Government Rules Out Troubles Immunity as MPs Push Banking Hubs

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall held two Backbench debates. First, Members considered the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s Second Report on legacy, focusing on resourcing, victims’ participation, disclosure arrangements and veterans’ safeguards. The Secretary of State ruled out any return to immunity and outlined funding discussions, disclosure changes and cooperation with Ireland. Second, Members debated access to banking services amid widespread branch closures, urging regulation beyond “access to cash” and expansion of banking hubs; the Minister said the FCA can pause closures and that 350 hubs is a floor, not a ceiling. Both motions were agreed to without divisions.

Detailed Summary

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past (consideration of NI Affairs Committee Second Report)

Opening the debate, Committee Chair Tonia Antoniazzi highlighted cross‑party concerns on funding, victims’ involvement, investigations and disclosure. She warned that the £250 million envelope had not been updated and noted the Secretary of State accepted that “further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury”. She cited the PSNI Chief Constable’s predicament — “I am caught between the two” — and urged broader definitions of who counts as a close relative and what constitutes “serious physical or mental harm”. She also questioned Ministers appointing judges to inquisitorial proceedings and said retaining a so‑called ministerial veto over disclosure would not be revisited by the Government. Claire Hanna said “legislation alone will not get us to truth and a reconciled future” and called for accountability by all actors.

Contributions showed differing views on justice and reconciliation. Sir Julian Lewis argued for a statute of limitations with truth recovery, asking, “How much more likely is it that people will come forward and tell the truth when they know that they could be incriminating themselves”, and rejected any moral equivalence by citing the two‑year cap on sentences in the 1998 Act. Fleur Anderson supported the new troubles Bill, saying it will “restore civil cases and enable the resumption of halted inquests” and that “nobody who carried out acts of terrorism will be given immunity”. Robin Swann questioned whether promised veteran protections are specific — “there for all, not specifically for veterans” — and pressed for explicit provision on sexual offences. Jim Shannon criticised inquest focus and legal‑aid asymmetry, stating, “we cannot and will not support this approach”. Paul Kohler called the 2023 Act “a profound mistake” and sought stronger disclosure appeal mechanisms and restorative justice options. Alex Burghart cited the Court of Appeal that ICRIR’s arrangements “do not of themselves offend the principle of independence” and said current proposals lack “explicit or particular protections for veterans”.

Responding, the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, ruled out reintroducing immunity — “we are not going to accept any proposals that seek to reintroduce the immunity provisions”. He said further funding talks would be needed as the commission’s caseload unfolds, and outlined disclosure changes, including “a duty to conduct a balancing exercise and to give reasons where possible,” with decisions open to judicial review. On cooperation with Ireland, he noted the Garda unit was established and that “the Irish Government have now published the legislation to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh inquiry”. He confirmed there will be “no alleged sexual offences that occurred during the period of the troubles that cannot be investigated”, and said the House will see further veterans’ safeguards at Bill Committee, whose date “will be set in the normal way”. The motion that the House had considered the Committee’s report and the Government response was agreed to.

Banking Services: Accessibility

Andrew George described the impact of closures in Penzance and criticised a poor‑quality community‑banker replacement: “There were 28 people queueing to see the community banker” and “eight left because they could not wait any longer”. He argued oversight is too narrow — “Current legislation and regulatory oversight look almost exclusively at access to cash” — and called for wider regulation covering banking services, travel realities and hub standards. He noted “Since 2015, around 6,700 branches—68% of the whole banking network—have closed,” with knock‑on effects for high‑street vitality. David Williams said banking hubs help but “a banking hub is not a replacement; it is a mitigation”. Cameron Thomas highlighted rural impacts and asked for hubs before the final branch closes, noting “there is not a single banking hub within the Gloucestershire local authority”. David Chadwick cited long rural travel times and said current criteria force towns to “have to lose everything before they qualify,” while pointing to banks’ rising profits. Richard Fuller set trends in context — “cash accounted for less than 10% of payments” and there have been “6,700 bank branch closures” since 2015 — and stressed the value of face‑to‑face checks in countering fraud: “Online fraud is an evil crime”.

Replying, the Minister, Lucy Rigby, affirmed the FCA’s powers and expectations: firms must assess impacts and “the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused,” and “no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place”. She said the pledge of 350 banking hubs is “the 350 figure is a floor, not a ceiling” and that “225 are now open,” adding that services available at hubs are being expanded. She said the Government is “keeping any need to go further, including on access to banking services, under close review”. The motion was agreed to.