Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

9. What steps he has taken to engage with relevant stakeholders on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

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

I regularly meet a variety of stakeholders to talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, including veterans groups, political parties in Northern Ireland, and victims and families who are still living with the effects of those decades of terrible violence.

[Luke Akehurst]

No matter what unit they served in, veterans in North Durham are particularly concerned about the impact of the new legislation on those who served in the special forces. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he has met the Special Air Service Regimental Association and is responding to its specific concerns?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I did indeed meet the Special Air Service Regimental Association recently, as part of the discussions that I and my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are having with veterans. We are listening to the concerns being expressed and, as I have said to the House on a number of occasions, we want to ensure that the legislation responds to them.

[Mr Foster]

Under the previous Government’s unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was required to shut down more than 1,000 investigations, including 225 investigations into the deaths of soldiers and veterans. Will the Secretary of State please assure the families of murdered British armed forces personnel that, should they wish to approach the reformed commission, it will consider their case and may be able to provide them with the answers that many of them have long sought?

[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.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has stated many times that the previous Government’s legislation in this area had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland. Can he tell the House which political parties support his legislation?

[Hilary Benn]

All the political parties in Northern Ireland that expressed their profound opposition to immunity have welcomed the fact that immunity will go under the legislation that we have brought before the House—that includes the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who supports its removal. That is a sign that the Government have been listening to views in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Legacy Act failed to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Over Christmas, seven former senior SAS officers wrote in The Telegraph:

“In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

A few days later, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, appointed by this Government, said that the Bill treats veterans “worse than terrorists” and is

“eating at the very fabric of the Armed Forces”.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House which former senior officers support the Bill?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with either of the characterisations that the hon. Gentleman just referred to. I am confident that the protections, which we have designed specifically for veterans, will change their experience in relation to the legacy process. However, as I have said to the House, we continue to talk to veterans and veterans organisations. I want to produce a Bill that can offer the reassurance they are looking for: that we have a fair and proportionate system that recognises their service to the country.

[Alex Burghart]

I note that the Secretary of State was unable to give a single example. There is, I am afraid, an ostrich-like complacency in the Government’s approach to this legislation. Senior representatives of our armed forces are telling this House that the legislation is impacting on morale and effectiveness. In November, nine former four-star generals argued that this “morally incoherent” Bill poses a

“direct threat to national security”.

Those generals tell us that highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service, and by definition these men are very, very difficult to replace. No wonder The Times has said that

“a fundamental lack of political and military understanding lies at the heart of this Bill.”

Why do the Government think that they know better than our armed forces?

[Hilary Benn]

The Government had to do something about the previous Government’s failed legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland. If one is seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to deal with the continuing consequences of the troubles, the legislation has to have that support, and the previous Government failed to do that. On the impact on recruitment, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard when the Minister for the Armed Forces answered the urgent question on Monday, inflows continue to improve. Indeed, inflow is up by 13% this year compared with September 2024.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State was sitting alongside the Minister for the Armed Forces on Monday, when I asked him whether he was listening to the concerns of veterans regarding the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Minister convinced me that he is listening, and we just heard the Secretary of State do likewise, but is anyone acting on those concerns? Before Christmas, at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to write to me detailing which veterans groups he had met, but I have heard nothing since. I also wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to request a meeting to discuss veterans’ ongoing concerns, but I have heard nothing since. Will the Secretary of State please detail all the veterans groups he has met, and meet me to discuss their continuing concerns?

[Hilary Benn]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that he has not received the letter to which he referred, and I assure him that I will remedy that very promptly. Defence Ministers and I have met a large number of organisations, and I would just point out that none of the six protections that the Government have put forward were contained in the previous Government’s legacy Act—not a single one. We intend to continue to listen, and to respond to the concerns that have been raised.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights on the Belfast agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

11. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights on the Belfast agreement.

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

The European convention on human rights underpins not only the Good Friday agreement, but key international agreements on trade, security and migration. The Government are committed to the ECHR. We also remain determined to uphold the Good Friday agreement and human rights in Northern Ireland.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. The Good Friday agreement was indeed a proud legacy of the last Labour Government, so does he agree that the reckless approach adopted by Opposition parties towards the ECHR risks undermining the huge progress made since 1998?

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and it is clear that those advocating leaving the ECHR have not given any serious consideration to the implications for the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, when pressed on that in the summer, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) noted that it could take

“years and years to solve, so that will not be at the forefront of what we do.”

I would simply say that that is not good enough, and that those who advocate leaving the ECHR need to reflect on what they are arguing for.

[Peter Lamb]

Given the chaos around the world that is being experienced by politicians playing fast and loose with international law, it is deeply concerning that Conservative and Reform MPs are speaking so flippantly of the risks of violating the Good Friday agreement by leaving the European convention on human rights. Will the Secretary of State give his assessment of the risk of that?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have told the House before, I think it would be extremely irresponsible. As the House needs no reminding, the Good Friday agreement was very carefully negotiated between several parties, and it would be reckless for one party to march in and seek to remove one of its founding pillars.

[Jacob Collier]

The European convention on human rights is foundational to the Good Friday agreement. Given that Reform and the Conservatives want to crash us out of the convention, does the Secretary of State agree that that would put at risk the Good Friday agreement and that they really ought to think again?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to remember that it is the Human Rights Act that gives all of us access to the rights and protections contained in the European convention on human rights. To leave it would put us alone in Europe, in the company of Russia and Belarus. Is that really where the Opposition want to be—welcomed with a pat on the back by President Putin?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Our predecessor Committee took evidence that said that leaving the ECHR would have implications for policing in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that calls to leave the ECHR would add to the challenges faced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland? What assessment has he made of the potential impact?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree that it could have very wide-ranging implications for Northern Ireland in particular, as well as for the rest of the country. I have not made such an assessment, because that is not a policy that the Government advocate. It is for those proposing to leave the ECHR to answer the very fair question that my hon. Friend has just raised.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is plain wrong to say that the survival of the Belfast agreement is dependent on the ECHR. Why is the Secretary of State so selective in his Belfast agreement allegiance? It was he who implemented the jettisoning of the agreement’s cornerstone of cross-community consent when he invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue the imposition of the Windsor framework without cross-community consent. Is it only nationalist consent that matters to him under the Belfast agreement?

[Hilary Benn]

The steps that I took in relation to the vote on the renewal of the Windsor framework arrangements were absolutely in line with the provisions that were put in place by this House, and Lord Murphy produced his report as a result. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the practical steps that the Government are taking in response to Lord Murphy’s very sensible recommendations.

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

How will the Secretary of State respond to troubles stakeholder groups that say that the rights of their members under articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR are being impugned by his maladroit Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?

[Hilary Benn]

It is for all those who wish to argue about the rights that they feel the ECHR and the Human Rights Act give them to do so. I simply say that, in bringing the Bill forward, I as the Minister responsible have certified that the Bill complies with the European convention.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Is it not the case, as a matter of international law, that the United Kingdom could withdraw from the ECHR while at the same time ensuring that equivalent rights and protections are preserved in our domestic law?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is possible for signatories to the convention to withdraw, but it is a very bad idea and the Government do not support it.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State not agree with expert opinion that says that while we remain signatories to the ECHR, we will not be able to protect our veterans from vexatious litigation?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have said many times in the past, there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. The ECHR protects the rights of all our all citizens, including the veterans who served with such distinction in Operation Banner.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

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

Northern Ireland’s economy is one of the strongest of any part of the United Kingdom: it has the lowest unemployment and its economic growth outpaced the rest of the UK in the year ending the second quarter of 2025. That performance is being supported by this Government’s policies, including significant investment in economic development and a record settlement for the Executive.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Mr Speaker,

“a continuing cost-of-living crisis and a recent budget that failed to support workers, families and businesses in a meaningful way”.

It is not often that I agree with the First Minister but, with absolutely no action to address lagging productivity, she is right, isn’t she?

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2025 on Northern Ireland.

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

This Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record settlement of £19.3 billion each year on average over the spending review period. The decisions we have taken will ease trade within the UK, and will ensure that families across Northern Ireland benefit from help with the cost of living, through policies such as cutting energy bills and lifting the two-child benefit cap.

[Catherine Fookes]

The £370 million for the Northern Ireland Executive in this year’s Budget, which the Secretary of State mentioned, and the £505 million for Wales, on top of the settlements announced at the spending review, show that this Government take supporting the devolved nations seriously. Does the Secretary of State agree that co-operation between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and other devolved nations, is crucial to pulling children out of poverty, improving public services and kick-starting growth across the UK?

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I would also point out that Northern Ireland is being funded slightly above its level of need; it gets 24% more than equivalent spending in England, meaning that the Executive have more money to make their decisions with.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

When the Executive were restored two years ago, a fund was set up for the transformation of public services. As of yet, that money has not been fully allocated. Will the Secretary of State use his offices to encourage the Executive to deploy that transformation fund to transform Northern Ireland’s public services?

[Hilary Benn]

The public services transformation fund is a very important demonstration of the partnership between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Member will be well aware, the first six projects have been funded, and good progress is being made on them. The transformation board is currently considering bids that are coming in for the next phase of funding. Of course, we are keen—as are the Executive—to see that money spent on transformation of how public services are delivered in Northern Ireland, which is hugely needed.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

12. What steps he is taking to support Northern Ireland veterans.

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

The whole House will agree that we owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are introducing six protections for veterans involved in legal processes relating to their service. We are confident that this will change their experience and ensure that the process is fair and balanced.

[Sarah Pochin]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner that the troubles Bill treats our brave veterans more harshly than terrorists?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that assessment. I have had many discussions with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, and if one looks at the facts, including at the prosecutions that have taken place, there have been more prosecutions of paramilitary terrorists than of soldiers. Indeed, there has been one conviction of a soldier for a troubles-related offence in the past 27 and a half years.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.