PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation - 17 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.

It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that

“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”

I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.

As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.

The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]

Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.

The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.

If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal

“has been determined or abandoned”.

It has been abandoned by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.

Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.

I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.

Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.

Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.

I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—

Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.

I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.

I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?

I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.

I call the Father of the House.

A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.

It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?

I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.

On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?

I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.

That’s what the generals said.

Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.

As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.

He didn’t say that!

Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?

What are you talking about, you idiot!

I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.

The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.

But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.

The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.

Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?

I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.

I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.

I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.

This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?

On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.

Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?

I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.

I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?

I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.

May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?

If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.

We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.

The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?

As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.

Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.

Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?

I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.

The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?

I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.

Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?

Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?

I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?

As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.

Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?

Yes, it will be voted on in both Houses in the new year.

Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?

There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?

As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to raise in my question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was that on any issue to do with the Northern Irish troubles, we must tread with appropriate solemnity and seriousness. It was therefore disappointing to be accused of being an idiot by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench while making that very point. What advice would you give on ensuring that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) apologises appropriately, not to me but to the whole House, for lowering the tone of that serious debate?

If I had heard any inappropriate language, I would have dealt with it very swiftly and dealt with that Member involved. No inappropriate language should be used in the Chamber. On such a highly charged, emotional and very serious topic, we need to double down and make sure that we are using the most appropriate language. Mr Francois, before you respond, please remember that you are also responding to me in the Chair. No doubt, you will not want to displease me either with any of your response.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused—[Interruption.] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.

I do not wish to prolong the debate, and no doubt that will be seen, by most, as an apology.