Clonoe Inquest

Before I call the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) to ask his urgent question, I must remind hon. Members of the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice: Members should not refer to any matter that is currently before the courts.

On 19 November, I granted a waiver in respect of the case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given the issues of national importance raised by that case. The waiver is ongoing, and Members may refer to the case in the House. Given that the coroner’s verdicts and findings in relation to the Clonoe inquest have been published, I am content for that case to be discussed in the House. However, Members should take care to avoid referring to any other active civil or criminal cases.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest.

On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.

On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that

“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold

“an honest and genuinely held belief”

that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.

These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces—

Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that.

I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.

We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles.

I thank the Secretary of State for taking this statement personally. I know that he did not have to, so I thank him for that. The Government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. Last week’s frankly speculative judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s and no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement. In his statement in December, the Secretary of State of spoke of

“recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles.”[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 419.]

So precisely what are the Government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent patriotic people? If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. As he will be aware, this inquest was part of the five-year plan established by the former Lord Chief Justice, and because the hearings were held prior to the legacy Act 1 May cut-off, the inquest was able to be concluded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the result of anything that this Government have done.

The Government set out in our election manifesto and the King’s Speech our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, because it did something quite remarkable in uniting the political parties and communities of Northern Ireland in opposition to it. It is a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found, in a number of respects, to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] This Government believe in upholding our commitment to the European convention on human rights, even if other Members do not share that view.

I set out in my statement to the House of Commons in December the approach that we are taking, and I will bring forward further proposals in due course. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of our armed forces, the police and security services during those terribly dark, difficult and bloody days of the troubles.

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his urgent question and the Secretary of State for his answer. I have a simple question: what does the Secretary of State think this ruling will mean for peace and reconciliation and for bringing communities together in Northern Ireland?

That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.

The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.

I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.

On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.

What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?

The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.

The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?

The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.

The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act.

Throughout the troubles, both state and non-state actors committed unlawful killings that have created harm and scarred families across both our islands. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government, working with the Northern Irish parties, must find and build bodies that honour the Stormont House obligations of articles 2 and 3-compliant investigations and ensure that no victim-maker—nobody who carries out an unlawful killing, whether UK state forces, IRA or UDA—has the right to suppress truth from families?

As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.

The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.

The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement.

The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.

Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,

“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]

I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary?

I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.

The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation?

The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.

I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.

The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted.

Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR.

That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel—

By repealing the Bill.

By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR.

How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before?

As history shows, decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors. Such decisions are not determined by the Government; independent prosecutors have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and then courts have to decide whether they are going to convict or not. That is called the rule of law. A distinguished former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, set out very clearly that the British Army believes in the rule of law and is held to the highest standards, and I agree with him. I also agree with what the newly appointed veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland had to say about that in the comments that were reported over the weekend.

There is tangible anger in Northern Ireland over this preposterous verdict, and the Secretary of State’s limp response today will not assuage that anger. This is a Secretary of State who wants to see IRA godfather Gerry Adams paid compensation because the wrong Minister signed his detention order 50 years ago. This is a Secretary of State who has today defended the retention of a coronary system that, time without number, puts the security forces in the dock, but never the terrorists. Little wonder that confidence in the Secretary of State is haemorrhaging in Northern Ireland, and this response only underscores why.

As I made clear at Northern Ireland questions recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on the interim custody orders relating to internment in 2020. The previous Government knew there was a problem and, for quite a long period of time, was unable to find a solution. In the end, the solution—sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act—has been found to be unlawful, but I have given an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at all lawful means to prevent compensation from being paid in those circumstances. I believe that we are taking the right approach to the legacy Act.

On coroners, I say for, I think, the third time that if we have an inquest system that we support and that applies right across the piece, it is not possible to write legislation that says, “We will have the verdicts, judgments and findings that we like, but we will not have the findings that we do not like.” That is a decision—[Interruption.] Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases. I feel the anger of many Members of the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish answering the question that he put? I feel the anger that is being expressed in the House, but we have an independent legal system in this country, which is one of the foundations of our freedom.

The IRA itself claimed the terrorists shot by the security forces at Clonoe, describing their actions that night as being “active service”. They had just launched a cowardly attack on Coalisland RUC station, no doubt with murderous intent, but they met real soldiers and they lost. No doubt many innocent lives were saved by the security forces as a result of that evening: these were not innocent people, but hardened terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that this was a justified and necessary operation, within the guidelines of military interception, and will he condemn judicial rulings that seek to rewrite history, undermine our security forces and embolden bloodthirsty terrorists who wage war against innocent people?

I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today. It is a very serious issue, and that is why it falls to the Ministry of Defence to consider the findings and what may follow.

It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?

There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.

Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.

Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?

In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.

As has been said, people in Northern Ireland are appalled at this decision by a coroner who, incidentally, would have had police officers protecting him during the troubles. I guarantee that had he been faced with armed terrorists and those officers had asked them to put their hands up and surrender, he would have been appalled. He would have expected them to be shot. People will be equally appalled by the measly mouthed response from the Secretary of State. Let me quote some of the things he has said: “I can’t comment on this”, “We have to take seriously the judgment of the coroner” and “I will defend the ECHR, even though it has been abused by terrorists.” When will the Secretary of State take the side of the soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland and not be afraid that whatever he says here might offend Sinn Féin, the IRA and their supporters?

I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process.

Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.

Does the Secretary of State wish to reply to that?

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?

I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done that for us, and I think I have heard enough—let us move on.