Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It would be remiss of me not to mention, at the start of the debate, the appalling incident that happened in north Belfast last night. I am sure that hon. Members agree that we roundly condemn that serious assault. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the individual assaulted. We hope he makes a speedy recovery and we call for calm in the protests that will occur right across Northern Ireland tonight. It is up to this Government to address the serious concerns of the public.

As the Member for North Down, I rise to speak about an issue that is at once local, regional and national: the future of police training in Northern Ireland and the urgent need for the United Kingdom Government to step up and fund a modern, single-site police college as a matter of national security. It is not a luxury project; it is a core part of the critical national infrastructure. Northern Ireland police officers past and present have stood on the frontline of threats that have not been confined to Belfast, Bangor or Newry, but have reached to the hearts of London, Birmingham and Manchester, and beyond. The skills those police officers develop, the intelligence they contribute and the partnerships they underpin with UK-wide agencies all flow from the training that they receive. If we value their contribution to the safety of every citizen in the United Kingdom, we must be honest about the state of the facilities that we expect them to train in and about the scale of the investment that realistically only the UK Government can provide.

At the heart of the proposal for a new training college is a 54.8-acre site in my constituency of North Down. It is a site of sufficient scale to bring together on one campus the full spectrum of modern policing training: recruit training, specialist firearms and public order training, cyber-crime and digital forensics training, and training in road policing and marine policing, as well as leadership development and continuous professional training. On the 54.8-acre site there is space to do that properly by designing purpose-built classrooms, scenario villages, driving tracks, ranges and simulation suites that reflect the real world environments that officers face. That is the future we could and should build, but today we do not train our officers in such a place. Instead, we rely heavily on Garnerville—an ageing and constrained estate—and on a patchwork of split-site arrangements across Northern Ireland.

It is time that we were candid about what that actually means. Garnerville has served with distinction for decades. Many of our finest officers have passed through those gates, but sentiment does not mend roofs, rebuild tired accommodation blocks or magically transform 20th-century buildings into 21st-century digital training hubs. The maintenance realities at Garnerville are stark. Every year more and more of the already stretched budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is poured into simply keeping the lights on and the structures safe by patching up old wiring and maintaining leaky roofs, into trying to retrofit modern information and communications technology into buildings never designed for it, and into constantly working around the constraints of a campus that has quite simply reached the end of its usefulness and economic life. Engineers have been clear at best: with ongoing remedial work and ever-greater maintenance bills, the existing core facilities have perhaps 10 years of realistic lifespan left—10 years at most. That is to keep an outdated model limping on, not to deliver the standard of training that a modern UK police service facing complex, fast-moving threats truly requires.

We face a choice. Do we continue to sink millions of pounds into life-extending repairs on a site that cannot by its very nature deliver what is needed, or do we invest once in a modern, consolidated college on a 54.8-acre site that is available, appropriate and future-proofed? The truth is that the current split-level model is no longer financially or operationally defensible. Training being scattered across multiple locations leads to the duplication of facilities and staff, increased travel time and transport costs, ineffective scheduling, wasted officer hours, a fragmented culture, inconsistent training experiences and logistical complexities that pull focus away from core training qualities.

In an area in which we ask our officers to handle everything from neighbourhood disputes to international organised crime, we should not be asking them to shuttle between sites because one campus cannot meet their needs, nor should we accept a model where some specialist training must be compromised or curtailed because the facilities are not available in the right place at the right time.

A single, purpose-built college on the site in North Down would end the split-site inefficiency and bring recruits, specialists and leaders together. It would allow shared use of high-quality simulation environments—digital labs, scenario streets and lecture theatres. It would foster a genuine shared professional culture across ranks and disciplines, and crucially it would do so on a site that is large and flexible enough to evolve with the threats we know are coming over the next 30 to 40 years, and not just the next five years.

Some might say, “This is a devolved matter—let Stormont pay.” That argument simply does not stand up when we consider the nature of the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland does and the national security dimension, which in Northern Ireland is inseparable from policing. Let us be clear: the PSNI works hand in glove with the security services, the National Crime Agency and police forces across Great Britain on counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, cyber-threats and the protection of critical national infrastructure. Threats that are planned or incubated in Northern Ireland may be executed across other areas of the United Kingdom. Intelligence gathered on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry can keep people safe in London or Glasgow.

Northern Ireland is not a distinct, separate theatre of operations; it is an integral front in the security of the whole United Kingdom. The officers we train in Garnerville or Antrim are not just local officers; they are part of a UK-wide network of professionals protecting all of us from terrorism, paramilitary criminality, people smuggling, drug trafficking, cyber-attacks and hostile state activities exploiting our unique geographic and political context.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that in addition to having a state-of-the-art training facility—and I agree with him on that—we need to have more police officers on the street. The police in Northern Ireland are understaffed, and we need to see more politicians, some of whom are absent today, standing with and recruiting people from all communities, so that they can be trained and serve people in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Easton]

I agree with everything the hon. Member says. We are 1,000 police officers down from what we need to deal with crime in Northern Ireland. That is a failing of Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, who has failed to find the funding to recruit those extra officers, but even if we got those extra officers, we do not have the facilities to train them properly. It is a vicious circle. That is why we need to step up and do something about this.

Investing in a modern, secure and fully equipped police college is not a regional spending decision, but a UK national security decision. When we fund new facilities for the Metropolitan police to train their counter-terrorism officers, nobody pretends that it is merely a London issue. When we invest in specialist training centres in England, Scotland or Wales, we recognise that the benefits radiate across the borders. The same logic applies in Northern Ireland. If a police training facility serving the frontline of UK counter-terrorism and serious crime in any other part of our country had only 10 years of realistic life left and operated across a fragmented, split-site model, this House would rightly expect the UK Government to act. We would not expect a single devolved budget, already under pressure from health, education and infrastructure, to shoulder that burden alone.

Moreover, the risks of inaction are not theoretical. Allow me to spell them out. First, a failure to invest over the next decade will steadily degrade training quality. As the buildings become harder and more expensive to maintain and as technological advances become more and more out of step with operational reality, the temptation grows to do just enough training rather than the best training, and our police service in Northern Ireland deserves the very best. Secondly, split-site inefficiencies will continue to erode value for money. Every pound spent duplicating facilities or transporting officers between ageing sites is a pound not spent on actually improving our protectivity and capabilities.

Thirdly, there is a risk to morale and recruitment. We ask bright, committed young men and women to join an exceptionally demanding police service in a uniquely challenging environment. Showing them that we are prepared to invest in a world-class training facility is part of respecting that ask. Leaving them in crumbling buildings, patched-up classrooms and outdated accommodation sends the opposite message. Finally, there is a strategic risk that the UK as a whole allows one of its key security partners, the PSNI, to fall behind in capacity and capability because we are unwilling to grasp the nettle of capital funding at the right time.

This is precisely the kind of investment that the UK Government should recognise and support as part of our national security framework. It is a single-focus project that has clear outcomes: ending an inefficient split-site model, replacing facilities with at best 10 years left of life, creating a modern 54-acre campus site capable of delivering cutting-edge training for decades, and strengthening co-operation with UK-wide security partners. The people of North Down and Northern Ireland understand the local and national significance of the project. Locally, it would bring skilled employment and investment and would send a clear signal that our area is a hub of professional excellence. Nationally, it would send a signal across the United Kingdom that we are serious, not just in words but in hard infrastructure, about maintaining the safety and security of every region of our country.

My appeal to the Minister today is simply to look beyond the narrow lines of departmental spreadsheets and see this for what it is: a critical national security investment in one of the most tested, professional police services in the United Kingdom. If we can find the resources for the site in North Down, we will build not simply some new classrooms and a few training tracks; we will build confidence among officers that we are behind them and confidence among the public across all four nations of the United Kingdom that we are serious about their safety. The alternative is to limp on at Garnerville, pouring good money after bad into a site with a maximum of 10 years left and locking into an inefficient split-site model. It is just not prudent. It is a false economy and a risk to the security of all.

The choice is clear. I urge the Government to choose the future, to commit to the necessary UK funding to deliver a modern single-site police college on the North Down campus, and to do so openly in an investment in the national security of our entire United Kingdom.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was an act of pure evil. I am surprised he suggests that there is any possibility that those who came to the aid of the victim should be at risk of prosecution, because they were trying—[Interruption.] Judging by the footage, they were trying to save the victim when the attacker was trying to inflict great harm upon him. My judgment, having looked at that, is that what they did was proportionate and fair, but that is for others to judge. It is important that they are recognised. I have already indicated to the House that as soon as I have information that is confirmed and that I can be sure of, I will inform the House.

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

Tens of thousands of people are horrified at the circulation online of the video that the Secretary of State has alluded to. He quite rightly congratulates the members of the public who intervened—whether it was a hurl bat or a cricketing bat, they took action—but as tension rises, we now need to see Government action to restrict and inhibit people arriving in this country illegally, some of whom carry out actions like we saw on the streets of Belfast last night.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that if ever there was a demonstration of the two-tier process in terms of legacy, we have it as a result of the Saville report? The same Saville report that was used to pursue Soldier F contained an assertion that Martin McGuinness probably had a submachine gun on the same day. He was never questioned, never mind pursued or taken to court—not once.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have made.

Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how

“a peacetime human rights framework”

now wields

“an effective veto over efforts to close the past.”

Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that

“those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”.

This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them.

I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow.

The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely do. I have always said that this is not a case of cutting a cheque and walking away. There is work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we continue to share best practice. In fact, just this week I wrote to the Minister responsible for early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), to explore further opportunities for collaboration.

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

At last year’s spending review, the Northern Ireland Office announced a £2 million allocation to support the integrated education sector. Given that a range of schools in Northern Ireland have been offering an integrated educational ethos for many years, will the Government review that policy to support integrated education per se across a number of schools in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.

I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.

I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.

When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.

But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a classic example of what he is saying was the Shankill bomb? The perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist. He was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered, yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim, as opposed to those who he genuinely caused to be victims.

[David Davis]

That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he

“went out to blow up, not to kill”,

despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people.

I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson]

If that is the case, the requirement for consensus rather than majority rule is even stronger, yet the proposed changes would remove those safeguards.

The difficulty of getting the three-year budget through has been mentioned. I served in the Assembly for a number of years; I was Finance Minister in the Assembly for a number of years. In the first year after I took over, we had an immediate 3% cut to our budget, and then we had a 2% cut year on year, under the coalition Government that existed at that time. We got a three-year budget through, despite the fact that the two biggest spending Ministers were outside with the unions protesting against any cuts.

How did we do that? Instead of thinking we could just drive it through, as the current Sinn Féin Minister is trying to do, we had hours and hours of negotiations, compromises and so on to get it through. That might be difficult, but that is no reason to remove the requirement for consensus and the safeguards for minorities. We now have a cabal in the Assembly of nationalists, republicans, the Alliance party and a bunch of individuals, who form a majority and would be able to drive things through if it came to a majority vote.

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

My right hon. Friend is rightly alluding to the issue of consensus. Does he agree that the one fundamental building block to making any progress is some form of consensual approach to how we make politics in the Assembly work? I am not talking about vetoes, but we cannot make progress unless there is agreement among the divided communities that make up Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, and we have seen how divisive some of the decisions made in the Assembly have been, whether on cultural issues or economic issues, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out. Alarm bells should ring if we are considering removing the fabric that is there to ensure proper discussion before final decisions are made.

I notice that there is not a great deal of interest in this debate from parties other than those from Northern Ireland—and selfish interest, as well. I do not care what has been said; this is selfish interest. In fact, we are now told that the Irish and British Governments should come together and try to force through the changes that the new majority cabal wish to impose on the Assembly. I think that is wrong, we will be opposing it, and there is certainly no logical, political or community reason why the changes that are being demanded should be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for the way she presented the case. It is important that we do that in a measured way.

I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 years before I came to this place. Each of these institutions, whether it be the one here in Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly, has its complications and should be challenged. There is no doubt that we have yet to find a perfect political institution; that is a fact of life. Do I want to see some changes at Stormont? Yes, I do. Although I am not an apologist for the Northern Ireland Assembly, I want to highlight that there has been delivery. Has there been much delivery, and has it been at the pace that I want to see? No. I would have liked to see a greater pace.

I should have welcomed the Minister to his place. I wish him well in his role, and I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement.

Nobody denies that there is much work to do to demonstrate the effectiveness of these institutions in making a positive difference to the lives of people across Northern Ireland, but to say that there has not been progress over the past 12 months is not only inaccurate but facetious. I do not want to overstate the Executive’s achievements but, just to give two examples, it is worth noting that Stormont has delivered significant investment in early years and childcare: 14,500 children now benefit from a subsidy that has slashed childcare costs for working parents. That is positive, because we can see the difference to people. My constituents have benefited from it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend is outlining some of the benefits that have flowed from devolution, flawed as it is. Without denigrating the Minister, does my hon. Friend think we would have got those things if it had been down to the Northern Ireland Office, or did devolution deliver in the absence of the NIO?

[Jim Shannon]

That is the issue; my hon. Friend puts it well. It is better to have it in the hands of local people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to one of the implications of the 2023 legacy Act in shutting down all those investigations. He is right that families are perfectly free to refer cases to the commission. I know that the commission is keen to investigate as many cases as come its way, in order to provide answers for those families, who have waited so long.

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

Engaging with and listening to stakeholders is good, but there needs to be a positive outcome to both. There also needs to be specific and clear references in the Bill to paramilitaries not being permitted to serve on the victims and survivors advisory group. Will that be the case?

[Hilary Benn]

I have already given the House that assurance from this Dispatch Box. When we consider the Bill in Committee, we will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in its current form and the many amendments that I can see have already been tabled.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I think it is very important that we take a balanced view, and that we acknowledge successes, bravery and determination—we saw that in abundance during the troubles—but where things happened that should not have happened, we need to acknowledge them, because how can we make progress now and in the future if we do not learn the lessons of the past?

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

In analysing the report and the Secretary of State’s statement, people will be looking to the future as we try to ensure that no one rewrites the past. However, in trying to do that, does he agree that the murky world people such as Scappaticci inhabited brought about the consequences of 1994, when both the IRA and loyalists declared ceasefires, and that now is the time for the leaders of the political republican movement to say that what happened in the past was wrong and should not have happened, and to issue an unequivocal apology for the actions of the Provisional IRA?

[Hilary Benn]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very important point, that we as a House are clear that there was always—always—an alternative to violence: it was not justified; it was never justified. When we look at the number of people on all sides who were killed in the troubles, we know the grief, the pain and the suffering that was caused. However, we also need to recognise that there was a process that led to the ceasefires and political power sharing, which has resulted in peace and stability in Northern Ireland ever since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. That is the most important thing we should hold on to while, as I have said, learning the lessons from the past and providing answers to the families who remain to find them.

I think this is the final question, so I will just share with the House that, about three and a half or four weeks ago, I went to Bragan bog with the two brothers and the sister of Columba McVeigh. He was 19 years of age when he was murdered by the Provisional IRA, and information suggests that his remains lie in that bog. It is a desolate place, and the search for his body has been going on for a very long time. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains has done such an important job in helping to bring back the remains of people who were murdered in such circumstances, so they could be laid to rest with their families present. I, like I am sure all Members of the House, long for the day when the bodies of Columba McVeigh, Robert Nairac, Seamus Maguire and Joe Lynskey are finally recovered, so all of the disappeared can rest where they should rest, with the knowledge of their families, so they can have some peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is right. I warmly welcome this investment and I know he is rightly proud of the defence expertise in his constituency. Backed by this Labour Government increasing defence spending to 2.5%, Harland & Wolff is building the next generation of support ships for our Royal Navy. We are safeguarding jobs, skills and our future security.

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

I welcome both the Minister to his place and the defence growth deal. Does he agree that he now needs to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the supply chain in Northern Ireland extends beyond Harland & Wolff and the greater Belfast area, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can benefit from what is potentially a life-changing development for industry there?

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. He is right that we need to work across Northern Ireland to ensure that the life-changing investment he mentions is felt throughout, and I will make sure that happens.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State indicated that the Government are introducing what he described as “strong safeguards”, and he says that the legacy commission will be

“under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential.”

What will he do when—not if, but when—the Republic of Ireland’s Government come under severe pressure from other sources to make compelling reasons to him that there has to be something investigated that the person who is the subject of that investigation believed they would be excluded from? What will he do then?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, asks what is, in fairness, a totally hypothetical question. [Interruption.] Well it is a hypothetical question. The fact is that it will be for the commission to interpret the legal obligation that will be placed upon it by the legislation, which refers to such reinvestigation being essential. Ultimately, the commission will judge, and if people do not like the way in which it has interpreted things, they have a remedy available to them in judicial review.