Independent Expert’s Report on Paramilitary Group Transition to Disbandment

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

Everybody in Northern Ireland has a right to live free from fear and intimidation. The continuing existence of paramilitary groups poses a direct threat to that right. While these groups may pose as protectors of their communities, they are largely engaged in criminality, including drug dealing, extortion and intimidation, blighting the very communities they perversely claim to protect. Their continued influence is a stain on our collective conscience and in direct opposition to our shared aim of a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone.

This is why I am pleased to lay the independent expert Fleur Ravensbergen’s “Independent Report on Paramilitary Group Transition to Disbandment”, which identifies possible routes to end paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The report was jointly commissioned with the Irish Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration under the legislative framework of the Independent Reporting Commission. The independent expert was asked to carry out a short scoping exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment.

As provided for in the “Fresh Start” agreement, the UK Government are committed to ending paramilitarism once and for all. It was in this context that we appointed the independent expert. It is particularly relevant, given the two notable anniversaries this year: the 2006 St Andrews agreement and the establishment of the Police Service for Northern Ireland in 2001. The anniversaries exemplify how far Northern Ireland has come, but the persistence of armed groups in communities clearly shows that there is more that needs to be done. No one should live in fear or suffer harm at the hands of these groups.

I would like to thank Ms Ravensbergen for her extensive engagement and consideration of the issues as she carried out this exercise.

The report contains a number of recommendations, which I will take time to carefully consider and discuss with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, community and policing partners. The main recommendation, detailing a possible mechanism for transition of paramilitary groups, is clear that any process must be complementary to existing efforts and accompanied by a robust criminal justice response. It is evident from the report that the implementation of any process will face challenges and will need support from across the political community in Northern Ireland.

Ending paramilitarism once and for all is essential to improving the lives of people in communities across Northern Ireland where these groups still hold influence. The UK Government remain resolute that there is never any justification for violence or criminality. Together with a strong criminal justice response, those communities who are held back by the harms perpetrated by paramilitary groups must be prioritised, and we will continue to support the Northern Ireland Executive in their efforts in this space.

[HCWS371]

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.

This is a short motion, but it stands for a lot. Strictly speaking, all it does is allow the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which was introduced a year ago, to continue its passage through Parliament, but it is actually about far more than that. It is about families who lost loved ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable: daddies, mammies, brothers, sons and daughters—more than 3,500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It is about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief, families desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones—answers that might help them understand the how, the why and even the who, answers that might help provide some degree of comfort. We will be joined in a few moments in the Gallery by Mo, Pat, Jennifer and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers.

Let us not forget that more than 1,000 of those who were killed were members of our security forces, serving under Operation Banner or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England. Twenty-five per cent of the investigations involve victims from the military. A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I am determined that veterans’ families will get answers, too. The Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we are going to do.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. Fifty-five years ago, he was murdered. Alongside him was a man called Daniel McCormick. They were a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, but they both served in uniform. Nobody—in 55 years, this 10 December—has ever been made accountable. The three-man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen on that morning of 10 December ran across the border to sanctuary and safety. With great respect, Secretary of State, you tell me and my family that we can have justice—we do not see justice. We have been waiting 55 years for justice. I don’t believe it, Secretary of State. Can you talk to me honestly, for all the families? I could name many others who have had been murdered over the years. I think of the four UDR men; one person was made accountable, but no one was held accountable for the murders of those four UDR men at Ballydugan some 36 years ago. On behalf of the victims, my family and all the families, we need justice. I want justice for my family and for every one of those victims who served in uniform—RUC men, UDR men, British Army—and who gave their lives for this Province and this country.

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, because it is remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon and what I have heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. I met one man whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencer. It has not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. That is why it is so important that we get answers for people. The kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are families who lost loved ones who served.

I remember going to the RUC memorial garden. It is very, very touching because, for decade after decade, it has the names of RUC officers who were killed, and for decade after decade, it is three or four names, three or four, then six, then eight, and then dozens, dozens and dozens. Many of those families have never had an answer. If there is one thing I feel very strongly after all the communications and conversations I have had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there is not one set of people who are families and another set of people who are veterans; actually, the largest group of families are veterans’ families, and they deserve answers, too.

We went further in our manifesto: we committed to replace the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Why? Because it was legally flawed, it offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it did not carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government, for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to repair trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous legacy Act.

Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments. These can only be considered if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous Government’s immunity provisions, which were conditional, as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists. We will amend the Bill to bar the commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries.

Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers’ training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation. Those points were made in previous debates by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so I hope the amendments will gain cross-party support.

We have also listened to concerns raised by the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and others over the on-the-run letters. These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the Bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the commission’s work to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.

There is more we can do if this motion is allowed tonight. The men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm’s way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended. Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice, this commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved one’s death, which is what we will create through the legacy commission.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today because of a family situation. Since the Bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the Bill. Alongside the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for South Ribble (Mr Foster) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), she has argued for greater protections for individuals, to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. The first is a provision to ensure that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the commission or, crucially, by a coroner unless it is essential, which is a very high bar—much higher than in previous legislation; for instance, because there is new information or a new forensic process.

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

Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Member will know, the word used in the legacy Act is “necessary”, which is a much lower bar. “Essential” is traditionally a higher bar, and it is used in lots of legal judgments already. The kind of thing we are talking about is where there is a new forensic process that was not available 30 years ago—for instance, we might be able to examine a fingerprint on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than we could previously—or where there is literally a new piece of information, and it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.

Secondly, there is a new provision that the legacy commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers whether to request an individual to come as a witness.

Thirdly, there is another new provision that the legacy commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information.

Fourthly, the legislation will put the protection from cold calling into law and strengthen the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the commission’s work.

Fifthly, prosecutions in troubles-related cases are rare— I expect them to be rare— but to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute, any future prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General acting quasi-judicially. That will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of Government, and who rightly pointed out that there is precedence for this approach and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosectors’ independence in considering the evidence before them.

I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the legacy commission’s victims and survivors advisory group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented.

The legacy Act’s immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute via a remedial order. To enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round, we will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to whom I am grateful.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I arrived in post a few months ago and I sat down with the Defence Secretary. We looked at some of the amendments that had already been drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, and we were convinced that we needed to go a little bit further than that. For instance, the amendment in relation to the Attorney General is a new amendment, as is the amendment in relation to compelling new evidence. I really want to proceed as much as I possibly can in a consensual way with Members from across the House. That is why I have provided as many opportunities as possible to take Opposition Members and Members from other political parties through the details of all the amendments.

Sometimes we need time to get our legislation right. One problem was that we had a long period—some of these amendments could have been dealt with several months ago and we might have got to a better place sooner, and then we would not have needed the carry-over motion either. However, there is not much point in crying over spilt milk; it is much better just to try and get the Bill right, which is precisely what I am trying to do.

Importantly, I should say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), all of the amendments that we have tabled are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations and the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?

[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 ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—indeed, he also made it to me yesterday. The Secretary of State makes the decision about who sits on the advisory group, which is a key distinction of the legacy commission. One of the things I have repeatedly heard loud and clear is that this whole process needs to be focused on the families and the victims, and the only way we can secure that is if we have an effective advisory group. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there should be no one in the group who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. Ensuring that will be one of the Secretary of State’s key responsibilities. The advisory group can have between three and seven members, and we are saying that at least one of them must be a veteran, a former member of the police or one of their representatives, although the number may be more than that.

Co-operation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities may be the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and who was responsible. That may meet the point that was made earlier.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I was just going to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will then give way to other Members, if that is all right.

[Jim Shannon]

My own family members are very clearly aware of the three IRA murderers who escaped across the border and stayed there; they did not return home. I put it on the record that Gerry McMonagle, who was involved in the murder of Lexie Cummings in Strabane in 1982, not only escaped across the border, but became a mayor and sat on Donegal county council. There is a person who should be held accountable for his actions. He escaped because a wrong notification was made by the police in relation to the summons. He was able to run out of court, get on a motorbike, cross the border and live a new life. There are also the two superintendents who were murdered at the border. There has been collusion from the Garda Síochána and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has to be accountability for the people in the Garda Síochána who gave evidence and for the people in government at the time who oversaw it and did nothing about it. There is a big role for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to play, so let us ensure that we keep their feet to the fire and keep the heat on the back of their neck.

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely the point I am making. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and provide answers. Where they fail to do so, we will take issue with them assertively. The key difference that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South made was ensuring that the Irish Government are introducing legislation that will require them to co-operate in this process and, in many cases, provide answers that are essential in relation to the kind of person that the hon. Member for Strangford refers to.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Garda legacy unit has been much lauded, particularly by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). It formed part of the framework that was published last year, and it was meant to be operative from January. Is the Secretary of State aware that from that date until now, that unit has failed to provide any answers or any responses, answer the telephone or respond to emails with any information? Is he aware that there was a public perception that it was providing information until we challenged Helen McEntee as the Minister responsible? She then said that no information would be passed at all until the legal uncertainties were cleared—they have been cleared by Dillon in the Supreme Court—or this legislation passes, yet the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information continues to investigate cases. It continues to seek answers for families, and it is getting no responses whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State have an indication that the legacy unit will provide those answers, either following tonight or next Tuesday?

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.

[Chris Bryant]

I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.

The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.

The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims. The victims, who suffered so much, are being given the promise of convictions that will never come. Even when we have the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes, yet this House is now expected to believe that the legislation before us will open the road to all these convictions. It will not happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled, but that does not mean that soldiers who did nothing but their duty will not be pulled through the courts time and time again.

In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case from 1992. On that occasion, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war, they sought to kill and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. The men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances, decades ago.

The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in the House. In 2024 a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in Coagh in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as “ludicrous” and said that it should never have come to court. Despite that, in April this year the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out. Last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court, and that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years, when the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous.

[Chris Bryant]

I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that all that is under his legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

I am giving the Secretary of State an example of the things that will not be stopped by his legislation. This will continue. The Bill does not solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Labour party’s willingness to deal with these failings is most welcome. At this point, may I, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who was the architect of the original Bill, for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party’s spokesperson for Northern Ireland? I am pleased to acknowledge that it is an approach normally followed by the shadow Secretary of State, and followed by the new Secretary of State.

Although 156 Government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing them today. Under the mysterious procedures of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry-over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary Session. I am sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but I trust that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and his fellow trailblazers on the Modernisation Committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time-wasting practices. The Bill we are considering today is the same one we considered the last time we debated it, so my party will again vote against the motion.

I have worked closely with veterans organisations, such as the British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland. Anxiety about future threats of lawfare, and veterans being dragged through repeated investigations, has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against that background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards in the Bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure that the process does not become the punishment.

I commend both the Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues. As they both promised, the Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned raft of 156 amendments. However, there is just a week before the Committee stage. That raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then re-numbered Government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail. Only today, I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I did.

[Mr Kohler]

He did, but I have now discovered a table, helpfully produced by the Northern Ireland Office, detailing the key ones. It is very useful, but what we and the veterans groups need is time to work through the implications of each amendment, and to talk to our veterans. That is simply not possible in only a week.

As the Secretary of State knows, I also have concerns that scrutiny is being undertaken via a Committee of the House. What this legislation requires is detailed line-by-line examination of each clause, but what we will have is two days of the usual pantomime in this Chamber.

[Chris Bryant]

It is really important to explain why we do not generally consider Northern Ireland legislation in a Committee upstairs; it is so that a lot of Members can take part in these debates.

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention, but I was coming on to that. I am told, as he has just told me again, that the reason we have a Committee of the whole House is that we need to include our colleagues who represent Northern Ireland. However, I do not see why that absolutely legitimate point could not have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—a solution that I suggested, but that the Secretary of State ignored.

This legislation will have profound consequences for victims and veterans. Getting it right is essential to maintaining the confidence of communities across Northern Ireland, and the confidence of current and former members of the armed forces. Our amendments propose clear statutory safeguards to prevent repeated investigations, unless there is materially new evidence that is certified as necessary and proportionate. They establish a presumption of remote participation, so that veterans are not compelled to relive traumatic experiences in person unless it is strictly essential. They also provide for anonymity, proper welfare support and regulated contact through official channels. Additionally, our amendments seek to ensure that veterans’ views are properly represented, including by guaranteeing veterans a place on the victims and survivors group. We would also establish an independent reviewer, who would report annually to Parliament. This would ensure that protections were consistently applied, properly scrutinised and upheld in practice.

The Government’s amendments do indeed seek to address many of those points, but we need to work through the detail of the drafting before we can say whether they achieve what is needed. For example, the clause requiring compelling new evidence to exist, or be reasonably expected to exist, before a witness can be contacted is already giving us cause for concern, as the director of investigations will be the sole judge of his own decision.

Drumcree

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Drumcree.

I should first alert Members to the fact that the decision that I will lay out in this statement is subject to legal challenge. I respect the court’s role and will not anticipate its conclusions. I wanted to update the House as soon as possible, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that this may limit some of what I can say. I also note that this afternoon the Court of Appeal, sitting in Belfast, refused leave to appeal to the Garvaghy Road residents coalition. The court therefore confirmed the Parades Commission’s determination as it was made at the time on 25 September, as did I. My exercise of powers under section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, however, considered the situation as it stood on Friday 9 October.

The repeated stand-offs at Drumcree in the 1990s saw disorder, violence and horrific deaths, and they represent a particularly painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history. At the heart of the matter is the return route of the Orange Order Portadown district’s parade from Drumcree church. Members of the Orange Order attach great importance to completing their route down the mainly nationalist Garvaghy Road, while residents of the road have long opposed its passage through their community.

For 28 years the independent Parades Commission had determined that the route should not pass down the Garvaghy Road, but on 25 September a Parades Commission determination allowed for 35 members of Portadown lodge to walk along the Garvaghy Road without the accompaniment of music on Sunday 27 September. To some, this was a legal victory that recognised the religious, cultural and personal significance of this procession. To others, it was a profound shock and a reopening of wounds they long thought closed.

On Saturday 26 September, following a challenge brought on behalf of the residents, a temporary injunction was granted, then appealed and overturned, before permission to seek judicial review was refused in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. The parade, lawfully determined, was due to take place at 8 am that same morning. However, the Orange Order was unable to complete that route due to an unlawful, unnotified protest by residents of the Garvaghy Road and their supporters, who blocked the road. For much of the two weeks since, Drumcree has once again been the scene of a stand-off. This is a deeply emotive and hurtful issue for many of those who have been involved in this dispute, either now or in the past.

I have spent the past fortnight in extensive conversations with all affected parties, trying to get a mutually acceptable agreement between the two sides. I hosted several rounds of negotiations at Hillsborough castle over five days and maintained frequent contact with those involved, including Members of this House. During those discussions, we explored multiple options for ending the impasse. These included options such as the Portadown Lodge completing one final march along the Garvaghy Road on the condition that it would not apply to march that route again, and an option that would have seen Portadown Lodge accept that it had won the right to march but agree not to exercise that right. Other options included the residents accepting that the lodge had had established the legal right and would not challenge other parts of the route. Unfortunately, we could not secure agreement.

I want to thank the members of the Portadown Lodge for their time and constructive engagement. Their commitment to upholding the law and their co-operation with the police has been absolutely vital in maintaining calm and order. Having received a determination permitting them to march after 28 years, I recognise that they will feel bitter disappointment at its prohibition. I also want to thank members of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition for their engagement. They made clear to me the profound anxiety this dispute has brought, relighting painful memories. I deeply regret that we were not able to reach a compromise on a way forward. Although I was still keen to establish a local agreement, I did not want to see the stand-off continue into another weekend, with the consequent risk of protests spreading to other parts of Northern Ireland and the further deterioration of community relations. I therefore intensively considered all options for bringing this dispute to an end.

On Friday 9 October, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland made an application to me under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. As required by law, I reviewed the initial determination made by the Parades Commission relating to the application made by the Portadown district for 27 September 2026. I consulted the Chief Constable and the Parades Commission. The Chief Constable advised me that it would not be possible to enable the procession to happen without a major intervention, which would carry

“an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion affect across Northern Ireland.”

The Parades Commission also advised me that while ultimately a matter for the courts to determine, the Commission was of the view that in the light of this current assessment by the Chief Constable, the original determination does not now have enduring legal effect. As a result, given that the circumstances under which that decision was made have now changed considerably and in the interests of wider public interest and safety, I came to the conclusion that the procession should not go ahead as it was originally determined.

I did not take that decision lightly. I had tried to get a locally agreed solution and, as the Court of Appeal has held today, the Portadown district had a lawful determination from the Parades Commission allowing the procession. I have also not criticised the original determination made by the Parades Commission in good faith and based on the information it had at the time. Indeed, as part of my decision on Friday, I confirmed that original determination, which has also been upheld as lawful by the court, as anybody who criticises the Parades Commission should bear in mind. However, I must acknowledge that the situation has changed considerably, which is why I used my powers under section 11 of the Act to prohibit the procession.

Respect for the rule of law is fundamental to our society. I am grateful to those who have behaved peacefully and legally, and sought to ease tensions in their respective communities. It is right to say that the Orange Order obtained a legal right to parade, but I agree with the Chief Constable, who has said

“upholding of the Parades Commission determination does not come at any cost.”

Upholding the law also entails judiciously preventing serious disorder, and that is why I am glad that, despite the manifest tension, events have passed peacefully in Portadown. That is in itself a significant achievement.

I thank the PSNI officers who have carried the burden of policing this difficult situation. However, nobody is able to grant themselves immunity from the law, and those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. It is not for me to determine how the police exercise their duties, but I am glad that the PSNI operation in relation to unlawful protesting on the Garvaghy Road is under way.

I am grateful to all those who have engaged with me in good faith and to those within this House who have worked diligently to reduce tensions. I particularly thank those who have sought to moderate their language. It is easy to stir up a grievance, but it is much harder to calm it down. I appeal now to everyone to help reduce tensions, and for all political and community leaders to consider carefully the effect of their words. I urge people to let the courts do their work, and to co-operate fully with the police and the Parades Commission.

The community in Portadown has been on the sharp end of intense attention for a number of weeks. It will take time to rebuild relations. Sometimes leadership is extremely difficult, but it is vital that at this time the political parties in Northern Ireland offer stability. That can be a challenge when loud voices dominate. However, in my conversations with both sides and with political leaders from different parties and traditions, I have met many extraordinary people of good faith who want to rebuild trust and co-operation based on mutual respect. I hope all Members will want to share in that ambition. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his call over the weekend. I do not envy him the position in which he has been placed in these past few weeks.

The scenes that we have witnessed on the streets of Drumcree are all too reminiscent of previous times—times that we had all hoped were past, and times that we must still hope are past. The willingness of communities nearly 30 years ago to submit to independent adjudication processes was one of the pillars of the peace. It is consequently at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous for people to ignore those processes when they do not go their way. Further, it is inexcusable for anyone, but particularly politicians, to decide that they will only obey the law when it suits them. That is the road to a very dark place.

As the Secretary of State has set out, the planned march was legal, subject to the detailed restrictions placed upon it by the Parades Commission. It follows that under section 14 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, those who prevented this lawful march would seem to have broken the law. The stand-off that they caused ultimately led to Chief Constable Boutcher asking the Secretary of State to review the Parades Commission’s determination and stop the march.

The Chief Constable said that facilitating it would have

“required a substantial public order intervention that was not assessed to be proportionate, and which would have carried an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion effect across Northern Ireland.”

I hope that the Secretary of State can be clear with the House about what is behind this statement and what the nature of that risk was. Was the Secretary of State at any stage made aware of a possibility of terrorism? Was he at any stage made aware that firearms or explosives were likely to be deployed? I very much hope he was not, but the House should know.

I know that the Secretary of State was placed in a desperately invidious position, but the consequence of the march not going ahead is that those who have broken the law have won. The consequence is that those who threaten the

“serious injury, disorder and wider contagion”,

of which the Chief Constable warned, have won. Unless remedy is made, the message being sent to Northern Ireland is that people can pick and choose which laws they obey, and that those who threaten violence and disorder will get their way. I know that that is not what the Secretary of State wants, but he needs to tell the House what he intends to do to prevent that terrible message being the legacy of these past few weeks. I know that it is not for him to determine how the police exercise their duties following this incident, but I hope he can tell the House how the Government now intend to prevent the law from being openly flouted again and again and again.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the tone in which the shadow Secretary of State has entered the conversation and for him taking my call over the weekend. We have not faced each other across the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State until today, and I hope that we can work co-operatively together.

To those who flouted the law and to those who are considering doing so again, I say nobody is above the law: you will face the consequences of your actions. To those who have co-operated with the police, I say an enormous, “Thank you.” To those who are considering ending co-operation with the police, I say please, please, please think again.

The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the advice that I have received and quotes in precise terms the words that I was given by the Chief Constable. I have publicly set out the advice that I received, which said that facilitating the procession would require a major police intervention carrying unacceptable risks, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will understand that I will not comment on specific intelligence that I did or did not receive, for obvious reasons, but in the end I am accountable for the decision that I made. It was my responsibility to weigh the police advice and the consequences of proceeding, which is precisely what I did.

The hon. Gentleman asks how we will ensure that we build respect for the rule of law. That is a matter for all communities into the future. He also made a point about politicians. I will point out that we politicians have a particular responsibility to abide by not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Ministers to pledge

“to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts”.

Those should not just be words that are spoken for one moment; they should be things that we embody in everything we do.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend was clearly faced with a very difficult decision, but I think he took the right decision in the light of the advice he was given by the Chief Constable, which he has reported to the House, and I thank him for it. Given the enormous progress that Northern Ireland has made since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, who would want to go back? What does he think is now required to restore confidence in an independent process for determining parades?

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful to my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, for his kind words. We need to do several things. This moment has shown that the veneer of peace is sometimes remarkably thin, and we need to strengthen the relationship between different communities. One of the things I found most moving was when people said to me how cross-community organisations in Portadown had been completely discombobulated and thrown up into confusion over these last two weeks. That is one of the reasons why I wanted us to be able to get to a successful conclusion that works for everybody.

My right hon. Friend is right about the parades. I note that some people who, a few weeks ago, were passionately opposed to the Parades Commission are now passionately in support of it, and vice versa. The truth is that we had problems earlier on this year, and that is why I have set up an inquiry, led by Justice O’Hara, who has been warmly supported by everybody in that process. We need to ensure that the Parades Commission works for the future, and I hope that everybody in this House at least would want to urge people to work closely with the police, rather than undermine them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a complicated and sensitive issue, and my party supports all those, from every community, who are focused on de-escalation and working together on a shared future. The Secretary of State’s decision was based on unambiguous police advice, and I do not think that any real alternative was available to him. I know how hard he and others sought to achieve compromise, and I share his deep regret that that was not possible. As he recognised in his statement, respect for the rule of law is fundamental to any democratic society. It is consequently imperative that the legitimate concerns of many with regard to what message this decision conveys must be recognised and taken into account as we seek to move forward.

The impact that events such as this have on local people in Portadown must be our first concern. People living side by side and getting on with their lives suffer by this replaying of the worst chapters of the past. Our task on all sides of the House is to support those who want to move forward, protect the institutions, respect the rule of law and ensure that this dispute does not undermine the hard-won progress of the last 30 years.

I have three questions for the Secretary of State. What discussions has he had with the Executive and political leaders in Northern Ireland about ensuring that the institutions remain stable throughout this period? What more does he think can be done to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and respected by all political leaders across Northern Ireland? Finally, what support is being provided to the communities in Portadown, particularly young people, who have lived through three weeks of escalating tension?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached this issue. My attempts to have discussions with the Executive have focused partly on trying to get a budget. Six months in, we still do not have a settled budget. That is going to provide very significant problems in the very near future for the whole of the operation of the Executive if we are not very careful and very keen to work with the Executive to get to a good outcome. We have made an offer of £1.5 billion and more over three years, which is a good settlement considering the difficult situation that we have. Everybody has been predicting the collapse of the Executive for some time, but it seems to be much more resilient than people suggest. That is a good thing.

In terms of the rule of law, it is not for me to tell the police whom they should speak to about unlawful actions or how to determine what the punishment should be. I will merely point out that an offence under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act carries an imprisonment of up to six months and a level 5 fine. That is for the prosecuting authorities to consider.

Let me turn to the young people in Portadown. One of the phrases frequently used on both sides was that people wanted a breathing space, and we have that breathing space now. Once the dust has settled a little bit, it will be important for us to consider and work out how we can strengthen the cross-community relationships that have undoubtedly been tested over the last couple of weeks, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I want to do that with local representatives.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Sometimes you would be forgiven for forgetting that in the late ’90s, 21 Catholics were murdered as a result of this dispute. Three of them were children—the Quinn boys—who were burned to death in their home. Why anybody thought it was a good idea to try to force this parade down that street is frankly beyond me and beyond any right-thinking person. This wound should never, ever have been opened up again. The Garvaghy Road residents have had this done to them and on them. This chaos has been visited to their door. Will the Secretary of State work with the Irish Government to ensure that proper investment is now put into Portadown to rebuild relationships that took a long, long time to build back up?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We were here only a few weeks ago having had the report on Robert Hamill, whose murder occurred against the background of the problems in Portadown back in the day. This issue is still very live and very raw for a large number of people in the community. I have to push back, though, and say that the Parades Commission decision has been upheld by the courts on repeated occasions. I did not revoke the decision, but, given the situation when the section 9 letter came to me from the police the other day, it was absolutely apparent that I had to deal with this matter.

My hon. Friend asks me to get the Irish Government to be engaged. I always want to work as co-operatively as I possibly can with the Irish Government, and I have spoken to them several times, but in the end, security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the UK Government. We need to ensure that community relations in Northern Ireland are enhanced.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right to indicate that the Parades Commission considered and approved the parade, but how sad is it that on Friday evening, and in his statement this evening, he did not conclude by saying that he is determined to uphold the rule of law, which would include the completion of a parade? He also did not say that he would welcome a fresh application to be considered on its own merits or, whether now or in the future, that he will ensure that no lawful application will succumb to threats of violence. In the past 28 years, the police—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and then the Police Service of Northern Ireland—have always maintained the position that they will police whatever the determination is. They cannot say that any more. For the past 28 years, no Secretary of State has ever used section 11 powers, even when there was actual violence, actual disorder and guns on the street. People in Northern Ireland know that this is about more than obstruction on a road. They know that it is a threat of violence from terrorists, and they know that this British Government have bent the knee to them.

We need to see the rule of law upheld, but we also need to see political accountability. The Secretary of State mentioned schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland Act. He knows that there is no consequence for breach of the pledge of office. Will he meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this issue over the past fortnight, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted those conversations. I do, however, utterly reject the charge that I have in any way succumbed to mob rule. The truth is that things have actually passed remarkably peacefully—there has been no major disorder. Lots of people lobbied me or provided advice over the airwaves on how to deal with the situation, but I do not think anybody seriously proposed that the police should drag people off the street, and I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is not just a single headline; it is equality before the law, transparent laws, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and access to justice. All of those things are in remarkably fine fettle in Northern Ireland.

As I have said previously, there are some abnormalities about the way in which the Executive and power sharing work in Northern Ireland. I am very happy to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and work through ways in which we can make them function better. As I have said to him before, that may require some reform of the institutions at Stormont.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

In 2010, Tom Bingham, who had been Lord Chief Justice, published his book “The Rule of Law”, which we often cite in this House. He said about Ministers’ decisions that

“ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.”

I believe that in making this decision, which I know was a difficult one, the Secretary of State has excellently upheld the principles set out by Tom Bingham all those years ago. As he knows, this summer at the Belfast Fleadh, all traditions of music came together—including many Unionist bands and singers—and were welcomed and enjoyed together. Is that not the spirit in which we want to go forward in building unity?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. This was certainly a difficult decision, but a decision that I was in law required to make, having been written to by the Chief Constable under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act. I chose to make the eventual decision based on the advice he had given.

More generally, though, mutual respect between different communities is often hard-won, and moments like this can rapidly descend into greater disorder and problems. That is why I was very keen not to let this situation run on at great length, which is why I responded in the way I did, but we still have a job of work to do in Northern Ireland to enhance mutual respect between people. Some of the language that has been used from one community to the other and back again has been utterly vile, and it is incumbent on all of us in particular, as Members of Parliament, to moderate our language.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see again Land Rovers lined up outside Drumcree church. The people of Northern Ireland did not clamour for this, and that includes people who are Unionist, nationalist or other. They did not want to revisit this incredibly dark chapter in our history. While the cost of living bites, this operation cost around £5 million at the time of conclusion.

What we have now is picking up the pieces. The Secretary of State has referred to the language that we use. In the past week, Members of this House have referred to people of the Garvaghy Road as rabble and have referred to the Garvaghy Road as needing “sanitisation”. Does the Secretary of State agree that in the mouth of this crisis, it is incumbent on all Members of this House and everybody across Northern Ireland to engage respectfully across all communities, all of which have suffered in the past few weeks?

[Chris Bryant]

One difficulty I sometimes found when trying to reach consensus between the two sides when we gathered everybody in Hillsborough—when, I have to say, both sides were immensely respectful—was that the moment they spoke to somebody outside the room, louder voices prevailed and dragged them away from compromise. That is a problem that we have regularly, and social media amplifies some of that as well, which makes it more difficult. I should also say that there are Members of this House who have been vilified just for standing up for their constituents, and that is not appropriate either.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the tone he has taken. He is in an invidious position, as we can see from this debate. Does he agree that ultimately, if we take one step back from these events, what we are really talking about is the lack of societal reconciliation in Northern Ireland over the 30 years since the Good Friday agreement? Does he agree that we in this House and politicians in Northern Ireland have a role to try to foster that reconciliation wherever we can—whether it is through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or in another way—by resourcing it, funding it, and taking a lead on it?

[Chris Bryant]

The most important thing we have to realise is that the job of work of the Good Friday agreement is not complete. Many elements of it were parked at the time, and we need to complete that work. That is one reason why it is important that we get the troubles Bill right. I have met so many people who still bear not just bruises, but deep scars, from the troubles, and they want answers. That is precisely what we are trying to legislate for at the moment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The parade was lawful; the protest was unlawful. What we are hearing in Northern Ireland in response to that protest is in stark contrast to what we heard from the Home Secretary in the statement prior to this one. The Secretary of State said in his statement, “Let the courts do their work.” When he knew that the court was to rule today, why did he move from section 9 to making a section 11 decision on Friday night, rather than waiting on the court’s ruling today?

[Chris Bryant]

When I received the section 9 letter on Friday morning, I had no idea when the court was going to come to its conclusions, and obviously I had been asked—and am required by law—to consult with the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, as I did. That is the process I followed. I do not want to stray further into that process, simply because all of this is subject to legal challenge.

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

The Secretary of State has outlined the issues relating to the Drumcree parade, and has said in his statement that those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. If that process is allowed to proceed—and I hope it will—the police must do their job, and the prosecution service must do its job. Beyond that, though, people in Northern Ireland need to know that if political leaders and others break the law, there are consequences beyond the court proceedings, consequences that will preclude their holding office. Is the Secretary of State prepared to discuss what sanctions can be taken to prevent somebody who breaks the criminal law from holding public office, and to issue and declare such sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Member is asking me to introduce primary legislation to change the Northern Ireland Act, which is not my intention at the moment. I am not sure what other process he is considering, but I am very happy to consider it with him.

I noted one thing the hon. Member said earlier, or maybe yesterday on the television: the last thing we want is Chris Bryant running Northern Ireland.

[Mr Campbell]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member is nodding, so I got that right. Maybe we can agree with each other, because I want the Northern Ireland Executive to continue in operation. I certainly do not want to be in a position where I am running all of Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I begin by paying tribute to Portadown district, which abided by the law to the letter and yet had the response of being kicked in the teeth while those who broke the law were rewarded. I also commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who represents the district of Portadown, on her stand, her leadership and her courage. I utterly condemn the shocking demonisation and abuse to which she has been subjected.

As for the Secretary of State, it is sad to say it, but his shameful surrender to mob rule and the threat of violence has trampled the rule of law into the gutter in Northern Ireland. Tonight, we still have not only a First Minister of lawlessness—because of the inaction of the DUP—but a Secretary of State who chose to back the lawbreakers. What a travesty. My question is this: how can the rule of law recover when the Secretary of State undermines it so spectacularly?

[Chris Bryant]

I am fond of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he does remind me of the John Lewis line, “Never knowingly undersold”, because his arguments are never knowingly undersold. He called me pathetic on the television yesterday and he keeps on referring to mob rule. Every time people use this term “mob” about people on the other side of the argument, it makes it more difficult. I would also say that the use of the word “sanitising” was particularly inappropriate. It behoves us all to moderate our language, because people look to us to provide leadership. In a situation where compromise is normally the best outcome for everybody—for all communities—it is best if we double down on compromise ourselves.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank all hon. Members who have reached out with regards to the level of abuse that has been received.

I find it absolutely incredible that I am standing in this House where we make the law, confronting a Secretary of State who has wilted before those who have defied the law. For 28 years, Portadown district obeyed the determinations that it opposed. When it secured a legal determination to return, this Government and the PSNI bowed to those IRA commanders, dissidents and a First Minister who broke the law on the Garvaghy Road. Mob rule won, whether the Secretary of State likes to admit it or not. At Hillsborough castle, the Secretary of State treated law-abiding citizens as equals to Brendan McKenna, whose record is very clear: he held a family hostage and was involved in the blowing up of Portadown royal British legion, he has impeded the police doing their duty over the past two weeks, and he thinks we are all F-ers.

Lawbreaking has been rewarded by this sovereign Parliament, and that shameful surrender has serious consequences for the rule of law in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has joined Michelle O’Neill and the Chief Constable in thumbing their noses at law-abiding citizens and laughed and smirked while doing it. Their positions are becoming more untenable with every passing moment. Does the rule of law apply only to law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, while the self-titled “First Minister for all” seems to be immune?

[Chris Bryant]

When I referred earlier to those who have been vilified, I was going to refer to the hon. Lady, because I have seen some of the foul comments that have been made about her, online and elsewhere, and I completely abhor that. As she knows, I have spoken to her regularly throughout this whole process. We have tried to maintain a very civil conversation between us.

I want to clear up one other thing that the hon. Lady asked. She did not ask it in the House, but said I would have to answer it this evening. Earlier in the day, she said that I had to clear up whether I became aware of today’s judgment before or after I made my ruling. I think she was suggesting that in some way or other I knew before anybody else what the court was going to decide today. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not. At the time I started my determination, I did not even know when the court was going to come up with its ruling, so I very much hope that she will withdraw that semi-allegation. More importantly, I had to respond to the section 9 request from the Chief Constable. I am afraid that sometimes the hon. Lady resorts to extravagant and erring language, and I am not sure that helps secure an outcome for the Orange lodge.

The final point I would make to the hon. Lady is that she is absolutely right that everybody needs to uphold the law. I very much hope that she would urge everybody she knows who is now saying that they should not co-operate with the police to co-operate with the police. Otherwise, I am afraid it is a question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her determination, her courage and her leadership and for standing strong against the threats that have been made—physical threats, verbal threats and all sorts of threats—to her and her family. We in this House should stand strong with her. In the previous statement, the Home Secretary referred to security for individuals. My hon. Friend is one Member of this House who deserves that, and everyone in this House should back her as she makes her stand.

My constituents are asking me this question: why did the Secretary of State take the extraordinary step of intervening before the Court of Appeal had delivered its scheduled legal ruling today? In pre-empting the highest courts in the land, what message does this catastrophic surrender send to extremist factions active across the entire United Kingdom? If they descend upon a community in great numbers, refuse to obey the law and threaten violence, the Government will grant them their aims. If I had blocked Frances Street in Newtownards along with my constituents, we would have been in Bangor custody within 30 minutes. Will the Secretary of State admit that this decision sets a devastating national precedent? This is a policy of short-sighted appeasement that buys peace for today at the expense of our future. Why should law-abiding citizens continue to trust the democratic process when the Government signal to extremists of every stripe that street-level intimidation trumps the rule of law and that the British ideology of upholding law and justice as a foundation has now crumbled?

[Chris Bryant]

First, to be clear, the Court of Appeal was looking in its decision today at a completely different matter from the one that was before me. The court was looking at the decision made by the Parades Commission on 25 September; I was looking at the situation on 9 October. Those are two different matters, and that is why it was not material to me whether the court was going to be ruling today. As a matter of fact, when the letter came in from the Chief Constable, I did not know when the court would be ruling.

More importantly, under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, I am required by law to respond to the Chief Constable’s request, and that is what I did. I decided, as the courts did, to uphold the original determination of the Parades Commission, but to consider the situation as it pertains now and the advice given to me by the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable.

On the final point, I know there are people arguing that this is the end of the rule of law in Northern Ireland in some way. I just want to say that in the past few weeks, yes, people have said very cross things to one another and have shouted at one another—they have mostly done so in the Assembly, here in Parliament today or on the airwaves—but they have not been throwing things at each other. It has been peaceful in Portadown, and that is an achievement, not the opposite of an achievement. In the end, policing is about not just ensuring that a determination can be upheld, but judiciously preserving the peace.

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Written Corrections

[Jim Allister]

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House…

Thirdly, last Thursday the Minister said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain will not be covered by the UK trade measure. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption—if we want to call it that—in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we do not make steel; we rely exclusively on importing it. Many businesses in Northern Ireland depend very much on steel imports, yet here they are facing a new regime tomorrow and only hearing about it today.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member…

Seventy-three per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels.

[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 765.]

Written correction submitted by the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member…

Seventy-four per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels.

[James Naish]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important urgent question to the Chamber. I welcome the Government’s ambition on British steel, but British Gypsum in my constituency has raised concerns about the short-term impact of tariffs and called for transitional arrangements for steel to avoid unintended consequences in the construction industry. Will the Minister comment on the idea of better, stronger transitional arrangements?

[Chris Bryant]

As I explained last Thursday, we have introduced transitional arrangements to make sure that for the first quarter, imports are possible where people already have contracts to bring stuff in. As I say, 73% of UK imports of steel will not be in scope of the measure at all and can come into the UK easily.

[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 766.]

Written correction submitted by the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[Chris Bryant]

As I explained last Thursday, we have introduced transitional arrangements to make sure that for the first quarter, imports are possible where people already have contracts to bring stuff in. As I say, 74% of UK imports of steel will not be in scope of the measure at all and can come into the UK easily.

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I too pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am enormously grateful to the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who texted me a few moments ago to pass on her heartfelt sympathy as well. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to share in that.

With permission, I will make a statement on the Robert Hamill inquiry report, which is published today. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary grace and honour that Robert Hamill’s family have shown in the 29 years since he was murdered. It is hard enough to grieve the death of a loved one; it is even harder to grieve a loved one who was violently assaulted and brutally murdered; it is even worse to grieve a loved one without clear and coherent answers about the circumstances of their death for years and years. Many victims of the troubles have told me of the pain that gnaws away at them because they have no answers. Today will be particularly difficult for Robert’s family, so I send them my heartfelt sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of the whole House.

The facts are bleak. At about 1.20 am on Sunday 27 April 1997, a 25-year-old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, a father of three, left a dance at St Patrick’s hall on Thomas Street, Portadown, and walked with others towards the junction with High Street and Market Street, where Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were in a parked RUC Land Rover. There, a group of Protestants attacked Robert and left him with such injuries to the head that he never recovered consciousness, and he died in hospital 11 days later on 8 May 1997.

The inquiry is clear:

“Robert Hamill suffered head trauma either shortly after that violence broke out or a little later when…Protestant youths kicked him while he was on the ground. The trauma included axonal injury, in particular in the brain stem. We find that those injuries directly caused his death.”

The inquiry refers to there being at least three blows to the head and states:

“Robert Hamill’s death was murder, because those who assaulted him must have at least intended to cause serious injury to him.”

The people who attacked Robert did not know him. Robert had done nothing to provoke such a vicious and violent attack. He was killed simply for being who he was. To put it bluntly, he was killed solely because he was Catholic. I cannot imagine the pain felt by his family and his companions that day, who were clearly outnumbered as they watched him lying on the pavement.

The intervening years have been plagued by delay. Following the Weston Park talks in 2001, the retired Canadian judge Justice Peter Cory examined six cases and recommended that a public inquiry be launched into Robert’s death, which was then established in November 2004, chaired by Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt. He completed his work in 2011, but the Government committed not to publish the report until ongoing criminal proceedings had been exhausted. These ended on 14 June 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for his role in failing to properly investigate the incident and for perverting the course of justice. Given the passage of time and Sir Edwin’s health, a new chair was appointed: Sir John Evans, a member of the panel.

I am pleased that Sir John’s report is finally published today, but I fully acknowledge the significant delay, which is through no fault of the inquiry. That delay— 15 years from completion to publication—is far too long and has no doubt caused family members additional frustration and anguish. I truly regret that.

The inquiry’s terms of reference did not include attributing responsibility for Robert’s murder, but addresses two areas of public concern regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether the officers in the Land Rover were in any way responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and, secondly, whether the subsequent investigation into his murder was inhibited by any wrongful act or omission on the part of the RUC.

The inquiry finds that although RUC Land Rover crew parked near to the outbreak of violence were distracted talking to two members of the public, this did not facilitate Robert Hamill’s death. It also finds that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission in relation to the death of Robert Hamill. This last point was not the unanimous view of the inquiry panel, as the former chair Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view that the officers were guilty of omission by not keeping watch. The report also finds that the officers did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers.

However, on the second area of public concern, the inquiry findings are disturbing. They conclude that RUC officers were guilty of wrongful omissions and that those omissions arose both at the scene and during the initial investigation between 27 April 1997 and 7 May 1997. Those omissions included, first, a failure to carry out an initial debriefing, both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent. Secondly, there was a failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene once it became clear that Robert Hamill’s injuries were life-threatening. This omission was negligent. Thirdly, there was a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent, and in the case of the other, deliberate.

The inquiry finds that one RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, is guilty of a wrongful act for making a telephone call to the home of Allister Hanvey, who was present the night of the incident, which resulted in that individual destroying or putting beyond the reach of the police the clothes he had been wearing that night. That deliberately obstructed the investigation. In September and October 1997, Mr Atkinson subsequently conspired to cover up the tip-off telephone call at an important point in the murder investigation. The conspiracy amounted to an obstruction of the murder investigation and was deliberate. That conduct resulted in the conviction of Mr Atkinson in 2024 for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher, will want to reflect on the report’s findings, and I do not want to pre-empt any comment that he may make. I note that policing and justice are now devolved responsibilities, but these events happened under the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I merely say that it is especially disturbing that Mr Atkinson carried an RUC badge for years when he had so evidently and heinously failed in his duty and acted as a criminal.

The report says that there was a “catalogue of failures” by the RUC. It is difficult not to agree. The inquiry was empowered to make recommendations. Although it makes none for the Northern Ireland Office or the Government, I will make a couple of broader points. First, today is a landmark moment, and I am proud to be the Secretary of State who can finally share the report with the House, but it is also a reminder to all of us of the long shadow of the troubles and its deep and lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. We must never forget that many other families still wait and yearn for answers about how their loved ones were killed.

My second point is that the peace that was ushered in by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement the year after Robert’s death was an extraordinary achievement. Power sharing is difficult, but we should never take that peace for granted. After all, Robert’s death happened against the background of deep sectarian division. Nobody wants to return to that. That is why, to seek a more harmonious way forward, we must always double down on compromise and rise above our immediate instincts.

I thank the current and former chairs of the inquiry, Sir John Evans and the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, the Reverend Baroness Kathleen Richardson and all those who played a part in its delivery, including Paul Murphy—now Lord Murphy—who commissioned the report. I will lay a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published in full online.

This will be a difficult day for Robert Hamill’s family. He would have been coming up to his 55th birthday in December—he was younger than me. He might have become a grandfather or a great uncle by now, but he was murdered just for being a Catholic. We all pay our heartfelt respects to him and his family.

I end by noting one of the final paragraphs of the report:

“The murder file is still open and to this day no one has been convicted of causing Robert Hamill’s death.”

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I echo his opening remarks. I pass on my own condolences to the Prime Minister and my deepest sympathies to the Hamill family on this most challenging of days.

The killing of Robert Hamill was a tragedy, and the Opposition condemn all heinous sectarian violence. Robert Hamill was beaten to death in his own town. His death should never have happened, and his killers should be brought to justice. His family have been waiting 29 years, and Sir Edwin Jowitt did not live to see his own report published. This inquiry took too long.

It has long been argued by some that the police did nothing to prevent Mr Hamill’s murder, and yet the report found:

“In the event…we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.”

The failings of the police were because of a lack of due diligence; there was no overarching conspiracy in the events that led up to his death. The report highlights police failures of investigation, which were entirely wrong. The case of Atkinson led to a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and we condemn those actions entirely. We believe that 12 months served is not enough for such a crime. Those in the RUC who shamed themselves dishonour the many thousands of officers who served with integrity, standing between bombs, bullets and civilians. It is clear that the inquiry found that this was a case of negligence and that there was no overall conspiracy in the RUC to prevent a proper investigation. Those who murdered Robert Hamill could still be walking the streets today; we find it deplorable that they have not been brought to justice.

May I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in the report? I would like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. First, thousands of people served in the RUC in one of the most difficult policing environments imaginable. Does he agree that the vast majority of them carried out their duties with exemplary skill and bravery and deserve our thanks? Secondly, does he accept that the central finding of the report—that no officer in the Land Rover acted wrongfully —is a majority finding from which the inquiry’s own chairman dissented? Further, how have the Hamill family been supported throughout the process of publication?

This is one of the last of the core inquiries to report. What is the Government’s assessment of what those inquiries have collectively cost, what they have delivered and what they tell us about the inquiry model as a route to legacy truth recovery? This inquiry had cost £33 million by the time it was initially completed in 2011, and it took a further 15 years to reach the public. What lessons do the Government draw for the Omagh bombing inquiry and the inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane? The Finucane inquiry is already behind schedule.

How will the material gathered by the inquiry—more than 20,000 documents and evidence from 174 witnesses —be preserved? Will it be made available to the body now handling legacy cases and to the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland? Finally, do the Government consider the questions raised by the report to be closed by its publication or do they accept that there is unfinished business in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, which the family had to go to judicial review to have considered? I finish by joining the Secretary of State in condemning all sectarian violence.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I should welcome to his post. The first point I want to make is that something like 300 RUC officers were killed in the troubles. I pay tribute to the many thousands of RUC officers who did their jobs diligently in very difficult circumstances and with great courage and dedication to all communities in Northern Ireland. That is why a report such as this is so painful, including for the many RUC officers who formerly served, because they see the reputation of the organisation brought into disrepute by the actions of some.

When we read the chapter in the report and all the paragraphs about the investigations, and the failings in them, it is difficult not to put our head in our hands and ask how on earth this could be the case. There were manifest failings. As the hon. Member said, the actions of Robert Atkinson were absolutely despicable, and he has rightly been convicted.

When I recently visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, I was struck by how there were decades when maybe two or three, or five or six, RUC officers were killed; then there were decades when dozens and dozens were killed. Of course we have to take seriously when there are criticisms of processes and we need to ensure that we get those right. The fact that many of the recommendations for the RUC and the PSNI were made many years ago and have now been implemented is noted. There are not any particular questions or recommendations for the Government to adopt.

The hon. Member asked me about the inquiry cost. He is right that the figure was at something like £33 million and a few more since. I feel a bit conflicted, because on the one hand, in the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have met so many people who lost loved ones and have no idea what happened, but I have also met people who see the person they believe killed their brother, their husband or their father going to Marks & Spencer or going about their daily business without ever having been interrupted by the legal system at all. They find that phenomenally painful. I do want to get answers for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible. I also do not want to over-promise, because sometimes—there is an irony about this sentence—the truth is complex and nuanced and depends on whose point of view we take.

I also note the several points in the report where the inquiry panel points out that it would have been able to do more if more people had been able to provide witness statements, but lots of people did not do so because they felt that they were under threat or they were being cajoled into not doing so. All of that makes it very difficult to get to the truth. This is why I am committed to the troubles Bill, and to making sure that it delivers a legacy commission that is able to get to the truth for as many victims as possible.

I often think that one of the things that the Good Friday agreement did was bring an end to the fighting—not immediately, obviously; the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Omagh bombing—but it also meant that lots of people had to try to forget. They were effectively asked to forget what had happened in their own family lives, and they have borne the brunt of that pain for many decades, so the more we can do to provide answers, the better.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Finucane inquiry. He will know that it is starting its processes in earnest this week. Several Governments promised an inquiry, which is why I pay tribute to my predecessor for setting it up. I hope that it will get to the answers.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the DPP. The report says that

“we have come to the firm view that the process by which the decision was reached to discontinue the prosecution of Res Con Atkinson was riddled with significant flaws. We have reached the clear view that it was not carried out with due diligence.”

In fact, subsequent to the interim report, the DPP returned to its original decision to prosecute two people, and that is what led to Mr Atkinson being convicted.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State. This is the first chance I have had to do so, and I wish him every success for the future.

This is a shocking story of a young man, Robert Hamill, who was the victim of a sectarian murder, but also the victim of the deliberate decision of a police officer to ring up a suspect a few hours after the murder to warn him to dispose of his clothing, because it might incriminate him, rather than fulfil his duty to uphold the law, and who then lied about it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is so important finally to tell the truth about what happened during the troubles, if reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to be progressed?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I warmly commend my right hon. Friend. If I can be as nice, sage, honourable, decent and gentlemanly as he in this role, I will have performed a decent task. He is absolutely right. There is another thing that is absolutely shocking here: there has never been an inquest. In fact, this is the first time that it has been declared that it was murder. That, of itself, is truly shocking. This is not the only case in Northern Ireland where no answers have been provided for individuals. He is absolutely right: the behaviour of Mr Atkinson would shock in a drama, but it is in fact the truth that he deliberately perverted the course of justice. I should say that the inquiry is keen to make the point that deliberate actions are much more blameworthy than casual omissions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the report and the statement. I want to begin by echoing his tribute to the grace with which the family of Robert Hamill have faced a wait of nearly three decades for answers. Such a lengthy delay in justice is unacceptable, especially in the face of the heinous sectarian violence that resulted in Mr Hamill’s murder simply because he was a Catholic. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the delay in publication of this report was no fault of the inquiry, but because of the understandable decision to wait until proceedings that eventually resulted in the conviction of the former RUC officer, Mr Atkinson, had been concluded.

However, I remain bemused by its taking 13 years for Mr Atkinson to be convicted for his despicable acts regarding the tip-off of one of the suspects in the murder and the subsequent cover-up. That is particularly hard to understand, given that the facts relating to his criminal behaviour were clearly established long before the report was finalised in 2011. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on why it took 13 years for these proceedings to be concluded? Furthermore, what actions will the Government take to ensure that future inquiries do not fall foul of procedural pitfalls, to ensure that grieving families are given answers in a timely fashion?

Finally, the report identifies many failures of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with regard to negligence, a lack of due diligence and the failures of inexperienced, untrained officers; however, it also makes a number of recommendations relevant to the PSNI. As policing and justice is now a devolved matter, what role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Northern Ireland Office and himself personally in ensuring that those recommendations are implemented, and the PSNI embodies the values of accountability and transparency that all communities in Northern Ireland have a right to expect?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. It is vital that all those in public office exhibit candour. That is as important for police officers as it is for anybody else, as became painfully apparent throughout the process of trying to get justice for those involved in the Hillsborough disaster. That applies equally to the PSNI as it did to the RUC. The hon. Member is right that these are now primarily matters either for the PSNI directly or for the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I am sure that they will want to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb.

It is not only that nobody had said until today that this was a murder; nobody had decided on what the cause of death was until today. I urge hon. Members to read the report, because it goes in some detail into precisely what happened, and it makes for very distressing reading.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful statement. I was in sixth year in 1997, and the nightclub that Robert Hamill’s killers were leaving was a haunt of mine and my classmates. I think that is why this murder remains in my memory so viscerally. It was so brutal, so sectarian, and led to so many years of injustice for the family. As happens so often, a proper exploration has uncovered collusion. That has been the case certainly not for all RUC officers, but for far too many. It is painful and difficult for society, but the Minister will know that suppression does not aid the healing and reconciliation that we need.

It is also impossible to ignore the context of that murder, and the 20 other human lives wasted around the time of the Drumcree stand-off in those years. Does the Secretary of State agree that disclosure must be properly addressed in the body that he is currently legislating for, and that it is a bleak, dead-end campaign to reopen wounds as deep as Drumcree?

[Chris Bryant]

I think everybody wants to condemn sectarianism, but the truth is that it is awfully easy to stir it up, in every society in the world. What is striking in the report is not only some of the terms of abuse that were shouted from one side to the other; a couple of witnesses also referred to the fact that when Robert Hamill’s body was being stretchered into an ambulance, people were shouting, “I hope he dies.” We need to remember the bitterness that sectarianism can instil in people’s hearts, especially when people are gathered in large crowds. Anything that we can do to calm sectarianism is a really important part of my job, and that of all those involved in the politics of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member makes a very fair point about disclosure. We will talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in a couple of weeks’ time, and that is one of the issues that we will address.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

This relates directly to my constituency, so I welcome the opportunity to speak to it today. Robert Hamill’s murder was a brutal and appalling crime, and my thoughts are first and foremost with his family, who have many questions, as do many families right across Northern Ireland. But the truth matters, and the truth today is clear. Paragraph 21 finds that four RUC officers

“were not aware of the assault until they got out and they did not in any way condone or collude with attackers.”

Paragraph 75 concludes that

“we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.”

Put simply, they did not sit idly by, they did not collude, they did not facilitate murder—something that has been hurled at them for the past 30 years.

The complaint, advanced by Rosemary Nelson, has been demolished by the inquiry, which also found that she failed to “co-operate fully” with the RUC and

“did not improve the situation.”

This goes to the heart of the nationalist republican legacy activism, whereby truth and the rule of law are subjective terms to be weaponised to seek to arrive at a predetermined political outcome.

More than 300 RUC officers were murdered while protecting the entire community. Will the Secretary of State now end this decades-long smear, defend these four officers and reject any attempt to rewrite history or attach collective guilt to the RUC?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, that was a slightly partial version of what is in the report. If the hon. Member read the whole report, I think she would come to a rather more settled position. She is absolutely right that, on the first issue that the inquiry was asked to look at—namely, whether the behaviour of the crew in the Land Rover had in some way contributed to the death—the report is absolutely clear that there was no collusion with the attackers. However, there are quite serious criticisms of the way the investigation was pursued, or was not pursued effectively. Of course, there is the additional issue of how Reserve Constable Atkinson behaved and that whole saga. I think it is best to tell the whole of the story, rather than just part of it.

I did not answer one of the questions that was asked earlier about the support for the family. I spoke very briefly to Diane over the weekend. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has been in contact with the family throughout the process. In the end, of course, the most important thing is ensuring that the family get the answers they need.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

If people in this House are going to utter Rosemary Nelson’s name, I would expect that they should also call for justice and truth in relation to her case, because—I say this in case people do not realise—she too was killed by loyalists not long after.

The report is clear, and I want to send our message of thanks and good wishes to the Hamill family, who have had to struggle for far too long for the report to be released. It is clear that there were massive failings corporately on behalf of the RUC and in terms of an individual who deliberately went about his business trying to cover up what happened to Robert Hamill. The impact of legacy is clear on the everyday workings of policing in Northern Ireland today. That is why we have to deal with the legacy issue. Those people in this House who do not want to see prosecutions—even the opportunity for prosecutions—for what happened in the past should read this report and listen to the Hamill family today.

We need to remember the context, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. This happened during a murderous sectarian time that all revolved around the issue of Drumcree. Will he join me in calling for everybody to take a step back, to remember what happened not that long ago, and to try to take us away from using those old issues to stir up hate and sectarianism and potentially much, much worse?

[Chris Bryant]

It is often very difficult, including for a well-resourced inquiry, to get to the truth. I will read out another clause of the report:

“We are left in no doubt that the decision by so many to have no recollection was by no means always spontaneous but was the result of suggestion, cajolery and in some cases threat. This has added to our difficulties.”

The truth is that sometimes sectarianism leads not just to the murder, but to the cover-up. That is why I am very keen to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to diminish that. There is a Purcell anthem that I used to have to sing a lot when I was at school and at university. It includes the line:

“Let your moderation be known unto all men”.

Perhaps that should be our motto.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I should declare that in a previous life I was one of the defence counsel in the murder case that arose from the shocking death of Robert Hamill. So there was a murder trial and there was a due verdict of not guilty, and we should not forget that either.

May I ask the Secretary of State, after £33 million and more, what is it that we now know from this report that we did not know from the public murder trial, and that we did not know from the public appearances and reporting and trial of Robert Atkinson? We have spent over £33 million, and most of what is in this report was already in the public domain.

Perhaps what was not in the public domain was the fact that the audacious, constant propaganda that the police officers had colluded in the murder has now been wholly debunked, and the report quite properly finds that they did no wrongful act or omission facilitating that murder. That is a big price to pay to arrive at that conclusion and the conclusion that there was no collusion, contrary to the constant refrain of some for almost 30 years. I welcome the fact that that at least has been laid to rest.

[Chris Bryant]

First, just because nobody has been convicted of murder does not mean that a murder was not committed. Indeed, one of the most painful aspects of all of this is that, clearly, as this report finds for the first time, there was a murder. The cause of death was at least three beatings to the head that Robert Hamill received—possibly two or more being kicks to the head when he was already lying on the ground, and possibly a third from a bottle. It beggars belief that in this country we can all decide that somebody was murdered but nobody ends up facing justice for the murder. I suppose that is one of the pains that arises in many of the cases that we deal with here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. For grieving families, the absence of answers prolongs the pain and grief. There is also, of course, a wider public interest in ensuring that legacy cases, such as Robert Hamill’s, are dealt with both efficiently and fairly. But does the Secretary of State appreciate that inquiries and investigations that last for decades continue to place significant demands on police time and resources, and require large sums of public money, and that complex legacy cases can take time to investigate properly, and due process must always be respected?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course I recognise that, and in addition there is the problem that for the families and for all the witnesses and the many other people, such as those who were there that night, there is the anguish of going through that process—through multiple legal processes, judicial reviews, considerations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the original report by Justice Cory and then the eventual launching of the inquiry. All of that of course has an emotional cost as well as a financial cost.

I do not want to set the financial cost aside; that is of course a consideration for Government, especially at a difficult time fiscally. But in the end we want to get as many answers as possible for people. I say this as much for the families of the 300 or so RUC officers, or the 1,100 members of the security services who were killed in Northern Ireland, and the families who were killed in whatever set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make sure that the legacy commission really is able to do the job that we are setting it up to do, and that is why it is important that the troubles Bill goes through its passage.

I would just say one other thing. It is one thing for us in the British Government to be candid; I think it is also important that the Irish Government be candid. That is why it is such an important part of the process that we are undergoing with the troubles Bill that when I have spoken to my opposite numbers in Dublin, Helen McEntee and Jim O’Callaghan, they have been very keen to say that they want to make sure that their necessary legislation, which enables them to participate in the process of providing answers for people and giving information, happens in lockstep with ours so that they will be implemented at the same time. If we can get the two Governments working together to provide answers, there will be many more families who will have—I hate the word “closure”, but they will at least reach a point when they are able to understand that this moment is done.

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I am today laying before Parliament the report of the Robert Hamill inquiry, and publishing it in full online.

I acknowledge the significant delay of 15 years between the completion and publication of this report. While necessary to allow legal proceedings to conclude, this prolonged wait has undoubtedly caused Robert’s family deep anguish. I offer my profound sympathies to his family and pay tribute to their dignity throughout this ordeal.

On 27 April 1997, Robert Hamill was violently attacked by a large crowd in Portadown simply because he was a Catholic, dying from his injuries weeks later. His murder was a horrifying tragedy.

The inquiry addressed two primary public concerns regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether officers in a nearby Land Rover were responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and secondly, whether the subsequent investigation was inhibited by wrongful acts or omissions.

The inquiry concluded that officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission directly facilitating the death, though Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view. However, the inquiry made stark findings regarding wrongful omissions during the initial police investigation between 27 April and 7 May 1997, concluding that these omissions severely hindered the investigation.

These omissions included:

Failure to carry out initial debriefings at the scene or at the police station, which was negligent and severely impacted the murder investigation;

failure to carry out a full debriefing once it became clear Robert Hamill’s injuries were life threatening;

wrongful omissions by two officers to supply relevant information regarding an individual seen at the scene, which was negligent in one case and deliberate in the other.

Furthermore, the inquiry found that RUC officer Robert Atkinson committed a deliberate wrongful act by tipping off a suspect, resulting in the destruction of evidence, and subsequently conspired to cover up the call, leading to his conviction for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will reflect on these findings. The Government remain committed to establishing effective mechanisms that deliver transparency and accountability for legacy cases.

I place on record my gratitude to the current and former chairs and panel members—Sir John Evans, the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, and Reverend Baroness Richardson —for their diligent service in uncovering the truth. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS343]

Northern Ireland Parades Commission

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I wish to update the House on the recent High Court decision regarding Portadown District LOL No.1’s application to the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland, as well as the steps I am taking in light of the ruling.

In July 2026 a member of the Portadown Orange Lodge sought a judicial review challenging the Parades Commission’s determination to restrict the return leg of the annual Drumcree parade along Garvaghy Road in Portadown. On 25 August 2026, the High Court in Belfast quashed the Parades Commission’s determination. The commission did not contest the proceedings, due to procedural issues identified in relation to how the decision was recorded. Specifically, not every commissioner had approved the final text of the commission’s determination.

The Parades Commission performs a vital and complex quasi-judicial role in what can often be sensitive and difficult circumstances. Over the past three decades, Northern Ireland has made significant progress in easing tensions surrounding parades. Today, the vast majority of parades take place peacefully and without community tension, with fewer than 5% of the nearly 4,000 annual parades deemed sensitive.

However, the recent High Court ruling has highlighted clear procedural defects. The Commission must have the fullest possible confidence of all communities across Northern Ireland. I met with the commissioners on 1 September to discuss their response. Having considered it, I am satisfied that the issues raised are being taken seriously and that progress is being made.

To provide public assurance, support the commission and ensure its operational framework is legally sound and procedurally fair, I have ordered an independent judge-led review into the commission’s decision-making procedures and organisational governance. This will strengthen the commission’s immediate and future work. In the meantime, the current commissioners have my full backing. It is in the public interest that they continue their critical functions as we work together to restore public trust in this vital institution.

Scope and Governance of the Review

Progress on the judge-led review will be monitored directly by Baroness Anderson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will report back to me.

Although the terms of reference are still being finalised, the review will concentrate on the commission’s decision-making procedures—placing particular emphasis on ensuring that decisions are evidence-based, transparent, robust and fair in order to eradicate the procedural defects that were identified.

The legal framework of the parading sector, as set out in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, remains outside the scope of this review.

The review will commence this month, with the final report submitted to myself and the chair of the commission within two months of the review commencing. Following the submission of the final report, Baroness Anderson will maintain direct ministerial oversight of the implementation programme to embed any recommended measures, with a progress report to be published before the end of the year.

I have also instructed officials to launch a public appointments process shortly to appoint commissioners. This is standard practice, as one commissioner has recently resigned and the remaining commissioners are approaching the end of their terms of office.

Whatever the shortcomings highlighted in the High Court ruling, there is no justification for anyone stepping outside the law. I urge all communities to remain committed to the lawful notification of parades, to conduct all processions and protests lawfully, and to support the work of this review as we strengthen the commission for the future.

[HCWS306]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Normally I would not, but I think this is an important matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know at the start of questions that he wanted to catch my eye. Although the issue he has raised is not strictly a point of order, I am of course alarmed to hear what he has reported to the Chamber. Rather than give a knee-jerk reaction now, I am sure that the Government will rapidly be assessing the implications of this move. I am therefore asking them to keep me and the House authorities briefed on this very important issue, and I shall make sure that Members are kept informed as appropriate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed that I am not on the list—I am also slightly surprised. I can assume only that the Russian Federation accepts that everything I have said about President Putin over the past few years is true: he is a barbarous villain and we must make sure that he fails.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman may now have got himself put on that list.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the House will know, there is already a coalition of British manufacturers that are now working together at speed to supply the ventilators that we need. We already have 8,000, and we are moving rapidly upwards, and I will keep the House informed of developments.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q8. If he will visit the Rhondda.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. I am happy to consider his invitation to Rhondda and will take it up.

[Chris Bryant]

What I really hope is that the Prime Minister will look at the whole coronavirus crisis through the eyes of the Rhondda, because we have a large number of sole traders, chippies, electricians and plumbers. We have a lot of people in very insecure employment. We have got lots of people who are elderly and people who are on very low incomes and have next to no savings. Many people have already been laid off this week or are worried that they are going to be laid off in the next fortnight, so we really do need the Prime Minister to address these matters.

If I am honest, I do not want to be partisan, but it does feel as if we are a bit of an afterthought. I really beg the Prime Minister to look through the eyes of the Rhondda, because I think he would then double sick pay so that it is a sensible figure. I think he would introduce something like a summer version of the winter fuel allowance so that the elderly get some help. I think he would probably introduce some kind of VAT holiday for sole traders. I know he hopes, and we all hope, that the whole of the country will bounce back quickly after this, but I say to him that after the floods and the poverty that we have historically suffered in the Rhondda, communities like mine will find it phenomenally difficult to bounce back if he does not take that kind of action now.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully and passionately and, in my view, wholly rightly for the people of the Rhondda. I can tell him that our thoughts in this Government are with the people of the entire country in helping everyone to get through this virus. We will do, as I say, whatever it takes to support business and, as I said in my earlier answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, also to support individuals and families. I welcome the agreement of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the Scottish National party that we should do it on a cross-party basis.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill (Business of the House)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The point is that we should do things properly. It is an established principle in this House, and in this Parliament, that we normally have three Readings, a Committee stage, and Report, with gaps in between, so that people can consider matters properly. The only time that we suspend that is for emergency legislation. In all honesty, I do not see why this is emergency legislation. By definition, it is only emergency legislation normally when there is no controversy; there is clearly substantial controversy here, which is why we should have a proper Business of the House motion to allow us to consider amendments that have not been tabled by Ministers.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. His reference to a proper Business of the House motion is the view that he has volunteered, but I say this as much for the benefit of people attending to our proceedings and in the name of their intelligibility as for any other reason that it is precisely because I judged that this matter should be capable of amendment, even at the last minute, that I selected the manuscript amendment, so I know perfectly well how to operate in these matters. I am very glad that we are in agreement on that—[Interruption.] No, no, I appreciate that. The hon. Gentleman does not need to be touchy about it. I was merely claiming credit for selecting the amendment.