Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.

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

I think that many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry. Does the hon. Member agree that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both Governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his Government acting unilaterally when they announced theirs?

[Alex Burghart]

I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Social Democratic and Labour party welcomes this remedial order, which goes some way to restoring the rule of law to legacy processes and in turn to the present day. The introduction by the previous Government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase, “Justice delayed is justice denied”.

This order is specifically about the troubles legacy Bill, but across these islands—in every jurisdiction, every day—we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time. We now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay, whether it is Hillsborough, infected blood, the Post Office scandal or the Magdalene laundries. There will not be a Member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. My ask is simply that Members think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way.

It is not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this House, and particularly today. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes—none of them have won. All of them have lost members of their family. It is not about people being able to draw a line under the past because MPs in London have told them to. MPs have called them IRA sympathisers.

The previous legislation, which this order undoes, was not about reconciliation or truth. The word “reconciliation” appeared in the title of the Bill and nowhere else. The Bill was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised. It was not just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I am not here to write a reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system, but these provisions and amnesties extended to the darkest corners—yes, of the security services, but also to those who directed the terrorism and who played God with people’s lives, and who should of course be held to the law.

The Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working, but inquests have worked. They were belated, yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. Those inquests have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with the most to hide. Those inquiries have also exposed truth and corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families; the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats. The 2021 inquest freed those families—freed people who had grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother, their father or their parish priest was a gunman, when it was entirely obvious that that was not true. They finally got accountability from a regiment that operated without it.

False narratives have been used by the security forces, by the IRA and by republican and loyalist terrorists to impugn and to add grievous insult to injury for so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre; an inquest less than two years ago rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack, where 10 Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. That was carried out by people who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood alongside. When people say that it is IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests, it is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black.

I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. We have had the Good Friday agreement and the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames-Bradley and Haass-O’Sullivan and the on-the-run letters, and all the other processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims. This legislation turns that around. However, it is just the beginning: we have to get the processes right if we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth, accountability and remembrance. This has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but also in human rights compliance, truth and justice. Today I again urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, where concerns exist about disclosure, ECHR compatibility and judicial independence, to ensure that we face down those vested interests, in or out of uniform, and show Britain as a democracy that upholds laws and rights.

Dealing with legacy will not be confined to the remedial order, the troubles Bill or the joint framework. As Members on both sides of the House know, it shapes our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other, and how we can best deliver a shared future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. The answers will not all be found in this order, or in the legislation that is to come. We have never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did: for the IRA to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2,000 of them, as collateral damage; for loyalists to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law.

I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently—did try to serve decently. I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many Members feel in the service given by them and by their loved ones. However, I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everyone in Northern Ireland had. Three hundred thousand soldiers served in Operation Banner, and fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of the time of victims’ families, and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. The Bill is the start of that, and I ask Members to approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I confess that I have not been in Westminster Hall for a while; I was watching the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to see exactly when I should stand up. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate, which is an important part of the conversation as the case for modest Assembly reform builds.

The Social Democratic and Labour party has been working quite intensively to find common ground and take this conversation beyond campaigning and graphics and into the realm of the possible. I welcome the indications from the Prime Minister last week, when I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions, that the UK Government are freshly open to engagement. There had been a fairly hands-off approach.

I restate the SDLP’s frustration that the Executive parties have made not a single step towards reform. In spite of election campaigning, there is nothing in the programme for government. I welcome the Assembly’s acceptance of an SDLP proposal to take some of this issue on through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but if anybody wants to see an example of an issue being slow-walked, it is that committee’s discussion and inquiry over the past year.

As with the agreement that created the institutions, we accept that parties are approaching this issue from different places and at different paces. As with that agreement, it is also clear that we will not come to a conclusion without some sort of facilitation. I will not spend much time on the need for reform: the periodic collapses, the quagmire and stalemate on public policy, the daily draining away of public confidence, this week’s failure to agree a multi-year budget and the feedback from Baroness Hallett in the covid inquiry last week all ably make the case, as did the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

The flaws are by culture and by design. There is much recrimination about some of what is in the agreement, but hon. Members need to be reminded that we were trying to end a hot war and resolve a centuries-old conflict, which the agreement very largely did, in spite of what my colleague Mark Durkan memorably called the “ugly scaffolding”.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that much of the work that was achieved in the Belfast agreement was undermined in St Andrews in 2007, when there was a change to how the First and Deputy First Ministers were elected? Rather than being a co-post, it became a divided office.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Those subsequent changes, particularly at St Andrews, have distorted the institutions away from a place of consensus and towards veto, brinkmanship and power struggle. There is a lot in the agreement that the SDLP would like to revisit—not least strand 2, which has shockingly underperformed—but the immediacy and urgency of this issue means that we have to focus on where common ground can be found.

I agree with a lot of what the Alliance party has suggested but, bluntly, I do not think it is achievable. I do not think that it is possible to get there from where we are now, although we were very open to a lot of those conversations, not least on mandatory coalition and designation. As a party that is anti-sectarian, centre-left and for a new Ireland, we have never fitted neatly into any binary, but it is important to recognise both where we are as a society and where we want to get to.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

There is a real point there: people who may be in what we would term a Unionist or nationalist party may not really regard themselves as those things. That is a really positive and legitimate challenge. As the hon. Lady herself says, even her party does not fit neatly into boxes, and I certainly know Unionists, in Unionist parties, who would also feel the same. Does she think that the current set-up gives no latitude to reflect the views of people who may be Unionists or nationalists?

[Claire Hanna]

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

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

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

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

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

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

[Claire Hanna]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We have had a catalogue of reasons why there need to be changes to the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland. We have had collapses, difficulty in getting a three-year budget, the fallout and the use of veto powers by the parties.

The thing that strikes me is all these things have happened under different Administrations in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years. When the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in power, the Administration collapsed about five times—

[Claire Hanna]

Who collapsed it?

[Sammy Wilson]

Well, it was collapsed by the parties that were in power at that stage, because they had the ability to keep it running—but they did not. It collapsed again when the distribution of seats changed. It collapsed for a number of reasons, but the important thing is that those arrangements were put in place to safeguard minorities. The Alliance party and the SDLP, which are now calling for reform, were the keenest to have that consensus requirement in the Belfast agreement.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. They are now proposing that consensus be removed and—here’s the thing—that we go to majority rule, albeit with a weighted majority of 66%. That is not reform; that is retreating to something that they condemned in the first place, and that they said required the arrangements in the Belfast agreement to be put in place.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the right hon. Member confirm whether he believes that the Assembly has or should have responsibility for international affairs, which is included in the Windsor framework, and can he outline where cross-community consent for Brexit was demonstrated?

[Sammy Wilson]

I find it rather odd that the hon. Member has talked about how dysfunctional the Assembly is but wants more powers for it. Either it is dysfunctional or it is not. If it is functional and she wants more powers for it, why do we need the changes?

Let us look at the words that are used. “Reform” is one, and I have noticed that another phrase—“keyhole surgery”—has come in. Of course, these are all euphemisms for removing the very safeguards that were required when nationalists were in the minority. That is why they were put in place. Now the arithmetic in the Assembly has changed, and we find that those parties that believed there should be safeguards for minorities no longer require those safeguards and want to revert to a form of majority rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

That is helpful. The current 60:40:40 system strikes me as one that does protect minorities, while the danger of the consensus is that you get tripped up by hold-outs. That is what I see happening from my perspective outside.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene. Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not take my intervention, and I am sad about that. I was seeking to clarify whether his party’s position had moved from being the quite radical one—more radical than my position or that of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood)—of ending mandatory coalition and to a 90-Member Opposition. Did the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) understand that from the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim?

[Mr Kohler]

I do not know. I would like to hear from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I am happy for him to intervene.

Retaining the current arrangements comes at a real cost, both socially and economically. Political deadlock has hindered reforms in health and social care, while the ongoing divisions drain public finances through duplicated services, higher policing costs and lost investment. Those pressures have been compounded by Brexit. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the EU, yet the previous Conservative Government’s approach has created persistent problems along the border, in Stormont and across the economy—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing the debate. She referred to the fact that she secured a similar debate only a year ago, and it is a tribute to her consistent campaigning and relentless focus on this issue that we are back here again. I knew then, as I know now, that her ambition is for Northern Ireland to be as strong as it can be for the people of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has just said, I have no doubt that she shares that ambition with everyone in the Chamber.

It is important to note, as the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) said, that in the nearly 30 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, it has not stood still. Thanks to the St Andrews and Hillsborough castle arrangements, the Executive have responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. The “Fresh Start” agreement provided for an official Opposition for the first time. The New Decade, New Approach agreement provided for important changes to the petition of concern.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, and everybody advocating for evolution in Northern Ireland’s institutions, recognises the importance of reaching across the aisle, just as the architects of the original agreement did. They knew the importance of building a coalition of support. That support must come from not just the parties themselves, but the public as a whole. It was the Northern Ireland public who voted so decisively for the historic agreement 30 years ago. Let us be clear: any changes must work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, not just the parties. In my mind, I ask whether it can command the widest possible support and if it improves the lives of the people in Northern Ireland. Fundamentally, as others have said, that is what we are here for: better outcomes for the people we serve.

It is important to place the debate in its full and proper context. Although the Assembly and Executive are not perfect—I dare say some would say that about our Parliament, too—as others, including the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), noted, the Good Friday agreement remains a landmark achievement for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I said in a recent debate that it is one of the finest achievements of the previous Labour Government. We would not be stood here nearly 30 years later if it were not for that Labour Government and the Conservative Government who came before them, particularly through the work of the then Prime Minister John Major. He helped to change the approach to bring about peace, as did those in Northern Ireland—politicians and not—who came together to give peace its chance. Without everyone—and I mean everyone—we would not be here looking at nearly 30 years of peace and prosperity.

Of course, no system is perfect, and that is certainly true of the strand 1 institutions, which for almost 40% of the time have not been functioning. I know that government is hard and power sharing even more so, so I pay tribute to those Ministers who are working day in, day out to address the serious challenges of bringing down waiting lists, tackling the cost of living crisis, driving higher standards in our schools and unlocking the potential of economic growth. I am encouraged when I see the Executive coming together to deliver on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, it is imperfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. All of us know that. That is why we approach these debates with humility and determination. Any proposed changes must deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for encouragement, and I will always encourage debate among those who want Northern Ireland to succeed. I am pleased that we are having today’s debate because it is healthy for a society to consider changes and improvements that might be made—indeed, we are reforming the House of Lords—and I also know how strong and genuinely felt calls for the reform of the institutions are, particularly from Alliance and the SDLP, as we have heard today. Many among the Northern Irish public will share that view. The 2024 Northern Ireland life and times survey clearly shows support for the Good Friday agreement as a whole and for its further evolution. I agree with the 68% of people in Northern Ireland who think that the Good Friday agreement remains the best basis for governing Northern Ireland. That is a remarkable vote of confidence in an agreement that is nearly 30 years old and continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.

I acknowledge the recent Assembly motion that called on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process between the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government. The UK Government’s position is clear. The Prime Minister said last week, regarding the Northern Ireland parties, that

“we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 259.]

However—this is evident from some aspects of today’s debate—I do not see a shared view on institutional reform among the political parties or, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland.

[Claire Hanna]

Does the Minister acknowledge that at the time of the Good Friday agreement, the parties did not arrive together at consensus, and nor did they with the likes of the St Andrews agreement, when things were distorted? Does he agree that it is unusual for all the parties to arrive at a fully formed agreement, and that a degree of facilitation is required?

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree that those parties did not come with a consensus already, and about the importance of their working together and finding consensus between them. In the vein of what I have just said, I welcome the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is considering reform of the institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Northern Ireland Executive have very considerable responsibilities in respect of the Northern Ireland economy. I note that the Finance Minister has published a draft three-year budget; the fact that we had a three-year spending review has given the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to do the same for the first time in a number of years. As the Minister said, there are choices that the Executive have to make—that is true of all Governments around the world—and I look forward to seeing the Executive come forward with a proposal for a balanced budget.

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

8. What recent engagement he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive.

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

Since becoming a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I have met Executive Ministers, building on the extensive engagement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Our discussions have been wide-ranging, and have included discussions on economic growth and transforming public services.

[Claire Hanna]

The Minister will be aware that for a number of months, I have been raising concerns about the local growth fund and its impact in Northern Ireland. Just before Christmas, organisations got the devastating news of a large cut to the local growth fund, which will devastate a number of support jobs and work done to help vulnerable people into meaningful employment. What steps will the Northern Ireland Office take to prevent the loss of those crucial support jobs, and to help put in place services to tackle our low productivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The Greenland issue is obviously very important and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. The future of Greenland is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, and for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. Yesterday, he will have seen that I put out a statement to that effect, along with fellow allies in Europe. Of course, NATO is hugely important—the single-most effective and important military alliance the world has ever known. He keeps encouraging me to sort of tug away at parts of NATO, and to choose between Europe and the US. That would be a strategic mistake for our country.

Yesterday we were working with our NATO allies, including the US—our NATO ally—on a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which will not happen without security guarantees from the coalition of the willing backed by the United States. That is a vitally important issue, and we made progress on it, but there will not be a just and lasting peace in Ukraine without those security guarantees, and not achieving a just and lasting peace in Ukraine is not in our national interest. That is why I am applying so much time and energy seeking to get that outcome.

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

Q7. Even its strongest advocates acknowledge that Northern Ireland is trapped in dysfunction—not because reform is not possible, but because the DUP and Sinn Féin have not allowed it. We have become a political “Hotel California”, where the past is always around but the future never arrives. There is growing public consensus that some of Stormont’s procedures simply are not working. The SDLP has found slivers of common ground across the political parties, too. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for a structured conversation that both protects power sharing and addresses the culture of veto and decline so that Stormont might finally take responsibility and start to deliver for the people?

[The Prime Minister]

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government. As the hon. Lady well knows, it enshrined Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and set out clear principles and processes under that framework. I am aware of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s inquiry into institutional reform, and I can indicate that we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Claire Hanna Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.

Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.

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

Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court?

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

The answer is 20.

[Alex Burghart]

I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Time is short, but I hope that we can consider why, as well as how, pain is to be addressed in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party approaches legacy from a basis that considers the rule of law, equality before the law, and the impact on reconciliation. We recognise that this is not a sterile debate, taking place only in this Chamber or in Committee Rooms, and it is not a knockabout for a headline or a tweet; it is a daily reality for many thousands of families. While the issue of legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland, shaping the tone of our politics, and affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing, and the ability of Government to deliver. This Bill is not perfect—legislation rarely is—but we cannot miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. This is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent and reconciled future.

It is positive that we are discussing a bilateral agreement between the Irish Government and the Government in London. This is a much-needed departure from the unilateralism pursued by the last Government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy Act, which was not only struck down by the courts, but rejected by every single party in the north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record. They exploited the fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working, while fighting and stalling the processes that were in place. The Conservative party’s approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities and, worse, wasted the time, the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors.

The joint framework allows both Governments to begin meeting their responsibilities for dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State and his officials. Although we will seek by amendment to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well-intentioned political oversight, I understand that people are working closely on this across the Irish sea, and that Dublin’s legislation will be published swiftly once this Bill has made its way through the House, so that its architecture is compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that these things be delivered in parallel, and right that it is a partnership. When people make lurid claims about what the Irish Government have or have not done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it, I can view that only as cynicism.

The SDLP does not pick and choose which victims we support. We do not pick and choose who we demand accountability from. Every death was a tragedy, and every murder was wrong. Publicly and privately, we will push Dublin, as we will push everyone else, on its obligations and its omissions from this framework, and on the Omagh inquiry. We will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism of those, including many on the Opposition side of this House, who attempt to draw an equivalence, from London, between the Government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement of paramilitaries.

From the early days of the conflict, victims have borne the most—including lacklustre investigations and the release of prisoners—and asked the least, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. To go far outwith the Good Friday agreement, they have had that compounded by an uneven transition for paramilitaries, on-the-run letters, decades of cynical memorialisation, and the immunity scheme that was in place under the previous Government.

Unlike others, the SDLP does not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of context, for military commanders and IRA commanders, violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice. Brushing all those crimes under the carpet, as the previous Government attempted to do, was also a choice.

The deaths of far too many innocent people were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth less, having been expended for a goal that could never have been achieved that way. That has never been properly acknowledged. The IRA has never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and it made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, and that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith that they were born into. They do not need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point. Likewise, the running of state agents by security forces was not a “necessary evil”; it was reckless and morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it, and those trying to pretend it did not happen.

Uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure in order to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. For many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claimed to defend.

Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on confidence in policing. There is no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there is not a pathway to justice, or even truth, for every family, but we have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years.

As for those who suffered loss, I hear daily their dignity, fortitude and the wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and heed those voices, and we should proceed with the Bill. I will finish with the words of a fine Ulster poet, John Hewitt:

“Bear in mind these dead:

I can find no plainer words.”

He asked us not to differentiate between people, depending on how they died, but to offer truth and justice for all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a range of organisations, including Intertrade UK, are looking at the impact of the Windsor framework. We have recently had Lord Murphy’s report, for example, which the Government are committed to publishing. The House of Lords Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report on the same subject only this morning.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major deterrents to investment and growth in Northern Ireland is the absence, 20 months after the restoration of Stormont, of a published investment strategy from the Executive with any sort of a road map for investors or businesses on the infrastructure, roads and housing developments that the Executive will invest in? Does he agree that, in the absence of that strategy, we are flying blind in investment terms? Has he had any discussions with the Executive about that?

[Hilary Benn]

Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to seeing the investment strategy published. Northern Ireland has a great opportunity under the Windsor framework because of the dual market access, which no other part of the United Kingdom has. For those looking to invest to trade with both the UK and the European Union, there is no better place to come and do that but Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.

The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.

I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold.

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

I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their work on this package, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who was so well regarded by everybody who came across her in Northern Ireland. I also thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin for their work, because that partnership is vital to moving forward.

The Social Democratic and Labour party acknowledges the progress in this package if it is faithfully captured in the legislation. When we push for more and better, please know that that comes from a sincere and long-held determination to get this right for families, survivors and our society as a whole. Despite some opinions to the contrary, including recently, I do not believe that most people believe that any murder in Northern Ireland was justified, inevitable, useful or worthy of cover-up, and perpetuating those narratives is an enormous challenge for the present and the future, too.

Does the Secretary of State agree that all the work invested by families, campaigners and his officials will be worth nothing if those who created victims—whether republican or loyalist paramilitaries or the state forces who assisted them—do not approach this with full transparency and disclosure and put honesty and the needs of victims over the needs of their own narratives?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my extraordinary officials, some of whom are present today. It has been the privilege of my life to work with them on this. I know that my hon. Friend will hold us to the highest standards, and I accept what she says in the spirit in which it is offered. As I indicated to the House earlier, I want there to be maximum provision of information to families, but we must also acknowledge that any and all Governments have responsibilities for the security of the state and to protect life, and this Government will uphold both.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. At some point, he has to acknowledge that following our departure from the European Union—this was the issue that the previous Government had to address—the United Kingdom has one set of rules, the EU has another and there is an open border. How do we deal with that? I am afraid that on mutual enforcement, the only idea I have ever heard him put forward is not a practical proposition. He needs to take some responsibility for the consequence of his own arguments.

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

The EU-UK deal was warmly and broadly welcomed across Northern Ireland to begin to unpick and undo some of the damage and friction created by Brexit, which was championed by some of those on the Opposition Benches. However, an FSB report out this week highlighted continuing problems, particularly for small businesses. Will the Secretary of State reassure businesses that there will be co-design and full consultation as the text and the outworkings of that very positive deal are brought through?

[Hilary Benn]

We will continue to consult as widely as possible in taking forward the agreement that has been reached and outlined with the European Union. There is help available for small businesses. It is important that it is as effective and easy to understand for those who seek to trade. I will look carefully at the report that the FSB has produced.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The new Grand Central station is a magnificent piece of infrastructure, and I recommend any Members who have not yet had a chance to visit it to do so. I am not contemplating for one second that there will not be an Executive in place. Perhaps the single most important contribution that the Executive can make to continued economic growth in Northern Ireland is to stay in place and give confidence to those whom we are all working hard to encourage to come and invest in Northern Ireland’s economic future.

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

I regularly receive representations from businesses, some of our biggest employers, who are frustrated by the apprenticeship levy. They pay in like businesses in Britain, but cannot access the fund to reinvest in skills and fix our broken skills pipeline. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is merit in devolving this to the Assembly as part of a package of measures to encourage the Executive to take responsibility and control, to be ambitious for the local economy, and to drive growth?

[Hilary Benn]

There is a great deal that the Executive can do to help promote economic growth. I have just given one example, and investing in and supporting the development of skills is another. Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, but it also has a higher rate of worklessness, and getting more people back into work and giving them the skills that will enable them to take part in the economy will help to boost growth.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I appreciate the intervention because there is a task on the part of the Government, with the legislation they are considering at the moment, on storytelling, reconciliation and the narrative that people wish to share. Their truth must be told and their truth known.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; I know his time is precious. I want to associate myself with the remarks he made about Members of this House who were lost and about the moving visit we had last week with victims in Belfast and Fermanagh in relation to people who were murdered by perpetrators from various sides of the conflict. It showed their continuing pain and their fortitude, as the opening weeks of the Omagh inquiry have done. The SDLP supports a parallel Dublin inquiry on that. Does the right hon. Member agree with me that, in the current legacy discussion, a moment—an opportunity—is coming when we can assert that the needs of victims, not those of perpetrators, have primacy, and that we cannot afford to squander that opportunity?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Lady. I think she is right that we cannot squander the opportunity, but for too long now I have heard voices within the Government say that the one thing the parties of Northern Ireland can agree on is their opposition to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, but for very different reasons. Very often, we do not get the opportunity to fully explore those very different reasons, and for our part, we will never stand in the way of justice and we will always support innocent victims.

Clonoe Inquest

Claire Hanna Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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