers for people, and in particular those whose concerns may be about what happened in the south and came up into the north. One of the issues I have raised directly—a couple of hon. Members have raised this with me—is about gelignite, which came before Semtex, and how it seems that in Northern Ireland we were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe, but there was one quarry in the Republic that managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a good question, to which I do not have the answer. With any luck, I will be inspired by the time the hon. Member gets to his feet and catches your eye, Ms Ghani, and I will come back to him.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those letters did not provide any individual with immunity from prosecution, and they are not legally binding guarantees against future prosecution. That has been confirmed by the 2014 Hallett review and by numerous Ministers under successive Administrations, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron. It has also been reiterated by the current chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher. However, I recognise the ongoing concern in relation to such letters, so I tabled new clause 51 to make it clear that they cannot be used to prevent or frustrate a prosecution.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Consequently, Government new clause 52 alongside amendments 244, 245, 268 and others move the operative provisions of the remedial order into the Bill. That brings the whole package together, ensuring that there is a clear transition between the legacy Act and the troubles Bill. On Second Reading and in our engagement on the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the so-called on-the-runs letters to which a couple of hon. Members referred yesterday. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) have tabled amendments on the matter that aim to put the status of those letters beyond doubt. I know that I referred to this yesterday, but, because this matter is before us today, I do want to return to it.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have always been committed to repealing those parts of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023—that were incompatible with our human rights obligations and which we felt were morally wrong as they risked providing equal immunity to terrorists and denying UK citizens their historic right to seek civil redress. In the interests of providing swift and early clarity, we had proposed to do that via the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was with us yesterday—among others argued that putting those measures in the Bill would allow greater scrutiny without undue delay.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Member makes a very good point. The Irish constitution has sometimes made it far more difficult for the Irish Government to be able to co-operate, and that is why they have had to legislate in some of these areas in a way that we would not have to in the United Kingdom. That is why the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South is so important and why the legislation they are advancing answers many of these precise issues in direct terms. These issues, which we do need to address, are not lost on Ministers in Dublin.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand why people made difficult decisions when it came to the Good Friday agreement, but as one hon. Member said yesterday, we do not get peace without justice. I think the line in the Bible is that justice and peace shall kiss one another. That is what we have to achieve.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree with every single word that the hon. Lady said. It absolutely needs to go out from the House that terrorism was and remains wrong in every single regard. Those who resorted to violence did so for reasons of their own, but not reasons that we could possibly countenance, and which we do not countenance in the legislation that we are advancing today. As I have said, 90% of the 3,500 or more who were killed in the troubles were killed by paramilitaries. I would go further: a lot of families whom I have spoken to in Northern Ireland felt that on-the-run letters were part of a sort of amnesty that was granted to some people and not to others, or was granted to everyone, and that that meant they would never get answers to what happened to their loved ones. That was always wrong.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control. Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work. Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now. The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗