Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It would be remiss of me not to mention, at the start of the debate, the appalling incident that happened in north Belfast last night. I am sure that hon. Members agree that we roundly condemn that serious assault. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the individual assaulted. We hope he makes a speedy recovery and we call for calm in the protests that will occur right across Northern Ireland tonight. It is up to this Government to address the serious concerns of the public.

As the Member for North Down, I rise to speak about an issue that is at once local, regional and national: the future of police training in Northern Ireland and the urgent need for the United Kingdom Government to step up and fund a modern, single-site police college as a matter of national security. It is not a luxury project; it is a core part of the critical national infrastructure. Northern Ireland police officers past and present have stood on the frontline of threats that have not been confined to Belfast, Bangor or Newry, but have reached to the hearts of London, Birmingham and Manchester, and beyond. The skills those police officers develop, the intelligence they contribute and the partnerships they underpin with UK-wide agencies all flow from the training that they receive. If we value their contribution to the safety of every citizen in the United Kingdom, we must be honest about the state of the facilities that we expect them to train in and about the scale of the investment that realistically only the UK Government can provide.

At the heart of the proposal for a new training college is a 54.8-acre site in my constituency of North Down. It is a site of sufficient scale to bring together on one campus the full spectrum of modern policing training: recruit training, specialist firearms and public order training, cyber-crime and digital forensics training, and training in road policing and marine policing, as well as leadership development and continuous professional training. On the 54.8-acre site there is space to do that properly by designing purpose-built classrooms, scenario villages, driving tracks, ranges and simulation suites that reflect the real world environments that officers face. That is the future we could and should build, but today we do not train our officers in such a place. Instead, we rely heavily on Garnerville—an ageing and constrained estate—and on a patchwork of split-site arrangements across Northern Ireland.

It is time that we were candid about what that actually means. Garnerville has served with distinction for decades. Many of our finest officers have passed through those gates, but sentiment does not mend roofs, rebuild tired accommodation blocks or magically transform 20th-century buildings into 21st-century digital training hubs. The maintenance realities at Garnerville are stark. Every year more and more of the already stretched budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is poured into simply keeping the lights on and the structures safe by patching up old wiring and maintaining leaky roofs, into trying to retrofit modern information and communications technology into buildings never designed for it, and into constantly working around the constraints of a campus that has quite simply reached the end of its usefulness and economic life. Engineers have been clear at best: with ongoing remedial work and ever-greater maintenance bills, the existing core facilities have perhaps 10 years of realistic lifespan left—10 years at most. That is to keep an outdated model limping on, not to deliver the standard of training that a modern UK police service facing complex, fast-moving threats truly requires.

We face a choice. Do we continue to sink millions of pounds into life-extending repairs on a site that cannot by its very nature deliver what is needed, or do we invest once in a modern, consolidated college on a 54.8-acre site that is available, appropriate and future-proofed? The truth is that the current split-level model is no longer financially or operationally defensible. Training being scattered across multiple locations leads to the duplication of facilities and staff, increased travel time and transport costs, ineffective scheduling, wasted officer hours, a fragmented culture, inconsistent training experiences and logistical complexities that pull focus away from core training qualities.

In an area in which we ask our officers to handle everything from neighbourhood disputes to international organised crime, we should not be asking them to shuttle between sites because one campus cannot meet their needs, nor should we accept a model where some specialist training must be compromised or curtailed because the facilities are not available in the right place at the right time.

A single, purpose-built college on the site in North Down would end the split-site inefficiency and bring recruits, specialists and leaders together. It would allow shared use of high-quality simulation environments—digital labs, scenario streets and lecture theatres. It would foster a genuine shared professional culture across ranks and disciplines, and crucially it would do so on a site that is large and flexible enough to evolve with the threats we know are coming over the next 30 to 40 years, and not just the next five years.

Some might say, “This is a devolved matter—let Stormont pay.” That argument simply does not stand up when we consider the nature of the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland does and the national security dimension, which in Northern Ireland is inseparable from policing. Let us be clear: the PSNI works hand in glove with the security services, the National Crime Agency and police forces across Great Britain on counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, cyber-threats and the protection of critical national infrastructure. Threats that are planned or incubated in Northern Ireland may be executed across other areas of the United Kingdom. Intelligence gathered on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry can keep people safe in London or Glasgow.

Northern Ireland is not a distinct, separate theatre of operations; it is an integral front in the security of the whole United Kingdom. The officers we train in Garnerville or Antrim are not just local officers; they are part of a UK-wide network of professionals protecting all of us from terrorism, paramilitary criminality, people smuggling, drug trafficking, cyber-attacks and hostile state activities exploiting our unique geographic and political context.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that in addition to having a state-of-the-art training facility—and I agree with him on that—we need to have more police officers on the street. The police in Northern Ireland are understaffed, and we need to see more politicians, some of whom are absent today, standing with and recruiting people from all communities, so that they can be trained and serve people in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Easton]

I agree with everything the hon. Member says. We are 1,000 police officers down from what we need to deal with crime in Northern Ireland. That is a failing of Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, who has failed to find the funding to recruit those extra officers, but even if we got those extra officers, we do not have the facilities to train them properly. It is a vicious circle. That is why we need to step up and do something about this.

Investing in a modern, secure and fully equipped police college is not a regional spending decision, but a UK national security decision. When we fund new facilities for the Metropolitan police to train their counter-terrorism officers, nobody pretends that it is merely a London issue. When we invest in specialist training centres in England, Scotland or Wales, we recognise that the benefits radiate across the borders. The same logic applies in Northern Ireland. If a police training facility serving the frontline of UK counter-terrorism and serious crime in any other part of our country had only 10 years of realistic life left and operated across a fragmented, split-site model, this House would rightly expect the UK Government to act. We would not expect a single devolved budget, already under pressure from health, education and infrastructure, to shoulder that burden alone.

Moreover, the risks of inaction are not theoretical. Allow me to spell them out. First, a failure to invest over the next decade will steadily degrade training quality. As the buildings become harder and more expensive to maintain and as technological advances become more and more out of step with operational reality, the temptation grows to do just enough training rather than the best training, and our police service in Northern Ireland deserves the very best. Secondly, split-site inefficiencies will continue to erode value for money. Every pound spent duplicating facilities or transporting officers between ageing sites is a pound not spent on actually improving our protectivity and capabilities.

Thirdly, there is a risk to morale and recruitment. We ask bright, committed young men and women to join an exceptionally demanding police service in a uniquely challenging environment. Showing them that we are prepared to invest in a world-class training facility is part of respecting that ask. Leaving them in crumbling buildings, patched-up classrooms and outdated accommodation sends the opposite message. Finally, there is a strategic risk that the UK as a whole allows one of its key security partners, the PSNI, to fall behind in capacity and capability because we are unwilling to grasp the nettle of capital funding at the right time.

This is precisely the kind of investment that the UK Government should recognise and support as part of our national security framework. It is a single-focus project that has clear outcomes: ending an inefficient split-site model, replacing facilities with at best 10 years left of life, creating a modern 54-acre campus site capable of delivering cutting-edge training for decades, and strengthening co-operation with UK-wide security partners. The people of North Down and Northern Ireland understand the local and national significance of the project. Locally, it would bring skilled employment and investment and would send a clear signal that our area is a hub of professional excellence. Nationally, it would send a signal across the United Kingdom that we are serious, not just in words but in hard infrastructure, about maintaining the safety and security of every region of our country.

My appeal to the Minister today is simply to look beyond the narrow lines of departmental spreadsheets and see this for what it is: a critical national security investment in one of the most tested, professional police services in the United Kingdom. If we can find the resources for the site in North Down, we will build not simply some new classrooms and a few training tracks; we will build confidence among officers that we are behind them and confidence among the public across all four nations of the United Kingdom that we are serious about their safety. The alternative is to limp on at Garnerville, pouring good money after bad into a site with a maximum of 10 years left and locking into an inefficient split-site model. It is just not prudent. It is a false economy and a risk to the security of all.

The choice is clear. I urge the Government to choose the future, to commit to the necessary UK funding to deliver a modern single-site police college on the North Down campus, and to do so openly in an investment in the national security of our entire United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force.

It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element.

I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland.

It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

[Alex Easton]

The Labour party brought forward the Patten review and agreed to its recommendations. One recommendation was for a new policing college. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that commitment has not been fulfilled by this or previous Governments, and that this Government should honour it by providing the funding for a new policing college?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing the debate. He has campaigned on this long-standing issue for some time, having secured a debate in November last year on police funding, and he has also asked me oral questions. He is a persistent and powerful advocate for this case. I also thank him for the kind invitation to visit the site in his constituency—I think we now have an agreed date in August, and I look forward to that.

As others have set out, we are here following the horrific and sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast last night. Members will know that the Secretary of State addressed this matter at length in an urgent question in the House earlier today. I want to state that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Chief Constable, and I reiterate that he and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their important inquiries.

Those members of the public who stepped forward at immense risk to their own safety, intervening to protect the victim until the police arrived, deserve our gratitude for the extraordinary courage they showed. I also repeat the appeal not to share or repost the footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family. As others have said, we all now have a responsibility to urge calm and let the police do their job. As the Prime Minister said, there is no place for such violence on our streets.

Turning to the PSNI, we are indebted to those men and women who serve day in, day out to keep us, our families, friends and loved ones, our communities, the whole of Northern Ireland and—as the hon. Member for North Down said—the whole of the UK safe. Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society, which has radically changed policing in Northern Ireland since the PSNI was first established 25 years ago. However, we know there remains a small number who are determined to cause harm to our communities, and to our brave police officers, through acts of violence.

The risks faced by the police, as well as their bravery, were recently demonstrated to me by the attacks on Lurgan and Dunmurry police stations. I met many of those at the Dunmurry station in April, and I can only imagine the situation they faced as they selflessly helped evacuate local residents when the device exploded. However, it is not just national security threats that the police must deal with; they put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect the public. On 31 May a police officer was struck by a stolen police car in Downpatrick. As of Friday, I understand the officer remains in hospital receiving treatment for very serious injuries. My thoughts, and I am sure those of everyone in this debate, are with the officer and his family as we wish him a full and speedy recovery.

I know that we would all pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The importance of mental health for those who serve was mentioned earlier, and it was an important part of the conversation when I was at Dunmurry police station. For the officers, it is important to stand up and speak about the horrors they witness and how that impacts them, and I am conscious that it impacts not only them but their families. If our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters were going out and putting themselves in harm’s way every day and contending with the horrors that our police have to contend with, our mental health would also suffer, so that was a well-made point. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the police service in keeping our communities safe and, crucially, in holding those who commit criminal acts to account.

Turning to the development of the new PSNI training college, as the hon. Member for North Down set out in his powerful speech, the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in his constituency in March last year at a cost of £4.9 million. The existing training college is located at Garnerville, in Holywood, and was originally built in the 1950s as a local catering college, officially becoming a training centre for the RUC in 1986. It was subsequently taken over by the PSNI when it was formed in 2001. I understand that the PSNI sees new training facilities as a key part of its ambition to increase officer numbers to 7,500, which I welcome, as do others in the debate. An initial business case for £13 million was approved by the Executive to fund the acquisition and essential enabling works. The PSNI is now preparing a further business case for the next steps, with an estimated cost of over £200 million and an ambition to finish the works by 2033.

The Government recognise the financial pressures the PSNI faces. However, as has been stated, funding for the PSNI is largely a devolved matter, coming from the Department of Justice as part of the block grant for Northern Ireland, which I will come to later. The next steps for the development of the new training college, including securing further funding, are therefore a matter for the PSNI, the Policing Board and the Northern Ireland Executive. I am sure they will be listening to this debate and hearing the powerful points raised. It is important for the Executive to agree and deliver a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Minister for his speech. Does he not have concerns, as I do, that the Northern Ireland Executive cannot really agree on anything? By the time they do agree on something, 10 years will have elapsed and they will not have the training facility. Will the Minister commit to talking to the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister in the Executive, and to the Treasury, to try to find the funding to make sure this happens?

[Matthew Patrick]

I appreciate the frustration behind the hon. Member’s words about the time it is taking to secure the budget. I hear that and I will commit to raise with the Executive the training college he is advocating for, as we continue to press the importance of securing a multi-year and sustained balanced budget.

The October budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive in the last financial year. That is the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. It is clearly a matter for the Executive to make decisions on the allocation of resources in line with its own priorities, and it is therefore a matter for the Department of Justice to allocate that funding to the PSNI. How it is used is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.

It is not just the block grant that the UK Government support the PSNI with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton]

I thank each and every Member here today for their contributions, which are much appreciated. I particularly thank the Minister for his condemnation of the incident in Belfast last night and his praise of members of the public who stepped in to help the individual, who has a great debt of gratitude to them for their actions, as well as to the PSNI and the emergency services.

The choice is stark: the new policing college is going to cost £200 million. We have heard from the Minister that that is a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Justice Minister, the Finance Minister and so on. Let us face the uncomfortable truth: unfortunately, the Justice Minister has allowed PSNI numbers to fall well below 1,000. That has had an effect on morale and public confidence. The Department of Justice and the Executive just do not have £200 million—even if they did, the reality is that the Executive cannot agree on anything. I doubt very much whether they would agree on producing £200 million to build this college, which is much needed.

There is nothing more important than having a new police college to train the police officers we need. Without it, there will not be the proper facilities or training that are desperately needed for the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland—which, if we are totally honest, are more numerous than those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Unless the Northern Ireland Office and UK Treasury help with the funding of this vitally needed facility, I genuinely fear for the future of policing for Northern Ireland. I believe that unless there is an intervention, we could be back here in 10 years discussing this again. I do not know whether I will have been elected in 10 years’ time, but I do fear this debate will happen again.

The Minister has agreed to put pressure on the Executive, and I appreciate that, but can I make a last ask of him? Will he at least agree to set up a meeting with the Treasury, me and PSNI representation so that we can have the discussion? That does not mean that what I have asked for will happen, but will he agree to arrange a meeting as a first stage to discuss the issue and explore options?

[Matthew Patrick]

I will be happy to arrange a meeting between me, the hon. Gentleman and representatives about the issue that he just raised.

[Alex Easton]

That has made me more happy. I am now willing to wind down and thank everybody for coming today.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we conclude, may I thank all hon. Members here for the tone of this debate and the courtesy with which it has been conducted? I only wish that more people saw the House behave like this, as it should.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the whole House for his father’s service. He and all those who served deserve our eternal gratitude. As my hon. Friend knows, the number of service personnel convicted of troubles-related offences was very small—only one in the last 28 years—whereas between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were sent to prison during the troubles. Of the current 10 live cases, eight relate to paramilitaries accused of killing or attempting to kill soldiers and police officers—paramilitaries whom the last Government wanted to give immunity to.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case reinforces vital legal protections for our security forces, creating a more secure environment? Will he join me in thanking the courageous men and women of our army and police who fought and defeated terrorism with integrity?

[Hilary Benn]

I will certainly join the hon. Member in expressing those thanks to all those who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland during the troubles to keep people safe. The Dillon judgment has provided extremely important clarity about the correct interpretation of the Windsor framework, as I said a moment ago. It also reinforces the case that the Government make: that we need to put protections for veterans, which were not contained in the last legacy Act, on the statute book.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Alex Easton Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

The motion may be dressed up as a matter of procedural convenience, but it is no such thing. It goes to the very heart of how this Parliament chooses to deal with the legacy of conflict, with the rights of victims and survivors, and with our fidelity to both our own constitutional traditions and our binding international obligations. The Bill, in its present form, fails the test. It does not command the confidence of victims. It does not command the confidence of the wider community in Northern Ireland, or indeed of our own brave veterans. To agree to its carry-over would therefore be more than a tidying-up exercise. It would be a conscious, deliberate decision by the House to prolong the life of a measure that is at best deeply contested, and at worst fundamentally misconceived.

We should be honest with ourselves: the Bill as drafted is not the solution that victims deserve, and it is not the solution that veterans deserve either. The Secretary of State has mentioned that amendments will be tabled to give better protection for veterans, but we do not even know what they are, so how can we pass tonight’s motion?

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the person who is likely to draft those amendments is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is one and the same Lord Hermer? What confidence does the hon. Gentleman think the armed forces community can have that this Bill will be any better?

[Alex Easton]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and I totally agree. There will not be a lot of support for this Bill among the armed forces.

These are not abstract or academic concerns; they go to the essence of what it means to live under the rule of law. The Bill fails to grapple in any credible way with the status of the so-called on-the-run letters of comfort, and with the plain injustice that flows from the position in which those who fled justice were handed such letters while veterans of Operation Banner have been handed only letters of continued investigation and the threat of prosecution. That is morally wrong, and this Bill does nothing to rectify it. In that context, the carry-over motion assumes genuine constitutional significance.

Carry-over is an exceptional procedure; it is not a routine device to be used to spare a struggling Bill from the consequences of its lack of support. The Government are not merely asking us to keep an administrative option open; they are asking us to confer an extended lease of life on a legislative scheme that has failed to win the confidence of those whose confidence is indispensable. The proposals must include real safeguards for veterans—men and women who are entitled to see concrete protections on the face of the statute, rather than being fobbed off with warm words and vague assurances of future safeguards. Those proposals must ensure that the oversight mechanisms, and any victim and survivor panels, are constituted in a way that does not invite those who murdered and maimed to sit in judgment or presume to adjudicate the human rights of the innocent. That would be an affront to natural justice and basic decency. The proposals must also exclude political parties that support terrorism—past, present or future.

To vote for a carry-over tonight is not to remain neutral or to keep all options open; it is to keep on political life support a scheme that many veterans, victims and survivors feel is being imposed on them. Many veterans regard the scheme with deep and understandable scepticism, and many people across Northern Ireland do not support it. Accordingly, I am unable to support the motion for carry-over, and I urge this House to do the right thing and reject it.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Alex Easton Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member, quite rightly, speaks with great sincerity and anger about what has happened. On the very last point that she raised, she will be familiar with the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006. As she will be aware, the Government have recently agreed to ask Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, to undertake a review of section 1 and report back.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

In the last year, there have been nine bomb attacks aimed at the PSNI from the men of darkness, who hide behind dark doors, in the dark and behind balaclavas. What action can the Secretary of State take to ensure that the PSNI has adequate funding? It is 700 police officers down, and the funding is still not in place. Will he agree to meet me and the Chief Constable to listen to those concerns about funding, so that we can beat the men of evil and not return to the past?

[Hilary Benn]

I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is treating this particular investigation with the urgency that it requires. Referring to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—I thank him once again for his service in Northern Ireland—what would help the police to bring the men of darkness to the light of justice is information that somebody probably knows. That information would enable people to be arrested and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted for what they have done. That is the single most important contribution that can be made to assist the PSNI in trying to find out who was responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for a stronger role for Northern Ireland firms in the UK defence supply chain, and will he commit to encouraging far greater inclusion of Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises in Ministry of Defence framework contracts and sub-contracting opportunities?

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely accept that we can do even more to support such companies. The companies I have been meeting in relation to the defence growth deal have said that the opportunity to showcase the talent and expertise that exists in Northern Ireland is really important, and I want to support them in doing that.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I rise as a proud Unionist from Northern Ireland, and as somebody who stands four-square with our veterans, innocent victims and their families. I have deep concerns about the remedial order and how this is going to operate. From the perspective of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland, the entire legacy framework is nothing short of deeply worrying. These are men and women, many of whom are now in their 70s and 80s, who put on the uniform of this country and operated under orders, rules, the law and unimaginable pressure to hold the line between democracy and terrorism.

What is the message that we are sending today? “Welcome to Labour’s Northern Ireland, where republicans run around with letters of comfort in their pockets while innocent soldiers like soldier F are hounded through the courts.” We are told that this order is about remedying and fixing deficiencies in the 2023 Act. It does nothing of the kind. The central obscenity remains: the effective closing down of routes to meaningful justice for hundreds of innocent families, while leaving entirely intact the pattern by which the vast majority of new investigatory energy is directed at former members of the security forces.

Let us be absolutely clear: our veterans did not start the troubles. They did not choose the battleground. They were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law, to protect both communities and to uphold the very democracy that allows some in this Chamber to denounce them today. To watch, in 2026, as the state bends over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of those who waged war against it, while putting elderly veterans back in the dock for split-second decisions made in the fog of conflict half a century ago, is to witness a profound moral failure.

For the victims of terrorism, whether Protestant, Catholic or neither, this framework still closes doors. It still moves them from a justice-based system to a process-based system, and from the possibility of accountability to the inevitability of managed disappointment. They are told to accept truth recovery with no guarantee of truth, reconciliation with no guarantee of remorse, and closure with no guarantee of justice.

For veterans, it is even worse. They see those who tried to murder them, or who murdered their comrades, sitting in government or appearing on TV, their pasts laundered and legitimised. At the same time, they see files reopened against them, headlines splashed against them, and their last years overshadowed by legal and political warfare. That is not equal treatment, or a “balanced” approach to the past; it is a calculated political accommodation with republicanism, paid for with the peace of mind of those who served this country.

I say this directly to Ministers: if they will not stand with the men and women who defended this kingdom, do not be surprised when they conclude that this kingdom is no longer standing with them.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Claire Hanna]

Clearly, we are a more pluralist society. I am unashamedly a new Irelander, and that is an important part of my identity. That is a factor in our politics, as is the legitimate position of Unionists, so we cannot wish it away. We cannot say, “I don’t see colour or designation,” but for so many of us it is clearly not the primary identifier. Many of the reforms can take effect even without going into what, as I said, my colleague called the “ugly scaffolding”.

The proposals we are making are keyhole surgery. They are not a lobotomy or amputation; they do not fundamentally undermine the principles of power sharing. I remind hon. Members that of course the agreement is not an ornament to sit on the mantelpiece; it is not a relic. It is a toolkit, and it envisaged change. It has been changed on the Floor of the Assembly, and it allows for that.

We want to put down some modest proposals, some of which I have advanced through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its excellent 2023 report on the existence of an Assembly. We propose the election of a Speaker by a two-thirds majority. Two thirds exists elsewhere in the agreement, for example in the threshold for calling an election, and I do not think anybody could say that the election of a Speaker oppresses or suppresses any community. Mike Nesbitt of the Ulster Unionist party and Patsy McGlone of the SDLP both achieved that threshold during the stalemates. That would allow an Assembly to exist, even if an Executive does not.

On Executive formation, we would call, first, to rename the joint office of the First Minister, reflecting the fact that one of those Ministers cannot order paperclips without the other, and restoring the intent and joint nature of that office. Ideally, we would then move on to the reforms that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) suggested around St Andrews.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

What does the hon. Member think of the Alliance party’s suggestion that there could be three First Ministers? Would that not make things even worse?

[Claire Hanna]

Bluntly, my view is that the agreement is trying to salve, resolve and manage a centuries-old division—a society that has been divided into two tribes. It is not my belief that creating a third tribe is the solution to that, but I understand that it is important that all parties feel that they are represented.

As I have said, on joint First Ministers, there are plenty of possibilities for further reforms. I think both the DUP and Sinn Féin have, at times, said that they would be very relaxed about the creation of an office of joint First Ministers; in fact, at different times they have used the phrase “joint First Minister”. As I say, the SDLP has been looking for consensus.

We would propose appointing the Justice Minister through the d’Hondt formula as well. It is worth saying that if we are talking about people’s votes counting equally, there have been times when the Alliance party, for example, had far fewer Members than the Ulster Unionist party or the SDLP, but was gifted an extra Ministry. Those distortions exist under the current rules. I do not believe in the principle that a Unionist or a nationalist is not fit to be the Justice Minister, and I think that Ministry should return to the d’Hondt formula.

Another modest proposal is a reform of the St Andrews veto within the Executive that allows a single party to prevent items even coming on to the Executive agenda. That could be progressed further with legislation for joined-up government, potentially something like the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 that exists elsewhere in the UK.

Meaningful reform is going to need a process, weight and urgency. If we limp along to the next election, there may not even be an Assembly that comes back after May 2027. Certainly, people’s belief in the primacy of politics and in the ability of the Good Friday agreement to solve their problems is ebbing away with every stagnant day in the Assembly. I have written to the other party leaders asking them to join me in the meeting that the Prime Minister has indicated he will have, and I hope that we can find some consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It is for all those who wish to argue about the rights that they feel the ECHR and the Human Rights Act give them to do so. I simply say that, in bringing the Bill forward, I as the Minister responsible have certified that the Bill complies with the European convention.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Is it not the case, as a matter of international law, that the United Kingdom could withdraw from the ECHR while at the same time ensuring that equivalent rights and protections are preserved in our domestic law?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is possible for signatories to the convention to withdraw, but it is a very bad idea and the Government do not support it.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

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?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Alex Easton]

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?

[Hilary Benn]

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.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Easton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest possible terms. The Bill has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our veterans.

No one should underestimate the pain, the grief and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in its wake. Some 3,500 people were murdered and countless others were maimed, physically and psychologically, condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address that—not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly and above all with moral clarity.

[Jim Shannon]

On accountability, I think we all want justice for those victims who have never had justice. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men of Ballydugan, for instance: there was no justice for them and nobody was ever made accountable. My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA and they fled across the border. No one was ever made accountable. Does the hon. Member feel that the justice that my family and all the other families want cannot be delivered through the Bill?

[Alex Easton]

The hon. Member is perfectly right; the Bill will not give justice to innocent victims. Moral clarity is grievously lacking in the Bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks in effect to rewrite history. We are shamefully witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism western Europe has ever known being hounded to their graves. There are no letters of comfort for them. There is no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path. Instead, rather than naming and confronting terrorism, the Bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission.

Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it. This is an affront to justice, to truth and to the memory of the victims. Those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This Bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent and it fails the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets those who chose the path of murderous terrorism and those who stood in their path and defeated them. This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just.

I am also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures operating outside the framework even of the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finucane, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries. Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, has reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month.

Specifically on the Bill, I too have serious concerns about clause 5. The requirement to have policing experience in Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Kenova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It is a back-door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers, again to placate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executive to be part of the oversight board. How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions?

Finally, is the proposal to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have due regard not simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activist groups? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for example, such advisory groups will be required to give an undertaking and commitment to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left with a panel, some of whose participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those who were murdered? That is just not right. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that no terrorists will sit on the legacy board? That assurance is not in the Bill, and he needs to clarify that. I want it in the Bill.

Will the Irish Government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can genuinely be achieved. Let us preserve the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.