Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

That is very kind of you, Sir. Roger. I had not planned on such a courtesy being extended. I place on record my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. Important debate though it is, it would have had much more importance had the Boundary Commission not taken Garnerville out of my constituency and placed it in his. Indeed, had Garnerville remained in Belfast East, I would have been championing its restoration and renewal rather than the creation of PSNI Redburn in Kinnegar.

As Northern Ireland parliamentarians and Members of this Parliament, this is an important opportunity for us to consider the right way we should invest in policing. Hon. colleagues have mentioned the recent programme “Peelers” as a visual demonstration of the pressure that our police service is under and the frailty of the funding model that they face. Devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland is not the primary concern. The primary concern is a police service that the Minister of Justice, although accountable for it, strips of resource. She then puts that resource into those direct parts of her Department, including the prison service, legal aid, court service and the Northern Ireland judiciary.

No other part of our criminal justice system has faced the same cuts that the PSNI has. Why? Because the PSNI, rightly and politically, is non-departmental. It does not have the same accounting mechanism, and the Minister of Justice does not have the same responsibility for it. In fact, the PSNI is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and not the Minister of Justice. The PSNI has been failed. It has been failed by a Minister who has been ill-prepared to prioritise policing and has prioritised those aspects of her Department for which she is wholly accountable. That is wrong. That has been an injustice and a disservice to the brave members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

On Sunday, I gathered with hundreds of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation at their 24th anniversary service in Armagh. They are proud, determined people—people who sacrifice. Widows were present, as were others who have sacrificed so much of their own lives to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As they kept the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary going on Sunday in Armagh, and do so every day of the week, it is incumbent on us, if we are interested in securing a legacy, to ensure the future of the police service in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me the opportunity to make that short contribution. I am full of acknowledgment and praise for the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the deeply troubling incident in north Belfast last night, in which a man was seriously injured in a knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue. My thoughts are with the victim and his family, the members of the public who attempted to stop the attack and the PSNI officers who responded. Those officers are precisely who this debate is about, and we should all be asking whether they have the support, resources and facilities that they deserve.

As we have heard, 25 years ago the Belfast agreement promised a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Out of that promise came the Patten commission, which led to the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as many Members have, that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, with day-to-day funding allocated by Stormont’s Department of Justice. This Parliament does not set the PSNI’s budget, but the UK Government are not disinterested observers. Responsibility for national security rests with Westminster: additional security funding and paramilitary crime taskforce funding are channelled from here, and Treasury decisions—including the refusal to meet Stormont’s reserve claim for the £119 million cost of the 2023 data breach—carry direct consequences.

The police college at Garnerville sits at the centre of all this, training every officer who joins the PSNI, and it exports that expertise to forces in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as well as internationally. Every PSNI officer carries a personal protection firearm, including when they are off-duty—something that applies nowhere else in UK policing, fortunately. The standing authority under Patten recommendation 65 has not been withdrawn because the threat has not gone away. The terrorism threat level was reduced from severe to substantial in March 2024, having been raised to severe following the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh in February 2023. The PSNI recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that there is no operational difference between the two threat levels: the posture, vigilance and resource commitment remain the same. No other policing workforce in the United Kingdom has to weigh the personal security implications for them and their families when simply deciding whether to join the police force.

The latest student officer recruitment figures, released in February this year, underline the scale of the challenge. The 2026 recruitment campaign received more than 4,100 applications, but that was down from more than 4,800 last year. Of those, nearly 27% identified as Catholic, against almost 29% the year before. The current intake runs at 51 student officers per month through Garnerville, barely keeping pace with the number of police leaving at the other end. Each of those officers completes the 22-week programme at a site that Patten identified as inadequate back in 1999. The PSNI told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the continuing terrorist threat, legacy perceptions and resource pressures are active barriers to recruitment from all communities. No training college can resolve those barriers alone, but a modern, accessible facility would at least stop them compounding.

It matters that Patten recommendation 131 remains undelivered. The Desertcreat project—a proposed shared police, fire and prison training facility in County Tyrone—was abandoned after costing more than £12 million without a building completed. As we have heard, the PSNI has since purchased the Kinnegar army base in Holywood, which it acquired from the Ministry of Defence for £4.9 million.

[Gavin Robinson]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, because she is making a good speech with important information. She mentioned Patten recommendation 131 not being prioritised. People sometimes forget, but we should praise the fact that 1,000 members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wished to apply for 400 vacancies—that is a good and positive thing. However, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Patten report, which call on political leaders, community leaders, priests, Ministers and all with positions of influence to encourage engagement with, support for and recruitment to the PSNI, have not been honoured. Does she acknowledge that, sadly, far too many people today, particularly in senior positions of public leadership, will not engage with the police, encourage their community to participate with the police, or see policing as the great career of public service that it truly is?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that it is vital that everyone supports the PSNI and encourages people from across Northern Ireland to engage with it positively. One would hope that a good, modern training centre would help to present it as a good organisation to join.

To develop the site at Kinnegar, investment is needed. Patten recommended a new college 26 years ago, and although the Government accepted that recommendation, the PSNI is still waiting for one. Behind the college’s infrastructure problems sits a deeper funding failure: in real terms, the PSNI has 40% fewer resources than at devolution in 2010. Officer numbers stand at approximately 6,250—the lowest since the service was established—against the Patten recommendation of 7,500, as we have heard. Since 2014, the PSNI has incurred £167 million in legacy costs, with a further £24 million anticipated this year, drawn from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has recommended a dedicated, ringfenced funding stream for legacy obligations, separate from the operational policing budget that the Chief Constable has been asking for.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on counter-terrorism funding. ASF has been broadened to cover the same threat categories as the Home Office counter-terrorism grant, yet that grant reaches £1.2 billion in 2026-27 while ASF stands at £37.8 million. The Government may point to the Barnett formula, but Barnett allocates on population, not on threat. Even combined, Barnett and ASF do not account for a force in which every officer carries a firearm and 3,200 specialist security deployments took place in a single year. Will the Minister confirm whether ASF is allocated based on need or on population share? If it is the latter, do the Government accept that, even combined, Barnett and ASF fall short for a force with no equivalent anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Secondly, on legacy, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will drive legacy costs higher still, and those costs continue to be met from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. Do the Government accept the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s recommendation for a dedicated, ringfenced funding system to meet those costs separately?

Thirdly, on the college itself, Kinnegar has been purchased, but its development depends on investment funding that has not yet been committed. Will the Government make a specific capital commitment to deliver a new police college for a service with training requirements that have no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.

On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.

I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.

I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.

A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.

I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.

As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say. The NIO rarely ever exercises its powers when it comes to the Parades Commission—it can intervene, but it refuses to do so. The fundamental problem that arose on the weekend was that protesters could not adhere to the Parades Commission’s determination because somebody within the police decided, in their policing plan, to ensure that they blocked the very place where the commission said the protest should occur. That is the fundamental problem. If the Minister is to address this issue, as he is doing, he must give some consideration to the inability of lawful protesters to adhere to a lawful determination because of the actions of the PSNI.

[Matthew Patrick]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Securing locally agreed arrangements for managing parades in Northern Ireland is the best option for sustainable, long-term reform. The UK Government are committed to continuing to work with local parties and others to secure the restoration of those institutions. Until such time as alternative, locally agreed arrangements are forthcoming, the Parades Commission remains the only legally constituted body that can adjudicate contentious parades in Northern Ireland. Ensuring that communities in Northern Ireland can peacefully celebrate and demonstrate their culture in an environment of respect and tolerance is of the utmost importance.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on reports of a serious violent attack in north Belfast involving a foreign national, and the implications for public safety, immigration enforcement and community cohesion.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Shortly after 10.30 pm last night, a man in his 40s was subjected to a horrific, sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast. He is in hospital in a serious condition, having suffered very severe injuries. I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his loved ones at what must be a time of unimaginable distress. The response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland was immediate. A man in his 30s was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. He remains in police custody, and the PSNI is continuing to investigate. It has declared this a critical incident.

Amid the horror of what happened, we also saw something extraordinary. When confronted with scenes of terrifying violence, members of the public did not walk on by. Instead, a number of them stepped forward and, at immense risk to their own safety, intervened to pull the assailant away and protect the victim until the police arrived. To those individuals, I would like to say this: you showed the very best of humanity, and you have the profound gratitude of this entire House.

This was a horrific and brutal attack, and the PSNI is seeking to provide support and reassurance to the local community. The Chief Constable, to whom I have spoken twice this morning, and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their inquiries. I would also like to repeat their appeal not to share or repost footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family.

I echo the words of the Prime Minister this morning that there is no place for such violence on our streets. All of us have a responsibility now to urge calm and let the police do their job.

[Gavin Robinson]

Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this urgent question? The attempted murder in Belfast last night was chilling. What has been seen by thousands already across the country cannot be unseen. It was medieval—the systematic mutilation and attempted slaughter of a citizen of Belfast on our streets. My prayers are with the victim. I praise the brave man who, with a hurl in his hand, intervened to save his neighbour’s life, and this House should praise him too.

What occurred last night will have profound implications for community cohesion in this country. This needs to be a time for honesty, openness and truth. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his Government recognise that uncontrolled immigration needs to end? Will he confirm that the Government need to reassure and protect our population, who for too long have had their concerns ignored?

Knowing that the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and I share a concern that there could be violence, I express my wish and our collective desire for calm, but community cohesion lies on the precipice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the actions last night in no way reflect or represent the values of our nation, and that the victim belongs in Belfast but the attacker does not? Having abused the privilege of our nation, the perpetrator—living in the UK under a five-year visa—needs to be convicted and deported on the first flight out with a one-way ticket.

[Hilary Benn]

First, the footage that many people have seen is, indeed, truly horrifying. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as he will be well aware, any foreign national who abuses the hospitality of this country to commit crimes should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We need to allow the criminal justice process to take place. On his question about net migration, as he will know, it is now down 82% from the peak reached under the previous Government.

I would most particularly echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in appealing for calm, because we have seen previously in Belfast in August 2024 and in Ballymena in 2025 what happens after horrific incidents. When there is disorder on the streets, it is the communities that suffer; it is innocent people who suffer and whose lives can be put at risk. That is why all political leaders—all—have such a solemn responsibility to urge the calm that I have called for in my response to his question today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As I have said from the Dispatch Box many times before, the courts had previously found that the ICRIR was independent. The Supreme Court has dealt with the two particular issues identified by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I have already indicated to the House that the Government propose to make amendments to the disclosure provisions, which I think are right and proper compared with those that were contained in the legacy Act. It remains the case that the last legacy Act did not command confidence on the part of all—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench shaking their heads; it did not command confidence on the part of all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is why the changes are necessary.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that the howls of outrage from the article 2 expansionists have been proven to be wrong, yet those same howls of outrage have been repeated ad nauseum by the Irish Government. They continue with their state case against this country and they continue to assert that there is an incompatibility with the ICRIR. In doing so, they refuse to respond to the requests of victims; they have not responded once to the ICRIR’s requests for information from the Guards; and, as the Secretary of State heard with the victim in our presence just last week, the much-fêted Garda unit does not even answer the phone. Will he now challenge the Irish Republican Government to withdraw their case and to recognise compatibility with article 2?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman a number of times before, the Government’s view, which is reinforced by the Dillon judgment, is that the legislation that we are bringing forward, combined with the judgment, means that there is no basis for the inter-state case; but it is a matter for the Irish Government to take a decision about what they do about that. The other argument for the legislation that we are putting forward is that it will enable precisely the co-operation that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and that will be so important to many families in Northern Ireland, including the families of service and police personnel who were killed and injured during the troubles. There may well be information that the Irish Government can now provide, and that is another strong argument for the legislation.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State must know that victims in Northern Ireland would like him to stand up for them, to challenge the excess and the eccentricities of the Republic of Ireland Government, and to ensure, when they promise that they will provide information, that they do, and that their reluctance to do so has now been proven hollow. Gender has already been mentioned and he knows that the Dillon case was silent on some of the other expansionist parts of the quest on article 2. He has indicated his support for the Supreme Court’s view, but will he ensure that he defends that view in court?

[Hilary Benn]

I reject the suggestion that in some way I am not standing up for victims, because the legislation that we have brought forward is about trying to give confidence to all victims in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was one of many critics the immunity provisions in the legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland, did not command support from any of the political parties, was wrong in principle and was never even commenced by the last Government. In relation to the Irish Government, we should judge each other by the steps that we take. Since we last had an exchange on this matter, the Irish Government have now legislated—it is just awaiting the Irish President’s signature—to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is a sign of the Irish Government’s good faith.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom.

This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans. Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims.

We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an oath of allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No. Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Despite the promised raft of amendments, this Bill does not and will never protect those who put on uniform and stood between good and evil—the bloodthirsty terrorists. When the East Tyrone killing machine of the IRA was taken out at Loughgall, it saved countless lives, and it was the same at Coagh. People have had enough of the hounding of those who served, and they have had enough of this Government bending the knee to Dublin. It is time that we stand up for our veterans, not throw them to the wolves.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words.

The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.

Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans.

I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place. She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that

“there are no such plans”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1011.]

yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not.

When we talk of amnesty, I think of Martin Quinn, the brother of Glenn Quinn, and of Mrs Quinn, his mother —an 82-year-old woman who lost her son in January 2020. He was beaten to death by a loyalist paramilitary; he was terminally ill, and he was killed in his own home. An 82-year-old mother is sitting at home today with death threats from loyalists because of Colin Simms and the murder he committed in Carrickfergus. He does not have the support of his community or his comrades. If the Secretary of State can achieve anything tonight, it should be to inform Mrs Quinn that neither Colin Simms nor anyone like him will receive any sort of immunity or early release, for the sake of justice that is yet to be delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I believe that work will be published by the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that, through that, the House will receive an update on the records.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are committed to civil service reform here. We have said that we wish to move fast and fix things. We will share our learnings with the Northern Ireland civil service. The right hon. Member also mentioned the reserve claim. He will have seen in yesterday’s supplementary estimates that £400 million has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is exceptional. It will be repayable over three years and accompanied by an open-book exercise looking at the Executive budget.

[Gavin Robinson]

One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?

[Hilary Benn]

It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.

[Gavin Robinson]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.

We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On a point of agreement and positivity, may I thank the Leader of the House and the usual channels for agreeing that this motion should have three hours of debate? Had it arrested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all, which would be shameful.

Thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of my opportunity to speak without a time limit, because I will not be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any others who wish to participate.

The Secretary of State knows my position on this matter. I believe that he is bringing in this remedial order wrongly, and he is attaching a level of undue haste to these issues. I said to him on 17 December in this Chamber that, given that he knows that issues are still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait. Although he has abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has not. This Government have tried to indicate their support for and understanding of the concerns of veterans—the previous speaker made a valiant effort—yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court, and the Government cannot wait until these issues have been determined.

I say again to the Secretary of State that remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives, yet that is exactly what I believe he is doing in this regard. If I am wrong, surely it is incumbent on him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more, yet he only added one to this remedial order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has indicated that the remedial order should be approved, but has offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of the order. But I am going to raise them.

Civil cases were mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State has not explained why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases, nor did he take the opportunity to pursue that differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought that retrospective application was wrong and yet the Court of Appeal allowed civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. When I intervened on him, he posed a question to me about the principle of bringing civil cases. I agree with that principle, but it is not uncommon for the law to understand limitations, including through our limitations legislation. We need to understand that it is part of the sovereignty of this Parliament to be able to say, “Enough is enough. Time has moved on. You have exhausted your opportunity for a claim.” We know, as do veterans, the security services and the PSNI, about the unlimited quest through legal aid and lawfare to rewrite the past—to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland and to turn that which was bad into good—and we will always speak out against that.

The Secretary of State has chosen to leave the interim custody order issue out of his remedial order and attempt to deal with that issue in the troubles Bill, but clauses 89 and 90 of that Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams. Lord Kerr’s judgment—probably his final judgment before he retired from the Supreme Court and before his sad demise—indicates that that which the Secretary of State intends to introduce through clause 89 does not stand legally. Clause 90 deals with convictions that were quashed and remain quashed, but for which there can be no compensation. It is silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to obtain compensation, not for the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under an interim custody order in the first place. The Secretary of State has been deficient in what he has provided this House with. He has not chosen to deal with the incompatibility through this remedial order, nor do I believe he has dealt with it sufficiently through the path he has taken on primary legislation.

Returning to the issue of civil cases, the Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our budget—within our means—but he is expanding the scope of legacy investigations and the legacy commission exponentially through this remedial order and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he is going to increase the budget available to the legacy commission? No. It has been given £250 million over five years. Almost £100 million has already been spent. Is he going to pick up the tab for this raft of work that is going to befall us in Northern Ireland? No.

The decisions being made in this Chamber now, and those that will be made in future regarding the troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past, yet I hear no concern for that. I see that 800-odd civil claims will now be accompanied by an additional 200 claims. Who is to pick up the bill, Secretary of State? If it is the people of Northern Ireland—the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists—and the fledgling Executive, who are struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then that is something I have a responsibility to raise, and it is something the Secretary of State needs to wrestle with and deal with.

Most fundamentally of all, it has been suggested that this process was to provide a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, yet what do we hear? We hear that this Government are locked in a logjam between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence about the substance of amendments that may or may not be tabled.

Two weeks ago, the Government were maintaining the position that the safeguards in the Bill, which they call protections, were sufficient. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that those were insufficient and that he was going to have to bring forward amendments. That was shut down by a representative of the Irish Government some two hours later, who said that the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, I say. [Interruption.] It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and the Secretary of State well knows it. We will attest, and we will see the amendments that he brings forward.

I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this remedial order. I asked the Secretary of State on 17 December to wait, as the hearings concluded in October and the Supreme Court will issue a determination. He would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues, if he at least allowed the judicial process to conclude, but he chose not to—and with that, he loses our support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way.

I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff.

But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I will not.

I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.

The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.

[Gavin Robinson]

I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?

[Hilary Benn]

We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.

--- Later in debate ---

That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.

[Gavin Robinson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks, but I place on record my appreciation for the agreement that this evening’s motion could be extended for double-time. Having praised the usual channels, the Government and Opposition Chief Whips and the Leader of the House, may I also pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for trying to ensure that everyone was accommodated. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is appreciated. As the Secretary of State knows, I do not appreciate the outcome, but I do appreciate that all Members were included.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

While that is not a point of order, it is very much appreciated and it is on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

A number of the cases are actually being taken away from the police service if the families refer those cases to the commission. As I mentioned in a previous answer, with a record settlement for Northern Ireland, it is for the Executive to determine how that money is spent, including how they are funding their police force.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that the Finance Minister yesterday, in an ill-considered way, published his budget—not an agreed budget—for consultation. The Minister will know the pressures associated with that decision and he will know the challenges that brings for politics in Northern Ireland. One thing that has been absent from the lexicon of politics in Northern Ireland over a number of years is the fiscal framework. Can he update us on where his Government are on negotiations with the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive?

[Matthew Patrick]

I am pleased that, as part of that consultation, there is a record settlement of £19.3 billion to fund those services. The negotiations that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are continuing.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister will also know of the pressures that affect our health service in Northern Ireland. Alarmingly, we understand that the European Union is going to ban the sale of antimicrobial drugs without prescription. Although that should not apply in Northern Ireland, it will. Some 60,000 products are sold over the counter. Our health service could not facilitate 60,000 additional GP appointments. This is an alarming development and I would like to hear the Minister indicate that he not only understands the severity and impact of it, but is going to take steps to address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister will be aware of the grave concerns that abound around the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, particularly among veterans and those who stand up and speak out for the interests of those who defend our nation. They have read the six protections in the Bill and they do not see them as such: they offer no protection, they are procedural, and they apply to terrorists, too. Will the Prime Minister confirm that what we have heard is true—that the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office intend to bring forward Government amendments that will specifically and particularly protect veterans, and that they will offer protection?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how deeply the right hon. Gentleman feels about these issues. As he knows, the Bill will put in place new measures designed specifically to protect veterans. Those safeguards have been developed with veterans in mind after carefully listening to their concerns. [Interruption.] The Conservatives have no respect at all for this issue, have they? We have been meeting veterans’ organisations and listening to their views, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, the House will see the result of those considerations when the Bill reaches Committee. We are determined to ensure that protections are as fair and effective as possible, recognising the role that service personnel played in keeping people across the UK safe during the troubles.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.

But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.

The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government’s response to its findings.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I inform the House that I will lay a written ministerial statement on this matter later today.

Operation Kenova has published its final report, which covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let me begin by commending the Kenova team, led by Sir Iain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for the exemplary way in which they carried out their work, built trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones.

Operation Turma, which was part of Operation Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982. Operation Kenova has set a standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.

Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife or their alleged handlers. The behaviour described of the alleged agent and their role in the Provisional IRA is deeply disturbing, and it should not have happened. In recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation. The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I told Sir Iain Livingstone in August:

“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny [NCND] policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”

The Government’s first duty is to protect national security, and identifying agents risks jeopardising that.

Today’s report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force Glenanne gang. The behaviour reported on, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, is shocking. The Government will respond to the full Denton report when it is published, bearing in mind that related legal proceedings are ongoing in this case and in the case of Stakeknife.

The Government responded to a number of the other recommendations in the interim Kenova report in August. That is available in the Library and is also addressed in the written ministerial statement.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and for being in the Chamber this afternoon to discuss Operation Kenova. I know that since he was appointed, he has spent an inordinate amount of time on legacy, and I know he is committed to the principles of not rewriting the past and of ensuring that issues can be explored to the fullest degree. He knows that in Northern Ireland, peace was only secured because of the actions of our intelligence services, our armed forces and brave members of the RUC. He knows that the IRA were brought to their knees by the activities of our intelligence services, and he also knows that the IRA were riven by agents of the state—both Denis Donaldson, director of operations for Sinn Féin, and Freddie Scappaticci, head of the internal investigations unit, also known as Stakeknife.

Does the Secretary of State welcome the finding of Operation Kenova that there was no high-level state collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the Army or the security forces? Does he recognise the important role that our intelligence services played in securing peace in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that the IRA were riven by informers? Does he realise the absurdity of maintaining the position that Operation Kenova could not name Freddie Scappaticci as Stakeknife? Does he recognise that the findings relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were that the UK state authorities had no information or intelligence that could have prevented those bombings?

Finally, in the context of the debate we are having about legacy, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is letting too many inquiries pass by without highlighting the lack of accountability of the Dublin Government— of the Republic of Ireland—for their role in supporting the IRA? We cannot wait until his legislative process concludes, or for inquiry after inquiry, for the Dublin Government to open their books, share their stories and, on the basis of truth and justice, indicate the role they played in our troubled past.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I join him in recognising the huge contribution that was made by the intelligence services, the Army, the RUC and other security forces during the troubles to try to keep people safe and defeat those who were trying to destroy society through their terrorism. We all recognise that. The responsibility for the murder of around 1,700 people, often in the most brutal circumstances—in some cases killing people, burying them, and then for a long time providing no information as to where the remains of people’s loved ones could be found—rests with the Provisional IRA. I echo the comments that were made in the interim report and the final report about what they did.

I also note what the report has to say about not finding any evidence of high-level collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the UVF in respect of the work of the Glenanne gang, as they have been called. However, I do notice what it says about individual collusion. I used the word “shocking” deliberately, because it is shocking to learn now that—as Operation Kenova reports—serving police officers and serving members of the armed forces were colluding with those who were murdering a very large number of people. Over 120 people were murdered by that gang.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point about us all wishing to learn from the past—and I think that in order to learn from the past, one has to try to tell the truth about it—I simply draw his attention to the framework agreement reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government in September. I draw his attention to the steps that have been taken by the Irish Government to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, which he and I have debated many times before, as well as the commitment that the Irish Government have given to the fullest possible co-operation with a reformed legacy commission. The Government’s troubles Bill is seeking to put that reformed commission in place, with the consent and will of the House. I hope all Members will welcome that, because the more information we can get about what happened, the more families will be able to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.

Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.

Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). We do work with each other on these issues, although we do not always agree.

It is fair to say that our history is sorrowful. It is pitiful and painful, and grounded on a corruption of justice. While we listen to the politics and the back and forth between Labour and Conservative in this Chamber, we have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice: the release of prisoners, the litany of failures, and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our communities across society in Northern Ireland. The on-the-run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort; it was a royal prerogative of mercy, and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries. Only two weeks ago, a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office met 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party, was shot in 1981 in Aughnacloy by a member of the Provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland and Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and was arrested at the count. He was convicted for 20 years for the attempted murder of one of my colleagues. That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was brought into the political process.

The innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard the Government promise to repeal and replace, yet that is not what they are seeing. They have heard a promise to protect veterans; that is a mirage. There is no specific protection for veterans in this piece of legislation—none. Last week, when the Minister for Veterans was asked on the radio four times whether she could rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum, she could not. That the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to say that he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries from that advisory board is, I think, a shame, but shame runs throughout the legacy of our past, and Governments’ approach to it.

Does the Bill work for innocent victims? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people from across this Chamber—maybe even those on these Benches—pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true that some innocent victims want truth and to know what happened, but others want justice. They have not received it.

Does the Bill contain protections for veterans? No. Does the word “veteran” feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of the gaslighting and psychological torture of having their own beliefs, understanding and memory challenged and questioned to the point that they think they have got something wrong.

What about paramilitaries? Paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through. They will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour Government.

I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again his lamentable failure to support the commissioner for investigations, solely because he has a history in the RUC. What is the answer to that? The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. Even though the High Court has attested the independence of the commissioner for investigations and the ICRIR, the Secretary of State has decided at the behest of the Irish to create an equal position, for fear of contamination. That is outrageous. It is not legally sustainable or legally required, and it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and integrity of not only that individual, but all who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 302 of whom were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

We hear about protections for veterans, but what about those who served in the PSNI, or the RUC before them? What about those who served and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces? Where is their support, Secretary of State? It is not in this legislation. Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court, who paid its bills? It did. Retired police officers had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past and asserted “collusive behaviours”—a legal phraseology that does not exist. Those retired police officers have had to defend their honour by themselves, because no Government of any hue have stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, Secretary of State, and we should defend them.

The Secretary of State has sullied himself and this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic. I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic has cautioned against amendments to the legislation. The Irish Government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to mean that they would assist only in answering the question of what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity; they will not say what they could have done, yet for decades they harboured terrorists, refused extradition and supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Has the Secretary of State put them under any pressure? No, he has not. What legal obligation is there, if the Bill passes, to see that they adhere to the European convention on human rights? None.