Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Government are absolutely committed to the European convention on human rights. I very much regret that the current Opposition have moved away from that historic support, which goes right back to Winston Churchill, as the hon. Member has set out. It is highly irresponsible to suggest picking away at one of the essential foundations of the Good Friday agreement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”?

[Hilary Benn]

The clauses that would implement the protections in relation to veterans and others are clauses 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 56, 69 and 84.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Gavin Robinson]

Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage.

To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland. If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on amendments that I have not yet seen. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I want to work in as collegiate a way as possible in trying to take the legislation through. In respect to the first part of his question, however, I would say that the only reason the protections and clauses I just read out are in the Bill is because of the Government’s determination to treat our veterans fairly.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I would make two points. First, as I have alluded to, we have drawn on the experience of Operation Kenova, in that the Bill will create a statutory victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that, in the way it goes about its work, the commission takes account of victims and survivors, and that will include a representative of those who served the state during the troubles.

On the second point, we are putting together much tougher statutory provisions in place relating to conflicts of interest. That is why there will be two directors of investigation—one will have experience of investigating cases in Northern Ireland, the other will not—which will address the concerns some families have about who will be looking into their case. We should not forget that, despite the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, which I welcome, far too many families in Northern Ireland have said that they will not be going anywhere near the commission. Part of the purpose of what we are seeking to do is to build confidence on the part of more families in Northern Ireland to go to the commission and get answers.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office.

That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not. But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission.

In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sorry to have heard what he has just said in relation to very substantial proposals contained in the framework document. I grant him that the Bill will be published shortly, and he will have a chance to read it. I have been accused of many things in my time in public life but being cynical is not one of them, so that is a first. The truth about the announcement of the framework—[Interruption.] Well, it may be the beginning of a number of such accusations, but I will leave that to others who want to take the debate in that particular direction.

The framework was announced when it was because it is a joint framework between two Governments and that means there had to be a negotiation about when it came out, but I did undertake to Mr Speaker at the time that I would come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement. I laid a written ministerial statement in the House yesterday, and I came today at the first available opportunity with Members here, bearing in mind the Whip we had yesterday, to subject what had agreed to scrutiny.

I have every confidence in the Solicitor General, and I am sure she will do an excellent job in sifting these cases against three criteria, which will be laid out in statute. The first will be about the impact that sensitive information will have on the ability of inquests to actually complete the case. The second will be speed—time waits for no one. The third will be the view of those who are involved in the cases, including families.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I give thanks to the armed forces of our country: those who came and served with us in Northern Ireland—people from Culloden coming to Coleraine, from Folkestone to Fermanagh, from Birmingham to Belfast and from London to Londonderry. They joined with us in defence of peace and in defence of the values of our nation.

A number of figures have already been shared this afternoon. Some 1,441 armed forces personnel died in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner—not 722, not 1,043, but 1,441. They did so in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, of whose members 302 were murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland. It is right, and we will hear it in this debate, that every party in Northern Ireland opposed the legacy Act, but I remind Members that they did so for incredibly different reasons. I do not share Sinn Féin’s opposition, because I do not defend the IRA; I do not defend those who decided to destroy, or attempt to destroy, our part of this United Kingdom.

My colleagues and I spend time in this House asking for our UK Government to protect those who protected us, so when I hear naive platitudes about the legacy Act simply offering an amnesty to soldiers, I have to say this: it was the Labour Government who released 435 prisoners from Maze prison following the Belfast agreement. They included Patrick Magee, who was responsible for blowing up the hotel in Brighton, killing a Member of our House, Sir Anthony Berry, and injuring Norman Tebbit and his wife. A week after Norman Tebbit’s death, can we not reflect that heinous men such as Patrick Magee should not be released from prison? There were others: Sean Kelly, an IRA bomber—a brave man who believed in republican ideals who walked into a fish and chip shop on a Saturday and blew up nine innocent people, and families, on the Shankill road—was released by the Labour Government.

After that, republicans did not stop in their pursuit. They asked the Labour Government to encourage their comrades to come home. People who had been engaged in terrorism and evaded justice for years, who hid in the Irish Republic, were not extradited, because the Irish Republic said they could not get a fair trial in this United Kingdom. Or individuals fled to the United States, like Gabriel Megahey, who was the IRA officer commanding in the United States of America during the ’80s and ’90s. He was imprisoned by the FBI for trying to purchase surface-to-air missiles to support the IRA in destroying our country. Didn’t he get a grubby deal with President Clinton, and has he not been allowed to stay in the United States, until President Trump deports him?

It was a Labour Government who introduced the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill in 2003, and who asked Parliament to agree a process to allow on-the-runs to come back to this United Kingdom to retire with dignity. Thank God they had the resolve to withdraw that pernicious piece of legislation, but what did they then do? They engaged in a process of signing on-the-runs letters. People will say that they were not an amnesty, but tell that to the families of the four members of the Household Cavalry who were murdered in the Hyde Park bomb, to the seven horses that were put down as a result of the Hyde Park bomb, or to the 50 others who were injured in the Hyde Park bomb, because when John Downey was taken to the High Court in London, he produced his letter—a secret scheme by the Labour Government to allow him to walk out of court with no justice for his victims. That is not all: 365 royal prerogatives of mercy, from both Conservative and Labour Governments, were offered in Northern Ireland to give amnesty to terrorists.

Yet, throughout all that time of prison releases, on-the-runs, the 2003 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill and royal prerogatives of mercy, how many were given to those who defended the rule of law and order? None. So let us be very clear about the danger of going down a line of allowing inquests to recommence.

The Clonoe inquest is a classic example of how a judge goes beyond the terms of his brief. An inquest is to determine who died, where they died, when they died and how they died, but not why. A coroner’s court is not there to determine whether there is criminal liability, yet that is exactly what the judge did—a judge who, in his judgment, made no reference to the context, to who was killed that day or to the terrorist campaign of the East Tyrone Brigade, which was the bloodiest of them all. Yet the very same coroner could do so when he did the Coagh inquest a number of months before.

Why do people pursue these inquests, which the Secretary of State seems keen to recommence? Because those lawyers who do wish to rewrite history in Northern Ireland are laying the foundations for prosecutions. The reason why closing down those inquests was important was that it stopped this pernicious ability to put the building blocks in place to see our veterans in court. Yet the Secretary of State met with Mairead Kelly, the sister of Patrick Kelly—the officer commanding the East Tyrone Brigade of the IRA—on 24 March this year. Darragh Mackin, a solicitor from Phoenix Law, put out a statement immediately after, salivating at having got a commitment from our Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that inquests would recommence.

Their sights are on Loughgall; their sights are on building a pernicious and never-ending pursuit against those who served in Northern Ireland. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians from across this United Kingdom, is to say, “No. We will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA’s pursuit to try and attain some level of honour towards their retirement.” They tried to destroy this country through war, and they failed. Let us not create the conditions for them to try to destroy the reputation of this country through peace.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear! [Applause.]

Privilege

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. If this place is not a champion of justice and its pursuit as a high court of Parliament, what is it?

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I have had the privilege of sharing time on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in the names of whom this motion has been laid. It is crucial that the Omagh inquiry gets the information it requires, and we have raised concerns about the Irish Government and their reluctance. It would be useful for the Privileges Committee to hear very clearly from me and, I hope, from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that it would be entirely incongruous if in an inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by this Parliament, to seek answers for the Omagh bombing families and construed in their names, information that Norman Baxter gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was available and could assist the inquiry, but was refused because of privilege. That would be an intolerable situation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that having gone through this process and agreed this motion, the information will be made available.

[Simon Hoare]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I endorse it entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and his Committee will look at the motion, if the House decides to pass it this evening, and I know he will have heard that. I echo what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has said. I hope that if the House agrees to this motion, the Privileges Committee will look favourably on the request and do so in a timely manner.

The inquiry was established in February 2024 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Its task is to investigate whether the bombing in the town of Omagh in August 1998 could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities. As part of its terms of reference, the inquiry was specifically asked to look at

“the allegation made by Norman Baxter”—

a former senior investigating officer in the investigation into the Omagh bombing—

“in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing.”

I quote that because I think it is germane to our considerations.

The inquiry has established that some of the evidence taken from Mr Baxter by the Committee has not been reported to the House, so it remains unpublished and inaccessible. That is effectively the kernel of this motion. The petition asks for access to that evidence. We find ourselves in the strange position whereby in setting up the inquiry, specific reference is made to that piece of evidence submitted, but because of a procedural problem here it was not published and is therefore not on the public record. That is why the inquiry has asked for the evidence.

At this stage, I express my gratitude to both Mr Baxter and the inquiry team. They immediately realised that if the evidence had not been published, it belonged to this House. They sought advice from the House authorities and received it. They have been careful to ensure that they have acted properly throughout.

There are two issues here. The first issue is that if a Committee wants to publish evidence, it must report it to the House and obtain an order to publish that evidence. If it wants material to be available to Members but no one else, it can simply report the evidence to the House. Evidence that is reported but not published is available to Members in subsequent Parliaments, but unreported evidence is accessible only to the Committee to which it belongs and in the Parliament in which it was taken. Once that Parliament is over—which, clearly, it is—no one has access to unreported evidence until the archives are open. There is no wriggle room here, hence the reason for this motion and the detailed explanation—I am sorry to detain the House.

If a Committee wishes to see unreported evidence from its counterpart in the previous Parliament, the House must refer it to that Committee. If anyone outside the House wants that evidence, they must petition for it, as the secretary to the inquiry has done. That is what this motion seeks to advance. It is very hard for the House to decide whether to release evidence that it has not seen and cannot see before the decision is made. It is particularly difficult in this case, as that evidence may contain sensitive information.

Accordingly, the motion invites the House to refer the evidence to the Committee of Privileges. That Committee can undoubtedly consider the matter and probably take advice. If it is advised that there is no reason not to publish the evidence, which was taken more than 15 years ago, it might simply decide to publish it—I hope that it can and does. Otherwise, it can consider the matter and report to the House with a recommendation on what would be appropriate. The House can then make an informed decision subsequent to the work of the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.

The second issue is that article 9 of the Bill of Rights says:

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

That means that courts should not evaluate what is said in this place. That is not simply a matter of us being free to speak freely in Parliament; it extends to all those who participate in our proceedings, including our witnesses. It is clearly important that people should be free to give evidence to the House and its Committees without fear of legal consequences.

This is also a matter of the constitutional separation of powers between Parliament and the courts. A “Place out of Parlyament” does not mean anywhere outside Parliament: it has been taken to mean something with powers like those of a court. The ban on impeaching and questioning means not that no use can be made of parliamentary material, but that the use must be careful. The Omagh statutory inquiry is like a court: it has power to take evidence on oath, and its Chair may direct people to attend as witnesses and/or to produce documents if requested to do so. The House authorities consider it a “Place out of Parlyament”. For that reason, the House authorities regularly contact statutory inquiries to draw their attention to the important provisions of article 9.

I am delighted to note that the petition is clear that

“the Inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House.”

I am confident that Lord Turnbull, who has the onerous task of chairing the inquiry, and his team recognise the issues; their behaviour demonstrates that. I expect that if the Privileges Committee considers the petition should be granted, the key issues that the inquiry is invited to consider will be informed by the evidence without impeaching and questioning. I trust it will be possible for us to assist the inquiry in its work.

I hope that I have made as clear as I possibly can the genesis and importance of this motion, the lacuna that it seeks to fill and the requirements that this House has quite rightly guarded jealously for a long, long time on how evidence submitted to it is treated. I hope I have made clear and impressed on the House the importance of its passing this motion, and I urge it to do so. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, we set a timeline in the motion to the Privileges Committee, but I know that it will tend to it with expedition.

I hope colleagues will agree to this motion, which will allow informed consideration of all the issues. It will hopefully bring justice or clarity to justice, as we have discussed with regard to the inquiry, which is looking into that terrible crime that blighted the lives of so many and ended the lives of so many prematurely, including two unborn children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. I answered a parliamentary question yesterday in which I made it clear that we will deal with this issue, which arises because of the application of the Carltona principle in the Supreme Court judgment of 2020, which the last Government could not sort out in two and a half years. We will deal with it in our forthcoming legislation, and I will keep the House updated.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I commend the Secretary of State for at least answering a question yesterday. Despite it being a day when the Labour Government were prepared to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable, they at least had the courage to stand forward and say that Gerry Adams would get none, so I thank the Secretary of State for that. I also advise him not to ignore the warnings of the Federation of Small Businesses, which in its report was explicit that the Windsor framework is fracturing the United Kingdom’s internal market. That is a cause for concern. When we were talking of the spending review two weeks ago, he was asked whether the financial transactions capital being made available to Casement Park was additional; he knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years, so what is the answer?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is additional.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years. Talking of economic growth, let me say he also knows that there is a commitment to an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland. When does he believe the businesses of Northern Ireland will benefit from that?

[Hilary Benn]

If the right hon. Gentleman just bears with us, I hope we can see progress on that in the not-too-distant future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the DUP.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that, as part of a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry, we have been engaging with victims across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to assist them in their quest for some personal closure, truth and justice on legacy. Veterans, like many other victims, have indicated to us that while they are listened to, they have not been heard. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to announce his proposals on legacy in parallel with the Irish Government before the summer recess?

[Hilary Benn]

I will inform the House of proposals in due course. I am in discussions with the Irish Government, and that is well known publicly. The reason the legacy Act resulted in so much trouble and difficulty, and produced so much incompatibility with our international obligations, is that the last Government, having negotiated the Stormont House agreement with the parties and the Irish Government, decided to perform a 180° turn and put in legislation that did not command support in Northern Ireland. I want to make progress on this as quickly as possible, and I am continuing to talk to all the parties about doing so.

[Gavin Robinson]

I caution the Secretary of State that he should be adhering to the three-stranded approach, and where it is appropriate to talk to the Irish Government, it should be within that context. He should not be subjugating our responsibilities on legacy, but he should not be letting the Irish Government get away with their obfuscation on this issue either.

One of the most startling things the Committee experienced last week was a victim who asked us collectively whether we were aware of Government plans to secure a ceasefire from dissident republicans that, in return, would lead to the release of dissident republican prisoners. Can I ask the Secretary of State, in all good conscience, to recognise that dissident republicans are a cancer in Northern Ireland, and more of them should be in jail? Will he rule out the suggestion that was brought to us as a Committee?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The most important thing that we are doing is increasing defence expenditure, which will provide the opportunities to which I referred a moment ago. I also very much welcome the Ministry of Defence’s announcement of a new hub for small and medium-sized enterprises to allow them better access to the defence supply chain. The MOD has also committed to setting a target by July this year for spending on SMEs.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State might recall that two years ago I launched a report that highlighted that Northern Ireland receives one fifth of the UK average spend on defence. That incorporates the commitment for Harland and Wolff, which I worked on and greatly welcome. I also welcome the announcement of a £1.6 billion contract for Thales. However, does he accept that the previous Government committed to a thorough and thoughtful publication of how they would support continued growth in Northern Ireland’s defence sector? Will he similarly commit to doing so?

[Hilary Benn]

The Ministry of Defence has agreed to deliver precisely that “Safeguarding the Union” commitment through its defence industrial strategy, which will look at how the UK’s defence, technological and industrial base can contribute to the Government’s growth mission, including in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

The House of Commons will this afternoon recognise 125 years of the Irish Guards as a British regiment. When we consider the capacity to arm those who defend us, should we not also continue in our resolve to defend those who stand up for the values of this nation? In terms of legacy, will the Secretary of State commit to defending those who defended us?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly will. Those who served in Operation Banner were protecting the people of Northern Ireland and standing up for the values of our country. We have discussed that a great deal recently, and since I last had the opportunity to address the House, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the decision the Ministry of Defence has taken to judicially review the Clonoe inquest verdict—a decision that I support.

Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I recognise that it is frustrating that, this long after Brexit, we are still trying to work this out but it is the reality of the situation. I am glad that the hon. Member secured this debate because it adds to the urgency that is clearly needed by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I want to see a solution agreed. The horticulture working group and businesses need to look at ways to work this out. Business-to-business is enabled, but business-to-consumer is hard. That is where the solution is needed.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for responding to this important and timely debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The Minister knows that we are working through the consequences of a wholly disproportionate approach, in which the EU tries to control what we do within our own internal market. She has two significant opportunities coming up: Lord Murphy’s review and the negotiations between the Paymaster General and the European Union on SPS, and all the rest. Will she take the contents of this debate, and her experience of the frustrations of Northern Irish businesses and ensure that they form part of those processes?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising the SPS veterinary agreement; it is an important part of the picture. Many issues need to be resolved soon, both through the processes that the right hon. Member mentioned and by resetting our relationship with the EU. I met deputy heads of missions from the EU last week to talk about the opportunities in Northern Ireland, the importance of a faithful working through of the Windsor framework, and resolving these issues. Work is absolutely being done to resolve all those issues, and it will be important to reach an SPS veterinary agreement. That will not just support the Government’s mission for economic growth, which is a priority for this Government, but further protect the UK’s internal market. Achieving those goals will not only support the Union but benefit consumers. I acknowledge the strength with which the hon. Member for East Londonderry supports both those aims and common-sense solutions to working through these issues for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I reassure him, and the House, that I share his support for and commitment to those aims, and to working this through.

Question put and agreed to.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this Adjournment debate?

Today is 11 March, and on every 11 March since the dreadful bombings in Madrid in 2004, it has been the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. This occasion gives us the opportunity to reflect on terror and the innocent victims of terror. It gives the House the opportunity to reflect on the impact that acts of terror have had on the institution of the House of Commons.

When I was elected in 2015, I entered Parliament alongside Jo Cox, who is memorialised behind me. She was cut down by a far-right extremist. I served for many a year with David Amess and had a great relationship with him, and he was struck down by an Islamic terrorist. When you look to either side of the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will note that under the door there are three heraldic plaques: one to Rev. Robert Bradford, one to Ian Gow and one to Airey Neave, all of whom were serving parliamentarians when they were cut down by Irish republican terrorists. It is little known that behind your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two further plaques: one to Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in the Brighton bomb by Irish republican terrorists, and one to Sir Henry Wilson, a first world war hero and latterly an Irish Unionist Member of Parliament, who was cut down by Irish republican terrorists.

Occasions like this give us the opportunity to reflect, but it is important for us as parliamentarians to consider what we can do in the best interests of those we represent, and the legacy in Northern Ireland continues to be a sore that has not healed. The scars remain among communities of whatever constitutional aspiration, who have been affected by the onslaught of terror that we faced.

I am privileged to sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but I was even more privileged last week, alongside colleagues who are present in the Chamber today, to meet a number of organisations that represent the interests of innocent victims. We met the 174 Trust, and we met victims at the WAVE Trauma Centre. We met victims represented by the South East Fermanagh Foundation—SEFF—which is an organisation that works on behalf of Fermanagh and Enniskillen victims. The most profound thing that they said to us was that, within their county of Fermanagh, 42 people were killed—40 of them by republican terrorists, and none by loyalists.

The people of Fermanagh did not turn to taking the law into their own hands; they put their trust and faith in law and order, and in the parts of our state that are there to protect us. That is most profound, because there is no other county in Northern Ireland where that can be said. There was one recurring theme throughout the engagement that we had during the course of those two days: victims wanted truth and justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this issue. His passion for victims is long-standing and admirable. Does he agree that we need to set in stone the truth about victims in Northern Ireland? For all the attention that is given to 10% of victims, the families of the 90% suffer in silence. Will this day ensure that true victims’ stories are told and remembered without any whitewashing whatsoever?

[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.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate on such a moving subject. I, too, was very honoured to go with him and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to visit SEFF in Fermanagh last week, and it was profoundly moving. Does he agree with me that, as part of dealing with this legacy, truth, justice and reconciliation must be intentional parts of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery going forward?

[Gavin Robinson]

It was interesting to hear the reflections of some who said, “Why do I need to reconcile? I’ve been blown up. I’ve been shot. I’ve lost my father, my mother, my sister, my brother. Why is the onus on me to reconcile? I should be honoured for the sacrifice that I’ve made or been forced to go through, but where is somebody coming along to say, ‘I’m sorry. You did not deserve what occurred to you or your family member, you didn’t need to live through the pain and you don’t deserve the scars that you bear.’?” So I agree with the hon. Member entirely that much more focus is required on reconciliation.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As someone who had the honour of hosting an event on this day for all the years I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I commend the right hon. Member for securing this debate. However, does he agree with me that one of the most abiding and insidious hurts to victims of terrorism is the constant glorification of those who made them victims, particularly when it comes to those who sit in Government in Northern Ireland, by their attendance at events commemorating those who were the men of blood and who delivered death and destruction on our streets? Is that not one of the most hateful and insidious things that can be done to a victim, with the re-traumatisation that it brings?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I have two things to say to him on that. First, I am glad he organised—for 13 years, I think—an event at Stormont to mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Such an event also occurred yesterday, so his legacy lives on, and I was pleased to attend it, as I have on many occasions in the past.

Secondly, the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet again—we met last week, but I met again yesterday—Margaret Veitch and Ruth Blair, who lost loved ones in the Enniskillen bomb. I reflected with them, and it resonates so much with this point, on the glorification of terror, particularly from those who have a responsibility to live by the Nolan principles and to fulfil the political offices they hold, yet who attend commemorations and glorify those who revelled in terror. The excuse they always use is, “We have a right to remember our dead.” That is what they say: they have a right to remember their dead. Margaret and Ruth lost family members by simply turning up to remember their war dead on Remembrance Sunday in Enniskillen, yet they hear their political leaders say, “We do this because we have an entitlement to remember our war dead.” Margaret and Ruth and their parents were offered no opportunity to remember, rightfully, those who made the sacrifice for freedom in our country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of truth and justice. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. If prosecutions carry on, people will do everything they can to cover up the truth in defending themselves. When people criticise the legacy Act, which did propose a truth and reconciliation commission, are they not really criticising a measure that would have given them a much better opportunity for the truth to come out, once the threat of prosecutions was removed, given that the punishment would not fit the crime even if someone was found guilty?

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.

I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.

I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.

Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.

The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.

What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.

That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past.

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

What concerns many people in Northern Ireland is that often, when things happen in Northern Ireland that are of a particular disposition, the Republic of Ireland’s Government will weigh in heavily to press our Government to do certain things. However, it seems that on many occasions when things happen on which our Government should make representations to the Republic’s Government, they fail adequately to do so.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.

Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took that intervention because it was a powerful point, and I am grateful for your latitude.

I am delighted that the Minister is here this evening. I hope that she responds positively. I hope that she recognises the pain and the anguish, as she herself has met individuals in Northern Ireland. There is a long way to go on providing the answers, the truth and the justice. We will not be found wanting, and I hope the Labour Government will not either.

Clonoe Inquest

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.

Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,

“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]

I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.

[Gavin Robinson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Secretary of State wish to reply to that?