PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict - 3 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we begin, it may be helpful for me to remind the House that the trial of Soldier F in relation to the events on Bloody Sunday is no longer sub judice and that it is the focus of today’s urgent question. There remain live cases in respect of other soldiers. On 14 July 2025, I granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings related to historical troubles-related deaths. However, references to live cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor to the names of those individuals involved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.

The trial of Soldier F concluded on 23 October with a not guilty verdict. The Ministry of Defence rightly provided him with legal and pastoral support. I and the Secretary of State for Defence have, of course, noted the judgment, but I do not think it appropriate to be drawn on the particulars of these independent legal proceedings. The House will recognise that it was also a difficult day for the families of the 13 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday, in circumstances that the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron described as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House remain with them.

We all understand the continuing pain felt by families and communities in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as a result of the troubles. The Government remain committed to establishing a legacy process that can provide answers for families who are still seeking to find out what happened to their loved ones. We will always remember the dangers faced by our brave soldiers, police, and others who served during the time of Operation Banner and who tried to keep people safe, and will always remember, especially at this time of year, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service will never be forgotten, and we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.

It is, however, important to note that the case of Soldier F of course involved no role for either this Government or the last one. The independent proceedings were ongoing before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and they were not halted by that legislation. Decisions by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are always taken independently, in the light of facts and circumstances, and we should all respect that independence. A prosecution can only ever be brought when the evidence presents, in the view of prosecutors, a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and when it is in the public interest to proceed.

I also recognise that all those affected by the troubles, including veterans, want a system that is fair, balanced and proportionate. That is what the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is seeking to put in place, with a new legacy commission and strong protections for veterans that were not included in the last Government’s legacy Act. That act offered a false and undeliverable promise of immunity to our Northern Ireland veterans. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for—not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and

“on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]

He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said:

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

That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act.

As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.

Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that

“‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.”

We ask the Secretary of State to think again.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity—

Conditional immunity.

As I say, the legacy Act’s offer of immunity in return for statements that the legacy commission regarded as truthful and credible could have given immunity to terrorists. That is why the immunity that the last Government sought to put in place was rejected by victims’ and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and was found by the courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Therefore, as I have said to the House before, and I have said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Act was no basis on which to try to help those families find the answers that they are looking for. That is why we need a different approach—building on the establishment of the legacy commission, I grant him, because I took the decision that we would not abolish it but reform it. That is what the Bill that we will debate shortly seeks to do, and I look forward to it being scrutinised by the House.

Many people impacted by the troubles continue to live with the pain, trauma and grief of war. The previous Government’s approach to legacy was rendered essentially useless because, as the Secretary of State just said, it was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to carry all the people of Northern Ireland with him on his approach to legacy?

Having promised the House in two statements since the Government were elected in July 2024 that I would bring forward proposals, I did so when the Government published the Bill on 14 October. Since then, I have met political parties and organisations representing victims and survivors, and this week I will again meet the victims and survivors forum that I met on the day that the agreement with the Irish Government was published. As I acknowledged to the House when I made my oral statement, no proposals put forward will be greeted with approval by everyone, but I have been much struck by the fact that those I have met and talked to have said, “Well, we will need to consider the detail.” I believe that the proposals provide a basis for moving forward, and I hope that the House will recognise that.

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. We welcome the resolution of this trial and the clarity that the law has afforded. The Liberal Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to the families who still seek justice and answers. The legacy Act of 2023 may have been driven by the instinct to protect veterans, but it fails to comply with our international legal obligations and, through its conditional immunity, created a false equivalence between those who valiantly served in the British armed forces and those involved in acts of terrorism. That approach was both morally wrong and offensive to veterans and victims alike. The violence carried out by terrorist organisations during the troubles caused deep suffering across Northern Ireland, and we believe that the need to uphold the rule of law must apply to all without exception, but prosecution should never become persecution. This case focuses our attention back on the Government’s new attempt to deal with the legacy of the past. Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the Bill will deliver strong enough protections for British veterans? What has he done to try to secure support from veterans’ organisations? What has he done to ensure that victims and families can finally access the truth and justice that they deserve?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and his characterisation of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act. Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, said that the confederation welcomes

“the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

We drew those up having spoken to veterans. I hope that when people look at them and see how they work, they will recognise that we have acknowledged our particular responsibility to treat veterans fairly in the process. That is the right way to proceed.

Some 53 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, and 15 years after the report of the Saville inquiry, it is becoming clear that future criminal cases will be few and far between, but every single day, this issue sits with the families who have lost loved ones. It affects every day of their lives, be they the families of military personnel or of those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that they will remain absolutely central to this work, going forward?

All those families, including military families, are at the centre of what we seek to do. What are the Government trying to achieve? We are trying to create a legacy system that more people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in. The last legacy Act failed to command sufficient confidence from the people in Northern Ireland; that is a fact that no one can dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecutions are increasingly unlikely with the passage of time—I think the judgment and the judge’s summing up in the case of Soldier F made that extremely clear—but even where they are not possible, we want to put in place arrangements, and to be able to provide information about what happened to the families.

I call the Father of the House.

Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.

We all want Northern Ireland to be able to move on into a better age and a better future, but we have a responsibility to those families who are still searching for answers to put in place a system that will help them to get those answers, including in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I simply point out that it is estimated that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries served sentences of imprisonment during the troubles for a wide variety of offences, including murder. If he looks at the cases currently awaiting trial, he will find that most of them relate to former paramilitaries, not to our armed forces.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the role that they played in Northern Ireland and across the UK. What discussions has he had with veterans, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, about the new protection in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Is he or one of the Defence Ministers prepared to speak to veterans in Cornwall on this matter?

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Ministry of Defence will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The protections in the legislation that has been brought before the House are the result of extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, the armed forces Ministers, and veterans’ organisations.

The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said:

“The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”.

Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.

The legislation that the Government have put before the House will make no change at all to the basis on which decisions about any potential prosecutions are made. Indeed, that system will remain as it has been right through the course of the troubles and in the 27 and a half years since. [Interruption.] It is the case. Decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by prosecutors, and it is not for us to gainsay the decisions that those prosecutors make, because that is the absolute bedrock of our independent judicial system.

Some quarter of a million people served in Operation Banner, and the vast majority did so with great distinction and huge bravery, leading to the peace that we see in Northern Ireland today. The number of prosecutions of Army veterans is vanishingly small, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those veterans for their service and condemn the rhetoric that at times is coming from Conservative Members, which is unnecessarily stoking fear among those veterans?

I have already expressed the Government’s thanks in my answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and I think those sentiments are felt right across the House.

I welcome the clear and just verdict delivered by Mr Justice Lynch, which rightly found Soldier F not guilty on all charges—vindication for a man who served his country with honour and distinction. Does the Secretary of State agree that this case again exposes the disgrace of vexatious prosecutions of aged veterans, pursued where there was never evidence capable of meeting the threshold for conviction, and that it is time to end the witch hunt once and for all?

Does the Secretary of State further agree that around 90% of all deaths during the troubles were caused by terrorists, and that of the 10% that involved the security forces, the largest proportion occurred while engaging terrorists who were engaged in murderous and criminal activities? Sinn Féin’s historical revisionism, exemplified by the First Minister’s comments following the verdict, is therefore defamatory. To equate murderers with those who defended democracy is an attempt to smear our veterans, and it should not be allowed.

I agree with the hon. Member that 90% of those who were killed during the troubles were killed by paramilitary terrorists, which is why the vast majority of those who have been prosecuted and convicted have been paramilitary terrorists. However, I do not agree with her when she uses the phrase “vexatious prosecutions”. There are no vexatious prosecutions. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There are no vexatious prosecutions, because if the hon. Member is arguing that a decision to prosecute is vexatious, she is criticising the independent prosecuting authorities, which make their decisions on the basis of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. We should be extremely careful about trying to undermine an independent judicial system.

Many IRA murders on UK soil have never been solved, including the targeting of soldiers and their families in the M62 coach bombing in 1974 and the Warrenpoint massacre in 1979, the deadliest attack on the British Army during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that by shutting down investigations—including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers—without an adequate alternative, the legacy Act failed many families and victims of the troubles?

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about what happened as a result of the legacy Act, but I welcome that two of the cases she mentioned—the M62 coach bombing and Warrenpoint—are currently being investigated by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, because members of their families have chosen to refer in those cases. I want more families to have more confidence in the commission, which is why I am seeking to reform it so that they too feel able to refer their cases in.

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the characterisation he used at the end of his question. This is not a politically correct process; this is about trying to find a way forward for those families. The honest answer to the fair point that he raises is that each family deals with the loss of their loved one in their own way. Some do not come forward. They live with their grief silently, alone. Others have campaigned. If it had not been for the campaigning of the Bloody Sunday families, there would not have been a Saville inquiry and we would not have got to the point where the former Prime Minister stood at this Dispatch Box to apologise for the killing of their loved ones.

Having said that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is likely to be held to account through a judicial process, and that is why one of the focuses of the new commission will be on fact-finding and the new body for information retrieval, using all the means at our disposal to try to provide answers to those families. It will then be for them to decide how they come to terms with what happened. We owe it to them to leave no stone unturned and to put a better system in place.

As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.

I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I do not remember using the word “equivalence”. What I said was that independent prosecutors would make decisions on the basis of the evidence that they had before them. The current legacy commission is able to refer cases for potential prosecution, and the new legacy commission will be able to do the same. If there is evidence that will allow paramilitaries to be prosecuted, it will be for the prosecutors to decide whether to bring a case, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the convictions that there have been since the Good Friday agreement, he will find that most of them have related to paramilitaries. As I said a moment ago, most of the trials that are currently being awaited relate not to the armed forces but to paramilitaries.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that, given the judge’s comments that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, veterans do consider that that was a vexatious prosecution? They do consider that the prosecution of Soldier B is a vexatious prosecution, and they do feel utterly betrayed by this Government’s repeal of the legacy Act.

The legacy Act offered a false promise of immunity. It was found to be incompatible with our obligations, and it had no support in Northern Ireland. At some point, Opposition Members must recognise that it had no support there. How can Northern Ireland move forward if the basis of the last Government’s legislation lacks that support? In those circumstances, it is for prosecutors to make decisions, and we need to respect that. People may agree or disagree, but we need to respect a system in which prosecution decisions are made independently, because there are other countries in the world where that is not the case.

Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?

I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution.

I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace?

It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that we accept the verdicts of the courts, even if we may not agree with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he expresses his views regarding the basis of that prosecution. The only point that I am making is that that decision is made by independent prosecutors, not by any of us.

It would indeed be possible for them to refer the case to the commission.

I will first declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Ulster Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years.

This ruling was expected, as there was no additional evidence and it was twice held to be not fit for prosecution, as others have mentioned. It is hard to understand how they could pursue something without having the criminal investigation and the evidence sorted in advance. It is clear that the Secretary of State must address the way forward and provide certainty for those service personnel who know that they served honourably in impossible conditions, and yet who live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, waiting to have their service used as a tool by republicans to make it seem like they were fighting a dirty war, when quite clearly they were not.

Will the Secretary of State send the message today that he will not sign off on the narrative that our troops—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—were ever anything other than honourable men and women putting their lives on the line for us, and that they will be protected as honourably as they protected us? How does the Secretary of State intend to protect them better than we are doing right now?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the protections that we have put into legislation following the discussions that we have had with veterans, which I referred to earlier. I join him in again paying tribute to the extraordinarily brave service of all those who served during the time of Operation Banner in trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the terrorists. I will make a point that I know the whole House will agree with: while some people argue that there was no alternative to that terrorism, there was, and we saw it in the signing of the Good Friday agreement and what happened thereafter. There was always an alternative. That is why we should always support those who did their duty honourably.

The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans?

The letters of comfort—or the on-the-run letters, however one wishes to describe them—had their origin in the time after the Good Friday agreement, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, but, as I explained a moment ago in answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they did not give anyone immunity from prosecution. That is an extremely important point to make. Anyone who gives the impression that they gave immunity from prosecution is, I am afraid, causing people unnecessary worry when the facts do not support that.

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government?

The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission—people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court.[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 10WC.] (Correction) There are, of course, two other protections: the protection from cold calling and the right to be heard through the statutory advisory group that will be established, working alongside the commission, which will have representation from a member of the armed forces or a police force. Those are very practical changes that we have made, which, as I said earlier, are not contained in the current legacy Act.

The Secretary of State is right to say that this Remembrance Month underlines the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who serve our nation, but many in my constituency feel that that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental failure in our nation’s duty of care to veterans of Operation Banner. The Secretary of State suggests that the troubles legacy Bill will not increase the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts, but veterans feel that the reality is different. In the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to, they call it “lawfare”. They say that there is a legal conveyor belt of several actions that are taking place. Is it not time for a time limit on civil actions relating to historical military operations?

The hon. Member raises an important point. It is, however, very important to distinguish, as I know she will, between potential criminal prosecutions, which are the result of decisions of independent prosecutors, and civil cases. One of the other things that the courts found was that the ban on civil cases was incompatible with our human rights obligations. I point out that there has already been a civil case in relation to a paramilitary, which found against that individual, and it is a fundamental feature of our system that people are able to bring civil cases. Decisions about how those cases are disposed of is rightly a matter for the courts.

My thoughts today are with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims and with the people of Derry, who have carried the burden of grief, truth and justice for more than five decades. What happened on Bloody Sunday is not up for debate; the Saville inquiry established in painstaking detail what the Parachute Regiment did to peaceful civil rights demonstrators on the Bogside. Can the Secretary of State explain how it was determined and who determined that Soldier F qualified for Ministry of Defence funding, and what precedent this decision was based on, particularly given reports that he received double the financial support typically afforded to a single defendant? If he was eligible for legal aid, that avenue was open for him. Instead, £4.3 million of public money was spent defending a man who, in his own evidence to the Saville inquiry, admitted his lethal role in the state-sanctioned murders on Bloody Sunday. Does the Secretary of State believe that this represents an equal and impartial application of justice, or a two-tiered system designed to shield the British state from accountability?

I say to the hon. Member that the Saville inquiry report made for very sobering and distressing reading for all of us. Like many Members present, I was in the House to hear the former Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, make that apology to the families—something for which they had campaigned for years and years when justice was denied to them. I will always remember the photographs of the fists that came out of the window in the Guildhall in Derry/Londonderry as people heard what the Prime Minister at the time had said from the Dispatch Box.

On the hon. Member’s first point, it is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence provides support to any veteran who is facing a criminal justice process. I think we would expect nothing less.

It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?

I will do so when we have been able to inform the families in those cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is only right and proper that we inform the families first, and then I will make a list available. On the reason for the Loughgall inquest, he will be aware that the former Attorney General said on 23 September 2015:

“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how it is compatible with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to give the Irish Government an official role—effectively, a veto—over the new framework that the Government propose? Is he confident that the Irish state itself will do everything it can to ensure that its agents are held to account for any collusion that may have happened in atrocities carried out by Irish nationalists during the troubles?

The Irish Government do not have a veto. I stood next to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and I made commitments on behalf of the British Government and he made commitments on behalf of the Irish Government. All of us in the House who wish families to get the answers for which they have been searching for so long should welcome the fact that the Irish Government are prepared to move from where they are now, because they oppose the legacy Act too, to a place where they will give this their fullest co-operation. In the course of that, we all hope to provide more information to give more families answers. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the two Governments are working together on this, because it will help the families.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Yes, if it relates to the urgent question.

During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate.

Thank you.