Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a really good point about former members of the RUC. I was very struck when I visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, where we can see, decade after decade, the number of RUC officers who were killed in action. As we get closer to the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s and the ’90s, those numbers go from three, four or five to dozens. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and I say to them, as I say to everybody who served under Operation Banner: thank you for your service.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure Operation Banner veterans that in recent legacy investigations and future ones the Government will seek all necessary records and evidence from the Irish Government, because we on the opposition side of the House do not believe that will happen? Could he ask the Taoiseach if he would make a public statement to reassure us that the Irish Government will release all their documents?

[Chris Bryant]

It is absolutely essential that the Irish Government fully co-operate with the process. I am very confident that they will do so. I have spoken directly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, the two Ministers responsible for these issues in the Irish Government. But they are partners of ours; we need to work with them to be able to get answers for the many thousands of people who lost loved ones during the troubles era.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Easton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.

Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.

In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.

Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.

The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton]

I rise having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90. The test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for Government; it is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence? Does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny, however much time has passed? I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met that test.

Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it and, where new evidence emerges, to seek further answers.

We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort, despite the attempted rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism. In June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down, the constituency which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station. His name reminds us that terrorist violence has victims and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth.

That principle applies to every family regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and a confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is serious about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims before it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny and refuse to let any Government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.

Having looked at the clauses, I see that some have been improved. I recognise the provision for on-the-run letters—that is good, and I applaud the Government for trying to get that right. However, there are other areas where I still have concerns. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is not in his place, made a powerful speech, and I was very taken by his comment about the Irish Government and their Bill going through the process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill does not guarantee that victims, families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish Government. We are being sold a pup on getting all the information we need from the Irish Government. Labour Members can sigh, but in my experience, we do not ever get very much information from the Irish Government. I stand by that.

Many months ago, I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. That information, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier. The PSNI told me that it could not investigate that because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the legacy commission, but the legacy commission would not accept the case from me because, as an MP, I could not refer cases to it.

The only avenue for me to get this case looked at, because of legacy, was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgment of where this case is going or not going. That makes me suspicious that this very serious issue about legacy that I am raising as an MP is not being addressed, yet we are expecting this Bill to answer all the questions. I do not think the Irish Government will give us everything we want on this issue.

[Chris Bryant]

I will make sure that the hon. Member gets an answer to his letter by the end of the week.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Secretary of State for that, but I have deep concerns. It is not that I do not want truth or reconciliation. There have just been too many false dawns for me and my colleagues representing constituencies right across Northern Ireland, and I do not have a huge amount of faith in this process. For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the Bill.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to support the Government in this important debate. For my generation, it seemed as though the troubles were an intractable problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles; we had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland was geographically so close, and culturally close, but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday agreement represented such a massive breakthrough. Many Members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement—compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future.

The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday agreement, and it fulfils a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the troubles. It does so while being respectful of the families affected and providing a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way.

I know there are concerns from veterans and veterans’ families, but genuine protections for veterans ensure that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my constituency, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this Bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time and the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred. Importantly, veterans’ voices will be heard in a process rooted not in blame and recrimination but in truth and reconciliation.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Easton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him.

Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation.

As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.

Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it.

A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests.

I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

How can this House support the Government on that when we have a political party called Sinn Féin whose members supported violence and the killing of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, of Her Majesty’s armed forces personnel and of civilians? How can we stand here in all consciousness and support a Bill that potentially will allow people who supported that in a political party to be on the board? That is just not right.

[Chris Bryant]

I note the point that the hon. Member makes, but if he looks at clause 8(4)(b), he will see that it states that the Secretary of State, when putting together the membership, must ensure that it is

“balanced as respects associations with the different communities in Northern Ireland.”

The whole group has to meet not only that requirement, but the requirement of supporting victims. I hear what he says, but I am afraid that his amendment would not be proportionate, although I am happy to listen to his contribution later.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the reconciliation gap can be closed, at least in part, in legislation. I also hope that when we pass the Bill, all of us—that includes political leaders here, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland—will take up the mantle and be the generation of leaders who finally deal with the legacy of the troubles, leading by example through our interpersonal and political relationships to bring true reconciliation.

[Alex Easton]

I have examined clauses 1 to 72 and the Government’s amendments with care and as best I could in the short period we had, and I regret to say that I still have grave concerns. The central question is whether clear blue water is drawn between those who served to protect the public and those who pursued terrorism. Security forces were responsible for about 10% of troubles-related deaths and terrorist organisations were responsible for about 90%, yet many who served have lived with the prospect of being summonsed to court while some suspected of terrorist offences received so-called letters of comfort, as has been addressed. For veterans and their families, that contrast has created a deep sense of injustice.

I am not asking the House to place anyone above the law—where there is evidence of wrongdoing, that must be examined—but a fair legacy process must recognise the profound difference between someone who wore a uniform to protect life and someone who deliberately set out to take it. Nor should the Republic of Ireland’s role escape scrutiny. Families seeking answers about attacks planned or supported across the border deserve meaningful co-operation and access to relevant information. A legacy process that looks only where it is easiest will not command confidence. Justice must not stop at the border.

We can look at the recent examples that have come out where the Republic of Ireland’s Government failed to give information. We see what has happened with Omagh. We know that in the early part of the troubles the Irish Government supplied weapons to the IRA. We know about Breen and Buchanan, the superintendents murdered on their way home from Dundalk. The Garda Síochána were involved, yet they were never brought to justice and no information was given to our Government.

I welcome the Government’s decision to bar former paramilitaries from the victims and survivors advisory group and to provide a place for a veteran—I hope that it will be more than just one veteran. Those are important changes and they have partly engaged with my amendment 52, but they do not fully address my concerns about appointing someone who belongs, or has belonged, to a political party linked to or supportive of a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. Victims and survivors must be able to trust the independence of those appointed to speak on their behalf. I implore the Government not to divide the House on my amendment. We cannot allow those from any political party to go on to the victims and survivors advisory group if they believe that the troubles were justified, that the murder of a PSNI officer was justified, that the murder of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces was justified, or that a civilian murder was justified for their cause. Murder is never justified, no matter who took part.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Easton]

Let me get on a wee bit; I will maybe let the hon. Member in later.

If such individuals were allowed, even unintentionally, they would make a mockery of the victims and survivors advisory group. They would use it for their own agenda, and nobody would have any confidence in that group. I ask the Secretary of State please to do the right thing and not divide the House on this amendment. It would strengthen the Bill, not weaken it. We must not allow anyone to be on the victims and survivors advisory group who believes that a terrorist campaign was right or give them the opportunity to use that position to rewrite history, because if they are allowed on it, they will do that.

Magna Carta declares:

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

That promise must always apply to every family seeking answers, and to every veteran who has lived for years under the shadow of possible prosecution. Passing a Bill is not in itself progress. The test is whether it delivers a process that is fair, credible and worthy of the trust of those it is meant to serve. I recognise that no legislation can undo the grief of the troubles, but this House has a duty not to compound it. We owe victims the truth, veterans fairness and the public a process that distinguishes service from terrorism without placing anyone beyond the reach of the law.

The Government’s amendments are a step, but they are not enough. For this reason, I cannot support the Bill. I implore the Secretary of State to listen to what I am saying. As a Unionist, throughout my life I have watched politics coming through Westminster and all the different deals that have been done. From the Belfast agreement and the Anglo-Irish agreement right through to the Windsor framework, I have seen every successive Government not listening to me or my predecessor Unionists about our concerns. We feel unloved. We feel that we are never listened to. Secretary of State, you have a chance here to reach out to Unionism and our genuine concerns. Please listen to us, because we have to get this right. If we do not, it is just going to be a complete disaster.

[Ian Byrne]

As we debate this Bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose decades-long fight for truth and justice has brought us here: mothers who have waited 50 years to understand why their children were killed; siblings told to move on; widows denied information about their husbands’ deaths; and children who grew up without a parent and still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones but whether parts of it were involved in, enabled or concealed what happened. Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to repair the damage caused by the legacy Act, but that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know.

The Government published substantial amendments shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes will have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet Members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles-related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests were met, a Government Law Officer could withhold consent.

I agree with Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families’ confidence. Where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power, families will understandably question why a Government member should have the final say. Whatever the Government’s intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear.

We must also remember the Dillon litigation. The courts in Northern Ireland found the legacy Act’s immunity provisions incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force. The Government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respects their human rights obligations. The protections underpinning the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. As a Labour Government, we have a particular responsibility to protect that achievement and never, ever undermine it.

Nor do the concerns end with prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State’s control over sensitive information, restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings and the independence of appointments to the judicial panel. These are fundamental issues: who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe that state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence. The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear.

That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part 4 of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both Houses. The principle is straightforward: public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant evidence and actively help to establish the facts.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Alex Easton Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Whether this was the right route to go down was obviously a material consideration for us, for all the obvious reasons that other hon. Members may adduce in the debate later on. However, many in the veterans community keenly felt that it would be much better if this decision were not being made just by the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and that it would be better if it were made here. Obviously the standard prosecutorial question does not change at all—in other words, is there a more than 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction, and is it in the public interest? The Attorney General will act in a quasi-judicial function, as she is very keen to point out.

I have heard back from large numbers of veterans that this measure provides a degree of confidence and reassurance to those who have been worrying about this issue. For instance, it applies equally to anybody who might be prosecuted for being involved in the M62 bomb or the Guildford pub bombing. I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) makes, but that was one of the things that was asked for. Where possible, I have tried to make the argument as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of veterans to ensure that we get the Bill right.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Who will make the final decision on who goes on to the commission advisory board? While it is good to know that no paramilitaries will be allowed on that board, can the Secretary of State assure me that members of a political party that supported violence and those paramilitaries—Sinn Féin—will not be allowed on to the board?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

The Government ask the House to grant the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill a carry-over extension. This is not a trivial request. It will extend the life of the Bill, and this House should not grant it lightly, particularly where the legislation is as contentious as this.

I ask a basic question: what will the extension actually achieve? I am aware of the Government’s proposed amendments. The Government will be aware of the substance of the amendment I have tabled, which seeks to bar former paramilitaries from appointment to the victims and survivors advisory group. I welcome the fact that my amendment has been substantially engaged with, but a Government amendment or amendments, however welcome, cannot cure a Bill that must be judged in the round. Taken as a whole, the legislation remains substantially flawed.

Behind this procedural motion lie real people: victims and survivors who have waited decades for truth and acknowledgment, and veterans who served this country with courage and distinction, who now face the prospect of repeated investigations into events from more than 50 years ago. That is my impression. Isn’t the reality that neither group is served by legislation that does not command the confidence of either?

William Faulkner wrote:

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in Northern Ireland. Families will seek answers about loved ones they lost. Veterans who served under extraordinary pressure deserve fairness and certainty in equal measure.

We must speak honestly about the history. Around nine in 10 troubles-related deaths were caused by terrorist organisations, not by the state. Any legislative framework that does not reflect that reality with clarity and proportionality risks compounding injustice rather than resolving it.

Lord Hewart reminded us over a century ago that

“Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

That principle cannot be set aside by a Bill extended for procedural convenience while its fundamental flaws remain unaddressed. Carry-over should be the exception, not the default—granted where a Bill is close to being fit for purpose, not where it remains substantially flawed. Extension will not repair this. The House owes victims, survivors and veterans more than delay dressed up as progress. I urge Members to oppose this motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day. Anyone who suggests—I know that she is not doing so—that there should be immigration controls on that border is not being realistic, and it would not be the appropriate action to take. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we are increasing immigration enforcement activity across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, as a result of which 1,000 people have been removed in the two years since the election, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the officers of the PSNI, who have responded to the recent disorder with professionalism and integrity? Does he agree that they deserve the very best support, including a modern, high-quality training facility, and can he give the House an update on when that is going to be funded?

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking and praising the brave officers of the PSNI. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and I visited the officers at Strandtown police station, who dealt with the disorder when the bus was set on fire on 10 June. More than 40 of them were injured, and we wish them a speedy recovery. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a doughty advocate for the new training centre, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him.

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.