On Tuesday, in the House of Commons, I rose to oppose, in the strongest possible terms, this Bill—legislation which has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely, fundamentally, and unforgivably wanting. It fails the test of fairness. It fails the test of common sense. And it fails the test of duty—duty owed to the innocent, duty owed to truth, and duty owed to those who defended democracy in the darkest years of terrorism in the United Kingdom.
No one should underestimate the toll of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Around 3,500 innocent lives were taken, with thousands more left physically and psychologically scarred. Families were devastated. Communities were traumatised. The consequences remain not just historical, but deeply lived by those left behind.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to address legacy matters not casually, not evasively—but with honesty, seriousness, and moral clarity.
Yet moral clarity is precisely what this Bill lacks.
Instead of upholding justice, this Bill risks rewriting history and creating a grotesque false equivalence between those who upheld the law and those who sought to destroy it. While terrorists have benefitted from amnesties, secret deals, and “letters of comfort”, many of those who served are being legally and publicly pursued well into their later years.
There were no protections, no political favours, and no covert guarantees for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Armed Forces, or the intelligence services. Yet they now face repeated investigations—often decades after events already fully examined.
These men and women served with restraint, professionalism, and courage in the face of brutal terrorism. They patrolled streets rigged with explosives. They faced sniper fire, car bombs, and relentless attempts to murder them and their families. Many never returned home. Their sacrifice must never be diminished—nor morally equalised with those who committed acts of terror.
I do not excuse wrongdoing in the small number of cases where it occurred. Where credible, new evidence exists, the law should take its course. But the overwhelming majority served honourably and with distinction.
Terrorism must be named and remembered as terrorism.
Ninety percent of deaths during the Troubles were caused by terrorist organisations. They bombed remembrance services, murdered police officers at their homes, attacked school buses, and targeted mothers, children, and civilians. From Enniskillen to Warrington, from Belfast to Birmingham, their legacy is one of slaughter, trauma, and devastation.
There was always an alternative: peaceful democracy.
Those who now claim otherwise attempt to sanitise murder into narrative.
This Bill fails victims and veterans.
Rather than drawing a fair and final line, this Bill risks embedding a new mechanism for politically motivated investigations, revisionism, and continual harassment of those who served the law.
It also raises serious structural and constitutional concerns.
Clause 5 may allow individuals involved in politically driven external investigations—but not those who served in the RUC or PSNI—to lead or influence the new legacy structures. This risks marginalising those who truly understand policing in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, proposals allowing the Chief Executive to also sit on the oversight board create an unacceptable conflict of interest. Oversight must be independent—not self-administered.
The proposed advisory group risks becoming dominated by nationalist legacy organisations which do not acknowledge the definition of an innocent victim. Will they be permitted to argue that those who murdered civilians are morally equal to those they killed?
Therefore, I asked directly in the Chamber:
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that no terrorist will sit on, advise, or influence this legacy body—directly or indirectly?
A better way forward is possible.
Legacy reform must be based on four principles:
- A clear moral, legal, and historical distinction between those who upheld the law and those who violated it.
- Protection for veterans from repeated investigation where no new and compelling evidence exists.
- Honesty with victims about what is realistically achievable, rather than creating new bureaucratic false hope.
- Preservation of the true historical record for future generations—not its dilution or reinterpretation.
This Bill should have been an opportunity to deliver truth, justice, and integrity.
Instead, it risks moral ambiguity, legal imbalance, and historical distortion.
For the sake of the innocent, for the sake of truth, and out of respect for those who defended democracy with courage and sacrifice, I cannot and will not support this legislation.
This Bill must be rejected—not for today’s convenience, but for history’s judgement.
Alex Easton MP
Member of Parliament for North Down
