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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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
“That is the subject of an amendment that has been tabled by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I am going to resist that amendment. Whatever date we choose would be, in one sense, an arbitrary one. I think the best date, which worked for the previous legislation and would also work in relation to this legislation, is the date of the Good Friday agreement, and that is what we are sticking to. I understand the point that is being made about Omagh. A public inquiry is ongoing, and it is important that the Irish Government can co-operate fully with that process. Indeed, I raised some of these matters directly with my counterpart, Jim O’Callaghan, the other day.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was making was just that he wanted to extend the date to accommodate the amendment that has been tabled, but I understand— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady is talking while I am talking, which makes it difficult for me to hear, but she has made her point.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will be legislation of the Government. Of course, whatever the Government at the time, they cannot bind their successors, but I am very confident that this legislation will stand the test of time in the Republic of Ireland.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that is a slightly ungenerous interpretation. I am happy to listen to the debate, and will respond to it at the end of the day. I am trying to proceed as much as I can on a cross-party basis. I was asked about an amendment and I am simply expressing a view, which is that most legislators in this country have tended use the date of the Good Friday agreement as the cut-off date.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members would expect me, while first of all congratulating the Irish Government when they have provided important material, and wanting to co-operate with them entirely and fully, to be robust in pushing them where we feel that that has sometimes fallen short. For instance, one issue that was raised with me last week was the evidence that has been given to the Omagh inquiry. Some questions have already been asked by the leading counsel, and I have put those to Jim O’Callaghan, who I expect will be responding to me. Then there is the issue of gelignite. I am also conscious that, only a few weeks ago, I stood in a field where people were digging to see whether they could find the body of a man who was murdered some 30 years ago. Some of the answers to those issues will also lie with the Irish Government, rather than in our paperwork.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is one part of what we might do, but it might be more convenient for everybody concerned if we simply said that certain clauses would not be commenced until such time as both parties had agreed. In addition, I have tabled an amendment, which is remarkably similar to one tabled by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in relation to issuing a written ministerial statement to clarify how consistent the Irish Government have been with their obligations. I hope that, between all those different elements, we will manage to land on working in lockstep. I think that all hon.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests. I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation. Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it. A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him. Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation. As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note the point that the hon. Member makes, but if he looks at clause 8(4)(b), he will see that it states that the Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that it is “balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.” The whole group has to meet not only that requirement, but the requirement of supporting victims. I hear what he says, but I am afraid that his amendment would not be proportionate, although I am happy to listen to his contribution later.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I must be clear: the primary responsibility of any Government is national security, and I am accountable to Parliament on matters of national security as they pertain to Northern Ireland. Some information, even if it is historical, has present-day implications for the life and safety of individuals, for national security or for international relations. That is why schedule 5— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I did not hear what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was saying.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Full disclosure by public authorities to the commission is vital to enable families to get answers about what happened to their loved ones, which is why it is required that the commission sees everything. To build on that, Government amendments 155 to 160 will allow directors of investigations and judicial panel members of the legacy commission to impose a timescale on state authorities when requesting disclosure—that is another key ask of the families. The amendments tabled by hon. Members relate primarily to the onward disclosure from the commission to the public—in other words, after the commission has reviewed the disclosure and is preparing its report.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I do not think that was the intention at all. One of the complaints about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, the body established by the legacy Act in 2023, was that there were potential conflicts of interest. That is why the idea of having two directors was introduced—that is the important part of the change to the legacy commission. The idea was that one would definitely have experience of Northern Ireland and one would have experience of elsewhere. It was not specifically that this should be in relation to Ireland. I would have thought it more likely that somebody would have experience of other parts of the United Kingdom.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot, however, accept amendments that would change that balance, which is designed to ensure the maximum possible disclosure of information to families while ensuring that we do not compromise national security. I now turn to the question of how we ensure that those who served the state are treated with dignity and respect during any legacy process.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just for the record, Ms Ghani, he was chuntering and he admits it. That is why schedule 5 provides essential safeguards, allowing the Secretary of State to prohibit the onward sharing of sensitive information by the commission only where the disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Bill already changes the legacy Act’s onward disclosure regime in a number of important ways. Material will no longer be designated as “sensitive” based on the organisation that owns it, and the Secretary of State will be required to conduct a balancing exercise when considering disclosure of sensitive information, and give reasons for decisions not to disclose.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I pay tribute to his previous work on this subject. It is important that we do not over-promise in the Bill. I recently saw the first ICRIR report into the death of Rory O’Kelly. I spoke to his daughter, Anne O’Kelly, and she was very moved and felt a great sense of liberation by its publication, but it does not come to perfect answers. I am guessing that many of the families will not get perfect answers, although they may get a degree of closure and healing because of being able to go through the process. I am very keen to ensure that the commission’s remit does not increase dramatically and make it more difficult for it to meet its obligations, and I am of course in discussions with the Treasury to ensure that finances are available to do the job properly.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We agree that the duty of candour needs to apply to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission, and I note the Committee’s recommendation. I am confident that when it comes to the House of Lords’ processes, we will be able to mesh these two pieces of legislation together.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is right about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its request for us to look at this issue. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Hillsborough law has not completed its progress through the House of Lords, where it is still in Committee, and we want to ensure that we can mesh the two pieces of legislation together when it comes to that issue. The Hillsborough law’s commitment to truth and information recovery is mirrored in this legislation, which is why I am proud to say that we would want to able to, wherever possible, ensure that it applies. New inquests that proceed under the Bill will automatically be in scope of the duty of candour included in the Hillsborough law, and the processes of the legacy commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think and hope that all hon. Members agree that there is no moral equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and the barbaric acts of terrorism for which paramilitaries were responsible, as Members including the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have set out through their amendments. Government new clause 32 makes it clear that the lawful actions of soldiers in the course of duty cannot be treated by the legacy commission as equivalent to the actions of terrorists.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The term “vexatious claim” could in itself be argued to be vexatious. A phrase that I have used a couple of times is “rinse and repeat”. I will come to that a little later. I am keen to ensure that nobody is subjected to being brought back time and again to face the same kind of process.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will finish this point and then I will come to the right hon. Members for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Our new clause 32 also recognises, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has just said, the operational context in which veterans served and the circumstances in which they needed to make decisions in deploying the use of force so as to prevent harm. This includes recognising the orders they were given, the intelligence briefings available to them, and the age, experience and training available to many of those soldiers.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am conscious of judicial review, not least because my decision on Drumcree is presently being judiciously reviewed. [ Interruption. ] I meant to say judicially reviewed—whether it is judicious is a matter for the courts to decide, not me; I am not challenging their authority. We have to be clear about what judicial review can and cannot do. It is about the decision of the state authority that is being investigated, not the decision of the individual. That is a really important distinction to make.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things he said to me last week was that he would be very grateful if I said in this debate that there is no moral equivalence, and I have done exactly as he asked. He is right.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very reluctant to give way too many times, because I am conscious that lots of people will want to make speeches and catch your eye, Ms Ghani.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have not given way much to Members on this side of the House, so I will take one intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I will also take an intervention from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and then I promise that I will really crack on, Ms Ghani.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also requires the commission to consider “whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”, and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness. This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no. We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes. This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman says that he supports new clause 21. Will he explain how it is right for Mrs Jones, when asking for a review and before turning up at the legacy commission, to somehow have to prove to a Supreme Court judge that there is new and compelling evidence? Is that not another process—another piece of lawfare? Has he checked whether the Supreme Court thinks that is at all possible for a Supreme Court judge?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To be clear, I do not resist the idea that sexual violence was part of the troubles. Indeed, one problem with previous legacy legislation was that it made it impossible for such things to be investigated anywhere. We are making it possible for such matters to be investigated by the police. All police forces in the United Kingdom have suitable teams that are able to deal with the specifics of those kinds of incidents, and it would be inappropriate for the legacy commission to take on that piece of work without being able to set up a whole new team specifically to look at that. However, the legislation does allow police forces to take forward those crimes, and if there is clear evidence that that was related to a death as well, or to serious injury, it would be able to be investigated.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has conducted his campaign. As he knows, he has informed many of the amendments that we have tabled today. I do not want to give the Irish Government a free pass on this issue. We need to be ambitious. Just as there should be a duty of candour for us, so there must be a duty of candour for the Irish Government. Every time that I have raised this matter with my counterparts in Dublin, they have insisted that they intend to stand by their commitments, and I think we must make sure that they do.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was not twitching; I was trying to intervene. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his case. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the first report produced by ICRIR into the murder of Rory O’Kelly. It was striking to me that, although it did not come up with perfect answers to everything, it was felt as an enormous release to Anne O’Kelly. Although I do not want to oversell what we can achieve, we should not underestimate the significance of this legislation in getting answers for families, including many armed forces families. Mrs Jones is as likely to be somebody whose husband served in the military or in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could the right hon. Gentleman just clarify what question he is asking? I am not sure whether he is asking about the commissioners or the directors of investigation. While I am on my feet, may I gently suggest to him that his figures about recruitment in the armed forces are wrong? Actually, for the first time in a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving. Recruitment is up by 7% and outflow is down by 7%.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can absolutely provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. It is really important that we take from ICRIR what is good and build on that, but also that we sort out some of the problems that have existed. He will have seen the Peter May report and some of the problems that there have been in the courts. We will put all of that right, but we are not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member. I hope he understands that I think everybody in the Committee wants to ensure that people are not barred from taking forward these issues through the commission. However, as he has just said, this may need to be dealt with so sensitively that the legacy commission might not be the place where they want it to be addressed—they might want it to be addressed somewhere else. I am not sure that his amendment is necessary to achieve what he is trying to achieve. I am very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I am just not sure that this measure is necessary.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to be absolutely clear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of candour. Just as we argued for it in the Hillsborough law—which is still making its way through the House of Lords; it is still in Committee stage down there—so I want us to be as open and transparent as possible. I undertake to work with him and others in this House to ensure that principle is adhered to when we mesh together the two Bills—this Bill and the Hillsborough law—in the House of Lords.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member referred to his own private Member’s Bill, which said that a Supreme Court judge should decide whether something was “new and compelling” evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he, indeed, approached the Supreme Court?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I might as well answer that now: yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them. I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate. A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗